19950469 Ver 1_Complete File_19950504

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental
NC DOT
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
FILE cop
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.52 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose
of widening Interstate 85 from North of SR 1500 to north of SR 2528, as you described in your
application dated 1 May 1995. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 2671. This certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Number 26 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose end design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
ston oward, Jr E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
95469.1tr
1? EHNR
June 22, 1995
Rowan County
DEM Project # 95469
TIP No. I-2511BB
State Project # 8.1631502
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

.yyyyd,w SWC u?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF Tk NSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JP- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
May 1, 1995
District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch

R. SAMUEL HUNT II l
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Rowan County, Widening of I-85, from north of SR 1500 to north of
SR 2528, TIP No. I-2511 BB, State Project No. 8.1631502.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
Interstate 85 from north of SR 1500 to north of SR 2528 in Rowan County. This
improvement consists of widening the existing roadway from four lanes to eight lanes over
the course of 5.2 kilometers (3.2 miles). The Construction limits will extend
approximately 15 meters (50 feet) from the current roadway toe-of-slope. There will also
be improvements to interchanges along this project.
This project is adjacent to another section of the overall I-2511 project which has
already been permitted. Project I-2511 BA is located just south of the project currently
proposed (I-2511BB). The 1-251 IBA project was authorized by your agency on
September 30, 1994 (Action ID. No. 199404006) and by the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) on June 15, 1994 (DEM ID. No. 94540). The
environmental impacts for the entire 1-2511 project were discussed in a State
Environmental Assessment which was approved by the Federal Highway Administration
on December 12, 1994. The 1-2511 BB project currently proposed is being handled as a
separate project for construction purposes.
The currently proposed project, 1-2511 BB, was examined for wetland impacts on
November 15, 1994. One wetland site was identified and delineated according to the
1987 Delineation Manual. This site is located on the west side of I-85 and is bordered by
a rescue squad building to the north and a powerline to the west. The area is described as
a wet depression which originates at a culvert passing under I-85 which drains away from
the roadway. The canopy species found in this wetland are water oak ( uercus Rim),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer
9
rubrum), and willow oak ( uercus Phellos). A sapling/shrub layer is also present in this
area, consisting of young representatives of the canopy species as well as ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), American elm (Ulmus americana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
ins erase) and blackberry (Rubus sp.). Herbaceous species observed during the site visit
included elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and microstegium (Microste ium vimineum).
The woody vine component included Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera ja nonica) poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans) and wild grape (Vitis sp.). The site was assigned an NWI
classification of PFOIC, and a DEM rating of 35 under the third version of the N. C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Rating System.
The proposed project will require fill in 0.52 acres of wetlands at this site. Since
the site is located above headwaters, it is anticipated that this project can be authorized
under Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26) and DEM 401 General Water Quality
Certification Number 2671. A completed pre-discharge notification form and plan
drawings are enclosed. Please review this project for permit authorization. If you have
any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon Cashin at
[phone] extension 315.
Sincerely
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/gec
Attachments
cc: Mr. Steve Chapin, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. B. Waters, Division 9 Engineer
NOTIFICATION FORM
INFORMATION SHEET
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
A. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT ENGINEER. (REFER TO
ITEM B. BELOW FOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICATION RE-
QUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICALLY NOTE NWP 26 DIFFERENCE.)
Certain nationwide permits require notification to the Corps of Engineers before work can proceed. They are as follows:
NWP 5 (only for discharges of 10 to 25 cubic yards)
NWP 7
NWP 13 (only for stabilization activities in excess of 500 feet in length or greater than an average of one cubic yard
per running foot)
NWP 14 (only for fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, and must include a delineation of affected special
aquatic sites)
r
NWP 17
NWP 18 (required when discharge exceeds 10 cubic yards or the discharge is in a special aquatic site and must include
a delineation of the affected special aquatic site, including wetlands)
NWP 21 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
NWP 26 (only for greater than 1 acre total impacts and must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites,
including wetlands)
NWP 33 (must include a restoration plan of reasonable measures to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources)
NWP 37
NWP 38 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
For activities that may be authorized by the above listed nationwide permits that require notification, the
applicant shall not begin work
a. Until notified that the work may proceed under the nationwide permit with any special conditions imposed by
the District Engineer, or
b. If notified that an individual permit may be required, or
c. Unless 30 days (calendar) have passed from the time a complete notification is received by the District Engineer
and no notice has been received from the District Engineer, and required state approvals have been obtained.
Required state approvals include: 1) a Section 401 water quality certification if authorization is requested for a
discharge of dredged or fill material, and 2) an approved coastal zone management consistency determination if
the activity will affect the coastal area. '
Use of NWP 12 also requires notification to the District Engineer, but work may not begin until written
concurrence is received from the District Engineer. The time periods described above do not apply.
Furthermore, requirements to notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as indicated below and on the
notification form, do not apply.
APPLICATION TO DEM FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION.
.ertain nationwide permits require an application to DEM in order to obtain Section 401 water quality certification.
[hey are NWP 6, NWP 12, NWP 15, NWP 16, NWP 17, NWP 21, NWP 33, NWP 34, NWP 38, and NWP 40.
.1ertain nationwide permits were issued general certifications and require no application. They are NWP 3, NWP 4,
4WP 5, NWP 7, NWP 20, NWP 22, NWP 23 (requires notification to DEM), NWP 25, NWP 27, NWP 32, NWP 36,
nd NWP 37.
.'he following nationwide permits were issued general certifications for only limited activities: NWP 13 (for projects
pWss than 500 feet in length), NWP 14 (for projects that impact waters only), NWP 18 (for projects with less than 10
:ibic yards of fill in waters only), and NWP 26 (for projects with less than or equal to one-third acre fill of waters or
vetlands). Projects that do not meet these criteria require application for Section 401 water quality certifications.
C. NOTIFICATION/APPLICATION PROCEDURES.
The attached form should be used to obtain approval from the Corps of Engineers and/or the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management as specified above. The permittee should make sure that all necessary information is
provided in order to avoid delays. One copy of the completed form is required by the Corps of Engineers and seven
copies are required by DEM. Plans and maps must be on 8 1/2 x 1 l inch paper.
Endangered species requirement: For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the presence of endangered species that may
be affected by the proposed project.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
RALEIGH FIELD OFFICE
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Telephone [phone]
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
HABITAT CONSERVATION DIVISION
Pivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephote [phone]
Historic resources requirement: For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the State Historic
Preservation Office regarding the presence of historic properties that may be affected by the proposed project.
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
N.C. DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone [phone]
Information obtained from these agencies should be forwarded to the Corps.
DENT ID: ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #):
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Box 29535
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR. jORN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. Owners Address: P. 0. Box 25201: Raleigh, NC 27611
3. Owners Phone Number (Home):
(Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
H. Franklin Vick. P.E.
Manaqer
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Rowan
Nearest Town or City: Salisbury
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From north of SR 1500 to north of SR 2528
6. Name of Closest StreanvRiver:
Yadkin River
7. River Basin: Yadkin
s
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS H? YES [ J NO [x]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO (x ]
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site: 0.52 acre
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: 0.52 acre
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
Total Impacted: 0.52 acre
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only): _ See attached plans
13. Purpose of proposed work: Public roadway
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts.
No feasible alternative
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES [X ] NO[ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which maybe affected by the proposed project? Have you done, so? YES [X ] NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrounding property?
Urban
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? N/A
er's Signature Date

;'? ;Ic? r ?? _,; Igo' ?• ? ? °L : ?? ,? ._ ?, is _? ?
'Ch
i ?? ? ?'? ,?' ? ?;' ' ?,??_? ?? ,!'?? ? ?t? • ? ? ? is --?
loDG
rav*? •? q •? ^,.11 _ I? i?•. .1 Ste'\.;?. .?
f °'( r' ;• ? : P?,? .' ,.5??r?:' - ? '? g'? - l • it ? ; ? o
75 0
.? ?, ° a 1-:1• .,? .? ;.?, ,
is 54`f'21
f L1. AO< ,;I rakes
' ' '^: ?' J?7.? ? .•/.', till ? _ ??_ .--/.? .) ? •.r .?
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROWAN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1631502 I-2511BB
WIDENING OF I-85
SHEET 2 OF 3._
O

n

CIO
W

C.IJ Q ??? F cn
M
-
C
I

f
s
r -\
z O
uz
?oo °\
ou
! V91c,
V1 O
W iy
? a
/ N
J
/ V LU
u N
z
-? c
;o Sd,
m o?5
w 02?? J
cr 4Z , r
u
O
w a
u

r?v
r \
V
y1. \
I
x
U? .I
W
Ct
L)
Q
LC)
d
G ? r
ea T
h• C:.
F F ?'
O O 7.
'7.. z c
0 o p
State of North Carolina IT I
Department of Environment, ILF.8MA
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management A&4
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N F?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A, Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
November 15, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Eric Galambf4"
Subject: FONSI for 1 ``8''5``??from US 29-601 to SR 2120
Rowan County
TIP # 1-2511
DEHNR # 96-0280, DEM # 11086
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The document states that 0.03 acres of waters including wetlands will be impacted.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of a FONSI by DEM would not preclude the denial
of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
i85rowan.fon
cc: Eric Midkiff, DOT
Monica Swihart
FAXED
NOV 151""
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

I-85
From US 29-601
To North of SR 2120
Rowan County
F. A. Project No.'s IR-85-3(131)69 and IR-85-3(132)74
State Project No.'s 8.1631502 and 8.1631503
TIP No. I-2511
4
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)

Date ?r- H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
7?r Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
895 ?• uN??
Date 4? Nic o a L. Gra , P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
I-85
From US 29-601
To North of SR 2120
Rowan County
F. A. Project No.'s IR-85-3(131)69 and IR-85-3(132)74
State Project No.'s 8.1631502 and 8.1631503
TIP No. I-2511
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
August, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch by:
S. Eric Midkiff, P. E.?
Project Planning Engineer . Wilson Stroud
P ct Planning Unit Head
`v
?Z?
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
N CARD
,•• ?,.• ?ESSrpN•. 9 .
O
SE AL
19791
I,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. Type of Action ............................................. 1
Il. Description of Proposed Action ................................. I
III. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts .............. 2
IV. Summary of Special Project Commitments .......................... 2
A. Permits ......................................... ........ 2
B. Geodetic Survey Markers .......................... ......... 2
C. Railroad Coordination .............................. ........ 2
D. Underground Storage Tanks and Hazardous Materials ..... ......... 3
E. Utilities ......................................... ........ 3
F. Noise Abatement Measures ......................... ......... 3
G. Floodway Modification ............................. ........ 3
H. Stream Modification ............................... ........ 3
V. Coordination and Comments .................................... 4
A. Circulation of Environmental Assessment ....................... 4
B. Comments Received on Environmental Assessment ................ 4
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing ....... 7
VI. Revisions To The Environmental Assessment ....................... 12
VII. Only Practicable Alternative Wetland Finding ........................ 13
VIII. Basis For Finding of No Significant Impact .......................... 14
Figures
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Improvements
Figure 2A- Proposed Improvements in the Vicinity of U. S. 52
Appendix
Written Comments Received on Environmental Assessment ............. A-1
SHPO Concurrence Form (Architectural/Historic Resources) ........... A-10
Public Hearing News Release .................................. A- I 1
Public Hearing Handout ...................................... A-12
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with
the Federal Highway Administration
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on the
human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment, which has
been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately
discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental
Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for
the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to improve Interstate 85 from US 29-601 to north of SR 2120 (Long Ferry
Road) in Rowan County. The project length is 13.2 miles. The existing four-lane, divided
facility is to be widened to an eight-lane, divided facility with a 22- to 46-foot median.
Auxiliary lanes are proposed at various locations. Interchanges and service roads along
the project will be designed and revised as needed to accommodate the proposed mainline
widening, and inadequate structures will be replaced. The location of the proposed
project is shown in Figure 1. The recommended improvements were discussed in detail in
Section II of the Environmental Assessment and are also shown in Figures 2 and 2A of
this document.
The project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled to begin in fiscal years
1996 and 1997, respectively. The TIP estimates a total funding of $ 135,451,000 for the
project, including $ 5,900,000 for right of way acquisition, $ 116,900,000 for
construction, and $ 12,651,000 spent in prior years. The total cost of improvements
recommended in this report is $ 127,175,000, including $116,900,000 for construction
and $ 10,275,000 for right of way acquisition . The proposed right of way cost exceeds
the TIP right of way cost by $ 4,375,000.
III. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed improvements will provide needed pavement rehabilitation as well as
subgrade improvements which will increase the life of the surface pavement. Also, the
proposed improvements will provide additional travel lanes which will alleviate current
and future capacity deficiencies along the studied portion of Interstate 85. In addition,
interchange and service road revisions will provide safer access to businesses and
neighborhoods in the project area. More efficient travel and improved access will result in
increased economic benefits to users of the facility and surrounding businesses.
It is anticipated that 15 residences, I 1 businesses, and 1 non-profit organization
will be relocated as a result of the project. It is predicted 108 residences, 27 businesses,
and a church will approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria in the design
year (2017); however, no receptors were found to be impacted by a substantial increase in
future exterior noise levels. No significant impacts to plant and animal life are expected.
Impacts to wetlands will be minimal. No federally-protected threatened or endangered
species will be impacted. No recreational facilities or sites eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places will be involved. No prime farmland impacts are expected.
The proposed improvements will not cause significant negative impacts to air quality.
IV. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
A. Permits
The majority of impacts to "Waters of the United States" will be in the form of
surface water impacts at stream crossings. In addition, one small wetland area, measuring
1500 square feet (0.03 acre), will be impacted. It is anticipated surface water and wetland
impacts will meet the criteria for a Department of Army Nationwide Permit in accordance
with 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14. Also, a Section 401 water quality certification will be required
from the N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
B. Geodetic Survey Markers
Twenty-two geodetic survey markers will be impacted. The N. C. Geodetic
Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
C. Railroad Coordination
Any improvements to I-85 which may impact the railroad where it is crossed by
I-85 approximately 1250 feet north of Jake Alexander Boulevard (US 601) will be
coordinated with the Carolina-Northwestern Railway.
D. Underground Storage Tanks and Hazardous Materials
Fourteen operational and four non-operational facilities with the potential for
underground storage tank (UST) involvement were identified. If any of the UST facilities
are to be impacted, those sites will be further investigated for possible fuel leakage during
the right of way acquisition phase of the project.
I-85 currently crosses the site of an abandoned city landfill located just north of
Old Concord Road (SR 1002). Any construction in this area will receive special
consideration and subsurface investigations.
E. Utilities
Any relocation of public utilities along the project will be coordinated with the
appropriate utility or local government agency.
F. Noise Abatement Measures
The installation of noise abatement measures will be further considered during final
design of the project. All impacted receptors were considered for noise abatement based
on preliminary design. However, only I potential area, a 900-foot section approximately
l 100 feet north of Old Concorde Road, could be recommended for likely noise
abatement. Based on preliminary engineering, a vertical concrete noise wall could provide
necessary attenuation at a reasonable cost for 12 receptors at an approximate cost of
$220,000 or $ 18, 333 per benefitted receptor. A description of noise impacts anticipated
due to the proposed project and an analysis of the need for noise barriers is found starting
on page 32 of the Environmental Assessment.
G. Floodway Modification
The proposed improvements can be implemented without any significant adverse
impact on the existing floodplains and floodways. Floodplain impacts will be assessed in
detail during final hydraulic design. If floodway revisions are required, NCDOT will
coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local authorities.
H. Stream Modification
Approximately 200' of channel realignment will be required just south of Julian
Road (SR 2528) on the east side of Interstate 85. The existing single barrel reinforced
concrete box culvert at this location is above headwaters and will be retained and
extended. Any stream modification will be designed according to NCDOT's stream
relocation/channelization guidelines.
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the Division of Highways on
December 7, 1994, and by the FHWA on December 12, 1994. 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 of this
document (see pages A-l through A-9).
U. S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
*Federal Emergency Management Agency
U. S. Geological Survey
*N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources -
*Division of Environmental Management
*Division of Forest Resources
*Division of Environmental Health
*Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Centralina Council of Governments
Rowan County Commissioners
City of Salisbury
City of Spencer
B. Comments Received on Environmental Assessment
Federal Emergency Management Agency (see page A-1)
Comment: "The County and City (Salisbury and Rowan) have regulatory
floodways and floodlplains delineated and therefore, any encroachment into the
floodplains and floodways must be in compliance with the NFIP regulations. The
agency in charge must ensure compliance with the following floodplain
management measures as enacted by the State of North Carolina. In this regard, it
is imperative the agency coordinate closely with the appropriate staff in the
Floodplain Management Section of the Division of Emergency Management."
Response: Floodway impacts will be assessed in detail during final hydraulic
design. It is anticipated the proposed project can be constructed so as not to
significantly impact the existing floodplain. If floodway revisions are required,
NCDOT will coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and
local authorities.
4
2. NCDEHNR - Division of Environmental Management (see page A-3
Comment: "Approximately 200 feet of stream will be relocated. DOT should
adhere to DOT's Stream relocations / channelization guidelines."
Response: The 200' of stream relocation will be designed using NCDOT's
stream relocations / channelization guidelines.
NCDEHNR - Division of Environmental Health (see pages A-5
and A-6
Comment: "This section (Alternative Modes of Transportation) is not adequate
and should be expanded. A clear and detailed costs and benefits analysis
comparing highway widening and alternative modes of transportation should be
provided. Other alternatives in addition to public bus transportation must be
addressed to maximize the useful life of the upgraded facility."
Response: The purpose of the proposed project is to provide needed pavement
and subgrade rehabilitation, increase capacity, and provide safer access to
businesses and neighborhoods in the project area. Although alternate modes of
transportation could help in alleviating congestion along the I-85 corridor, they do
not address immediate pavement and safety concerns in the project area. Alternate
modes of transportation would serve as a supplement to the proposed
improvements, but would not satisfy the entire purpose and need of the project. In
addition to public bus transportation, the North Carolina High-Speed Rail Corridor
between Raleigh and Charlotte could supplement the proposed improvements and
help in alleviating traffic congestion along 1-85.
Comment: " `Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to
decrease in the future due to the continued installation and maintenance of
pollution control devices on new cars.' This section does not mention that these
technological improvements are being offset by the increase in numbers of cars on
the roads and highways. This trend should be included and evaluated in the
assessment."
Response: The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide.
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 highway traffic.
Comparison of the predicted concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for I-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9
ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Further evaluation of Table 12 on
page 45 of the EA shows that the one hour CO concentrations will increase
between the years 1997 to 2017 (although these concentrations are well within
acceptable levels) for both the build and no build alternatives, which supports the
above comment that automotive emissions increase as the numbers of cars on the
roads increase. However, a more detailed air quality evaluation is not necessary
since the project is located in Rowan County which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is
not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this
attainment area.
Comment: "There should be an explanation as to why the one hour CO
concentrations increase more with the no-build than build alternative. Is
anticipated congestion on the road responsible for this increase? Please explain."
Response: Projected increases in traffic during the twenty-year design period will
result in more traffic congestion, which will increase CO concentrations in the
project area. The proposed improvements will increase the capacity of I-85, thus
relieving congestion and lessening the increase in CO concentrations. Since the
No-Build alternative does not improve the capacity of I-85, the lower level of
traffic service that facility would provide will cause greater increases in CO
concentrations.
Comment: "If existing water lines will be relocated as a result of this project.
Plans for water line relocation should be submitted to the Division of
Environmental Health, Public Water Supply Section, Plan Review Branch."
Response: It is anticipated water lines will be relocated as a result of this project.
Plans for water line relocation will be submitted to the Division of Environmental
Health.
4. N.C.D.E.H.N.R. - North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
)
(see pages A-7 and-A-8
Comment: "We request that NCDOT continue to implement Best Management
Practices to minimize wetland impacts and to avoid impacts to off-site natural
resources.
Response: NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices and establish an
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to minimize wetland impacts and avoid
impacts to off-site natural resources.
Comment: "If stream crossings require channel relocation, we request that
NCDOT follow the voluntary stream relocation guidelines."
6
Response: Stream relocations will be designed using NCDOT's stream
relocations/channelization guidelines.
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources (see page A-9)
Comment: "We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no
structures of historical or architectural importance located within the planning
area. .... We have not yet received a response to our request or additional
information about the presence or absence of structures over fifty years old which
might cause us to revise our survey recommendation."
Response: The project area was surveyed on July 2, 1992 by an NCDOT staff
architectural historian, and no structures were found to be over fifty years old.
These findings were presented in the Environmental Assessment and were
reviewed with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on June 8, 1995.
SHPO has concurred with these findings (see concurrence form on page A-10 of
the Appendix).
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing
Following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment, an open forum
public hearing was held at the Seth Murdock Auditorium of the Rowan County
Agricultural Center in Salisbury on March 28, 1995 (see pages A-11 to A-16 in the
Appendix for a copy of the public hearing notice and a copy of the handout
presented at the public hearing). Interested citizens were given the opportunity to
review preliminary designs of the project, talk to NCDOT and FHWA engineers
and right of way agents, and make comments concerning the proposed
improvements. Approximately 150 people attended the public hearing. NCDOT
addressed the concerns of all those who commented on the proposed
improvements, either in person at the public hearing or by written letter following
the public hearing. The following is a list of comments received during and
following the public hearing, along with NCDOT's responses.
Comment 1: Can the proposed service road in the northwest quadrant of the
Webb Road (SR 1500)/I-85 interchange (Figure 2, Sheet 2) south of Salisbury be
extended?
Response: The proposed service road to be located in the northwest quadrant of
the Webb Road/I-85 interchange presented in the Environmental Assessment and
at the public hearing did not extend as far north as the existing service road in that
area (SR 2585). NCDOT will study the possibility of extending the proposed
service road further to the north in order to provide access to properties in that
area.
Comment 2: Representatives from the Corner Stone United Pentecostal Church
( property located in the southwest quadrant of the Webb Road (SR 1500)/I-85
interchange) south of Salisbury (Figure 2, Sheet 2) are concerned about access to
the church property being cut off by the proposed control of access along Webb
Road.
Response: In the Environmental Assessment and during the public hearing it was
proposed that access to the Corner Stone United Pentecostal Church property
would be eliminated due to the proposed control of access along Webb Road.
NCDOT will study the possibility of providing a driveway which will intersect
Webb Road west of the proposed control of access limits to provide access to the
Corner Stone United Pentecostal Church property.
Comment 3: The Belle Realty Development Company is concerned that the
parking and loading area of this business will be severely impacted due to the
proposed widening and service road construction in the southeast quadrant of the
Peeler Road/I-85 interchange (Figure 2, Sheet 3) south of Salisbury.
Response: In the Environmental Assessment and at the public hearing it was
proposed that SR 2643, the service road located in the southeast quadrant of the
Peeler Road/1-85 interchange, be realigned to the west to intersect Peeler Road
approximately 1000' east of the Peeler Road bridge over 1-85 in order to minimize
impacts to existing development. NCDOT will investigate the possibility of further
reducing impacts to businesses in the southeast quadrant of the Peeler Road/1-85
interchange by reducing the proposed cross section of the service road (SR 2643)
in that area by narrowing the width of the shoulder and ditch.
Comment 4: Can the proposed service road in the northwest quadrant of the
Peeler Road (SR 2538)/I-85 interchange (Figure 2, Sheet 3) south of Salisbury be
realigned for better property use?
Response: The service road proposed in the Environmental Assessment and at the
public hearing to be located in the northwest quadrant of the Peeler Road/1-85
interchange will provide access to one property in that area. That service road can
be realigned in order to better serve the property. The service road alignment will
be coordinated with the property owner during the right of way acquisition phase
of the project.
Comment 5: The existing interchange at Peach Orchard Road (SR 2539) (Figure
2, Sheet 4) south of Salisbury should be eliminated. Two hundred and twenty-two
people have sent letters or signed a petition in support of NCDOT removing the
existing interchange at Peach Orchard Road.
Response: NCDOT plans to retain the interchange at Peach Orchard Road.
Currently, nearly 3000 vehicles per day (vpd) use the Peach Orchard Road
interchange, and 6900 vpd are expected during the design year 2017. The closing
of the interchange would effect far more people than those living near the
interchange. Also, closing the interchange could result in adverse economic effects
for surrounding businesses and property owners due to the loss of access. Rowan
County and City of Salisbury government officials have been contacted concerning
this matter, and there is no support from those governments for closing the Peach
Orchard Road interchange. For these reasons, closing the Peach Orchard Road/
I-85 interchange is not proposed.
Comment 6: A property owner has requested that East Ritchie Road (SR 2574)
be relocated further east to lessen impacts on the property located in the southeast
quadrant of the Julian Road/1-85 interchange (Figure 2, Sheets 4 and 5) south of
Salisbury.
Response: The alignment for East Ritchie Road proposed in the Environmental
Assessment and at the public hearing is located just east of its present location. It
would curve east and tie back into Julian Road (SR 2528) approximately 800 feet
east of the Julian Road Bridge over I-85. This alignment would require one
residential relocatee.
NCDOT is investigating a possible revision to the East Ritchie Road
alignment which would realign that facility approximately 500 feet east of its
existing location, intersecting Julian Road approximately 800 feet from the existing
Julian Road bridge over I-85. East Ritchie Road would then be carried south,
more or less parallel to I-85, before connecting back into existing East Ritchie
Road. This possible new alignment would be located closer to existing property
lines, cause less property damage, and would not cause any relocations. The
possible realignment described above would be located outside the original study
corridor for project 1-2511. Therefore, additional environmental studies would
have to be accomplished to assess the realignment's impact on the environment.
Further environmental studies concerning the possible relocation of East Ritchie
Road will be documented in the consultation phase of the project.
Comment 7: The service roads (SR 2579 and SR 2580) along the east side of I-
85 between Julian Road (SR 2528) and Jake Alexander Boulevard (SR 1007)
(Figure 2, Sheet 5) in Salisbury should be connected.
Response: NCDOT will investigate the possibility of connecting the service
roads (SR 2579 and SR 2580) during the final design of the project. Adequate
access will be provided to businesses and residences located along SR 2580, which
serves the northeast quadrant of the Julian Road/I-85 interchange, and SR 2579,
which serves the southeast quadrant of the Jake Alexander Boulevard\I-85
interchange. Those service roads will be realigned and upgraded as needed in
order to accommodate the proposed widening of 1-85 and provide adequate
access to nearby properties.
Comment 8: The service roads (SR 2635 and SR 2578 - Klumac Road) located
along the west side of I-85 between Julian Road (SR 2528) and Jake Alexander
Boulevard (US 601) in Salisbury (Figure 2, Sheet 5) should be connected.
Response: NCDOT will investigate the possibility of connecting the service
roads (SR 2635 and SR 2578) during the final design of the project. Adequate
access will be provided to properties located along those service roads, and the
roads will be realigned and upgraded as needed in order to accommodate the
proposed widening of I-85.
Comment 9: The Salisbury Boulevard Group is concerned about the proposed
acquisition of a portion of their property located along the west side of 1-85
between Julian Road and Jake Alexander Boulevard (Figure 2, Sheet 5) in
Salisbury.
Response: The acquisition of a portion of the property owned by the Salisbury
Boulevard Group is necessary in order to allow for adequate drainage design in
this area.
Comment 10: The owner of the Days Inn property located in the northwest
quadrant of the Jake Alexander Boulevard (US 601)/I-85 interchange (Figure 2,
Sheet 5) in Salisbury expressed concern about the impact of the proposed project
on the parking area for that property.
Response: Due to the proposed widening of I-85, Lutheran Synod Drive
(SR 2577) will be relocated further east, requiring the acquisition of additional
right of way from the Days Inn property. NCDOT will investigate the possibility
of narrowing the cross section of the proposed alignment of Lutheran Synod Drive
by narrowing the width of the proposed shoulder and ditch in order to minimize
impacts on the Days Inn property. Also, NCDOT will investigate the possibility of
providing curb and gutter instead of a shoulder and ditch along Lutheran Synod
Drive to further reduce the cross section of that facility.
Comment 11: Access to the Econo Lodge located in the southwest quadrant of
the US 52/I-85 interchange in Salisbury (Figure 2A) will be diminished due to the
proposed removal of the traffic signal servicing that business and the construction
of a median barrier along US 52, thus reducing the amount of motel business.
Response: The proposed elimination of the traffic signal currently located just
east of Arlington Street on US 52 and the proposed construction of a median
barrier in this area, which will allow only right in and right out traffic movements
to the Econo Lodge, are improvements designed to relieve traffic congestion and
improve safety in the US 52/I-85 interchange area. Inadequate signal spacing and
the convergence of several highly utilized roads have combined to deteriorate the
traffic carrying capacity of US 52 and the US 52/1-85 interchange. Also, existing
access points along the interchange ramps, as well as a large number of
uncontrolled conflict points due to strip development along US 52, have created
safety hazards throughout the interchange area while adversely affecting the
interchange capacity. Adequate vehicle access will be provided for the Econo
Lodge via Arlington Street. The removal of the traffic signal located east of
Arlington Street and the installation of a new traffic signal at Arlington Street will
provide adequate signal spacing from the proposed signal on US 52 at 1-85, thus
improving traffic flow along US 52 and providing adequate access to businesses
located in the southwest quadrant of the US 52/1-85 interchange. The proposed
median barrier along US 52 will reduce the number of hazardous conflict points,
which will improve safety and traffic flow along US 52.
Comment 12: Representatives of Rowan Mall, located in the southeast quadrant
of the US52\I-85 interchange in Salisbury, would like for NCDOT to explore a
less disruptive method of relocating Bendix Drive (SR 2576) (Figure 2A).
Response: The proposed Bendix Drive relocation in the southeast quadrant of
the US 52/1-85 interchange is designed to improve traffic flow along US 52
through adequate signal spacing, while providing access to businesses located
along Bendix Drive. Also, existing Bendix Drive needs to be relocated because it
currently intersects the existing US 52/I-85 northbound exit ramp. If Rowan Mall
representatives present NCDOT with an alternate alignment of Bendix Drive which
would satisfy those objectives, it will be considered during final design.
Comment 13: A new road should be proposed in connection with project 1-2511
connecting US 52 to Old Concord Road (SR 1002) (Figure 2, Sheet 6) on the
west side of I-85 in Salisbury.
Response: Constructing a new connector from US 52 to Old Concord Road
would increase the cost of the proposed improvements and would not be within
the scope of the proposed action. Therefore, this connector is not recommended
as part of the subject project.
Comment 14: A noise wall should be constructed on the west side of I-85
between I-85 and Skyline Drive north of US 52 (Figure 2, Sheet 6) in Salisbury.
Response: A traffic noise analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed project on noise levels in the immediate project area using preliminary
design data. It was concluded that noise abatement measures were not justified in
the vicinity of Skyline Drive based on FHWA noise abatement criteria. However,
during the design phase of this project, a design noise report will be prepared in
order to obtain a more detailed analysis of traffic noise impacts and possible noise
abatement measures. A final decision on the installation of abatement measures
will be made upon the completion of the final design of the project and the public
involvement process.
Comment 15: A business owner whose business is located on Andrews Street
(SR 1915) in the southeast quadrant of the Andrews Street/I-85 interchange
(Figure 2, Sheet 8) north of Salisbury is concerned about the proposed control of
access along Andrews Street in the vicinity of his business.
Response: Access will be controlled along Andrews Street for approximately
350 feet east of the Andrews Street/I-85 northbound exit and entrance ramps. The
proposed control of access is needed in order to assure adequate spacing between
the ramp terminal and driveways connecting to Andrews Street. Businesses
located in the southeast quadrant of the Andrews Street/I-85 interchange will be
provided access to Andrews Street via Choate Road (SR 2125).
Comment 16: Residents located in the northwest quadrant of the Long Ferry
Road (SR 2120)/1-85 interchange (Figure 2, Sheet 10) north of Salisbury would
like for the service road proposed in that quadrant to be realigned.
Response: The service road proposed in the northwest quadrant of the Long
Ferry Road/I-85 interchange is designed to provide access to homes located in that
area with the least possible impacts on those properties. NCDOT will study any
recommendations residents would like to submit concerning the alignment of the
service road.
Comment 17: A property owner has requested that the proposed alignment of
the service road located in the northeast quadrant of the Long Ferry Road
(SR 2120)/I-85 interchange (Figure 2, Sheet 10) north of Salisbury be designed to
minimize impacts on his property.
Response: The service road in question will be realigned to the east in order to
accommodate the widening of I-85. NCDOT will investigate the possibility of
further minimizing impacts to properties located in the northeast quadrant of the
Long Ferry Road\I-85 interchange through possible curvature and cross section
revisions to the proposed service road in that area.
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
No revisions to the Environmental Assessment are proposed at this time.
However, during the final design of the project, the following possible revisions will be
investigated:
12
I . NCDOT will investigate the possibility of extending the proposed service road to
be located in the northwest quadrant of the Webb Road (SR 1500)/I-85 interchange
(Figure 2, Sheet 2) further to the north in order to provide access to all properties in that
area.
2. NCDOT will study the possibility of providing a driveway which will intersect
Webb Road west of the proposed control of access along that road to provide access to
the Corner Stone United Pentecostal Church property, located in the southwest quadrant
of the Webb Road/I-85 interchange (Figure 2, Sheet 2).
3. NCDOT will investigate the possibility of reducing the cross section of the
proposed service road (SR 2643), located in the southeast quadrant of the Peeler Road
(SR 2538)/I-85 interchange (Figure 2, Sheet 3), by narrowing the width of the shoulder
and ditch along the service road in order to minimize impacts to businesses in that area.
4. The alignment of the proposed service road to be located in the northwest
quadrant of the Peeler Road (SR 2538)/I-85 interchange (Figure 2, Sheet 3) will be
coordinated with the property owner affected and revised as needed during the right of
way acquisition phase of the project.
5. NCDOT will investigate a possible revision to the East Ritchie Road (SR 2574)
alignment, located in the southeast quadrant of the Julian Road (SR 2528)\1-85
interchange (Figure 2, Sheets 4 and 5). The revised design would realign that facility
approximately 500 feet east of its existing location, intersecting Julian Road approximately
800 feet from the existing Julian Road bridge over I-85. East Ritchie Road would then be
carried south, more or less parallel to 1-85, before connecting back into existing East
Ritchie Road. This possible new alignment would be located outside the original study
corridor for project I-2511 and would require additional environmental studies to assess
the proposed road's impact on the environment. This possible realignment would result in
one fewer residential relocatee.
6. NCDOT will investigate the possibility of connecting two service roads (SR 2579
and SR 2580) located along the east side of I-85 between Julian Road (SR 2528) and Jake
Alexander Boulevard (US 601). Also, NCDOT will investigate the possibility of
connecting two service roads (SR 2635 and SR 2578) located along the west side of I-85
between Julian Road and Jake Alexander Boulevard. Connecting the service roads in this
area could provide better traffic circulation and reduce future congestion in the vicinity of
the two interchange areas.
7. NCDOT will investigate the possibility of narrowing the cross section of the
proposed alignment of Lutheran Synod Drive (SR 2577), located in the northwest
quadrant of the Jake Alexander Boulevard (US 601)/I-85 interchange (Figure 2, Sheet 5),
by narrowing the width of the proposed shoulder and ditch in order to minimize impacts to
13
properties in that area. Also, NCDOT will investigate the possibility of providing curb
and gutter instead of a shoulder and ditch along Lurtheran Synod Drive in order to further
reduce the cross section of that facility.
8. NCDOT will investigate the possibility of minimizing impacts to properties located
in the northeast quadrant of the Long Ferry Road (SR 2120)/I-85 interchange (Figure 2,
Sheet 10) through possible curvature and cross section revisions to the proposed service
road in that area.
VII. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING
Executive Order 11990 established a national policy to avoid, to the extent
possible, adverse impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new
construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.
The majority of impacts to "Waters of the United States" will be in the form of
surface water impacts at stream crossings. One small wetland area, measuring 0.03 acre,
will be impacted. With the exception of not building the project, there are no feasible
means of avoiding this wetland taking. NCDOT will minimize impacts on wetlands
through the use of best management practices.
It has been determined there is no practicable alternative to the proposed
construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to
minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment and upon comments received from federal, state, and local
agencies, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the
Federal Highway Administration that the project will not have a significant impact upon
the quality of the human or natural environment. The project is not controversial from an
environmental standpoint. No significant impacts on natural, ecological, cultural, or
scenic resources are expected. No known Section 4(f) properties are involved. Adequate
replacement property will be available for the fifteen residences, eleven businesses, and
one non-profit organization which will be relocated. No significant impact on air or water
quality or on ambient noise levels is expected. The project is consistent with local plans
and will not divide or disrupt a community. There are no feasible means of avoiding the
loss of approximately 0.03 acre of wetlands. Impacts to those wetlands will be minimized
through the use of best management practices. The proposed improvements will have no
14
effect on federally-listed threatened or endangered species. In view of the above
evaluation, it has been determined a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable for this
project. Neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental analysis
will be required.
SEM/plr
15
ROWAN COUNTY
Cooleem 2.
11iie Woodleal ' R,,y
level drbe 5 1160155
7 6 70 9 Spenc 1
Beat Popl 801 Salisbu
d,
? bunt UI a 1
18 y dlbrldg 9
1
R O5 W 8
hma Grov
1 152 Faith
ille 296 y Is
e land)
1- 1
`h`dle 4 \ 10
r ?
r
i t<
lacMS+
1 kerlnust?
Gol III Luke
v
r 601 ._. - .. v ?? 1
1710 .J 70 °U 9 20.1 <:/??r
Jp Ib ? n1l` O t
Iy rte, ff '.
e a
1.41739 1- 1124
.J t. 1777 t0 I< y:A ?NCERw? . °
.e Ebene:er \ E:i ? 775 rCfi I LL MU ?U ,
POI; 1,939
r Ch. Fr IR12 17]1 ''' n 17x4 °.- I-0 `1:;;>:+
eo1 .t I -.. 7z14r4} .. Creek ENDY 1.3
v a ? 7 PROJECT
r ? ,51l1£ \ I7]0 's /'7 U FAU EA.5T 95 `}7'•
WW4 lAJ:.::, SPENCER Cr.
Oi
1731 _liti o 1 171 rE01 74 7 Po1.'2.I5
LZLj
Vie, f. .'U 1224. 1 J 132Q % : T: 1 191 ]
S ISBUR•Y'
1771 } 1Z2C 1 1 n \ e OP. t o 1. i ?`:i'•1?R°i?? ' ?7-' G+o^
?•, 1 1„J? ^ 111p 0 LL1,11819 AU
s7
9 ry.?; St. Marys ! a 1 _'' 11 fA5' ''C? A?br 1 61 p `t' I'J: J
1L4 ^' 1730
.I f: 1.1 17? R6w MIUS,1 i ?I ~ 6
q 1711 u 9 9 p • ® lo9x ?S ?3
59
.1 11 1 I '
KRrvw It1 .tl. 7 7 Y ?' i *.:? i _217e 'f
R. PAS Uni
S h Millbridpe 'q"] 1 Millers Chapel a-I Iul / J"R X57 Ch
-34.4 ... ICI 1 e i .,-- t1]l dlii !
1.7J I I. :S .3 Ja ` fJ r G.
j ( t.o 1_]13. L31t ':. .1 ?? `' ?C4 ??•W.' .i? .P ? ?
e
7179
1122
.4 ` C?
I52! \t\t Grace Ch. e? e',.•. a 1],t 9 ?.0 t 1 RANIfF 'ray ?.7
h MI. 7L u 75]a Y! UARR 100.
I3]]- 73 f: 1.0 F:r'r :y . tS. 5 y - S .: 1 POP. 1.791 LN4. 7 .J
.. 'Iv 1747 QJ (Y'.. 1Sla e ; 2
n1?v t?pg7 % R 1:: ?r_ J ti
IN 1.2 17]1-.. 09 121\1 6 , 1 1x19 4lq it-k-l ®
- 0 ti 1700 ?, ? 1Q 3 .1 ?.'Sr. Paula ?J ? 17nv 1
17.1. Lai. ,I b ti 1
4 ^ 1501 'o 1510 2 V
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
b 1w!]a 1 v •I 1 b 130
1132'• .J '1 • -• .?1 '° -°• ' ?7 1 TRANSPORTATION
1711' ! 1 » r a 7 '1? t514I4. .0 a +o DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
lam& 17.e 21 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
Lai I / / •'S ia727e .i,l „Iteoal BRANCH
aa2
37 BEGIN 1271 a 1-85
t?4 I. No
"? y1 V 15 , PROJECT , 01 k FROM US 29-601
1`53 -r11NA Rove TTENVALL OVA. GROVE t ,, J 1+* 1 d TO NORTH OF SR 2120
J?Q T. I. P. NO. I-2511
FIG. 1

J?7
?s
. y
i

N ,.
2
Im
O
S
p
2
OooS?
. 'TI (? si^
cps

? 2 y
YS
J l ((
N N$ 1 s

r i
c
n
ae

A?+
E
f/1
m
?e
e
ih
x
0
qwr
{
M
RP117 n
¦

¦
i
i
f
i
y
di.

1
1 1
1 1
1 1.
1 1
1 1
i 1
? 1.
1
1 1
rl
it
rl
r
1
1
1
?r
1
1

i y? 'Wl? •

i
I •

c c U.

•,n{
Y • (n cc
A ^. • • • •

i R
0
TL 0.
00
N t,
. • ap
1
?

- A
r,y, "
• p
? r .v t
' '
«.!
. _
,E.- * tee
v

.
' r • ??, r „?,??, mot
?
. ,

1A I
SEA
? ?
} .i
`
? i .ii
? t .
r? ?
• p

' i
ooh

f
3
s
yi
?l
z.ryt

?',` ?
???'^
?} " "?
-a .?
}
???
APPENDIX
(? ?G E I V?
Q? O
Federal Emergency Management Agen
Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700 JAN 17 1995
Atlanta, GA 30309 2 U
DIVISICN OF Qe
G' HIGHWAYS ?
January 13, 1995 ?CNVIRONNfE?P?
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Rowan County and City of Salisbury, North Carolina
Proposed Widening Project on I-85 from US 29-601 to SR 2120
State Project Nos. 8.1631502 and 8.1631503
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement we
received January 11, 1995, for the above-referenced project.
Rowan County and the City of Salisbury, North Carolina are
participating in the Regular Phase of the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). The County and City have regulatory floodways and
floodplains delineated and therefore, any encroachment into the
floodplains and floodways must be in compliance with the NFIP
regulations.
The agency in charge must ensure compliance with the following
floodplain management measures as enacted by the State of North
Carolina. In this regard, it is imperative the agency coordinate
closely with the appropriate staff in the Floodplain Management
Section of the Division of Emergency Management.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Ms. Bel Marquez
at [phone].
Si cerely,
Robert E. McBeth, Chief
Hazard Identification and
Risk Assessment Branch, MT
A-1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Governor ® G H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Melba McGee vMj
oaf'7I
RE: 95 Improvements for I-85 US 29-601 to SR 2120,
Rowan County
DATE: February 10, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are for
the applicant's consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
! FEB 1 5
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity A(firmctive Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10%. post-consumer pcper
A-2
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
_ . _ .. ___.Jonothan B..Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 8, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee

Through: John Dom 1?/^
M
i
S
i
w
on
ca
Y"/
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA foil 1 85 from US 29-601 to SR 2120
Rowan County
TIP # 1-2511 c q'71
DEHNR # 95`t; DEM # 10830
_jw
V -V
-C) IF= F-1
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state Including wetlands.
The document states that 0.03 acres of waters including wetlands will be impacted.
Approximately 200 feet of stream will be relocated. DOT should adhere to DOT's
Stream relocations/ channelization guidelines.
Information about hazardous material sites was known in 1992. If DOT had
contacted the Groundwater Section immediately, several sites could be closed now
thus making the widening alternative an even more favorable alternative (cost and
environmentally based).
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of
a 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
i85rowan.ea
cc: Asheville COE
Eric Midkiff, DOT
Ted Bush, Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29636, Rdeigh. North Carolina 27626-0636 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportuniiv Aft) K*VR A( fie 4) iIriPloyer 00% recycled/ IM Wvt-cxxismer paper
A-3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
A&FWMA
Health and Natural Resources • 0
Division of Forest Resources AM#
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
C) E H N F?
-Stanford M.-Adams, Director
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
February 3, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester A0
SUBJECT: DOT EA for Improvements to I-85 from US 29 -601 to SR 2120 in Rowan
County
PROJECT: #95-0471 and TIP # I-2511
DUE DATE: 2-2-95
We have reviewed the above subject DOT Document and have the following comments:
1. We have no real objections to the need and concept of upgrading this portion of I-85.
2. Woodland will be heavily impacted as a total of 217 acres of woodland is involved here.
3. The ROW contractor should make all efforts to salvage the merchantable trees that have to
be cut.
PC: Warren Boyette - CO
File
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 "telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A-4
Clearinghouse Project No. 95-0471
Rowan County
January 19, 1994
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
B. Alternative Modes of Transportation
This section is not adequate and should be expanded. A clear and detailed costs and benefits analysis comparing
highway widening and alternative modes of transportation should be provided. Other alternatives in addition to
public bus transportation must be addressed to maximize the useful life of the upgraded facility.
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL, CONCERNS
D. Environmental Effects
8. Air-Quality Analysis
"Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars." This section does not mention that these
technological improvements are being offset by the increase in numbers of cars on the roads and highways. This
trend should be included and evaluated in the assessment.
TABLE 12
There should be an explanation as to why the one hour CO concentrations increase more with the no-build than
build alternative. Is anticipated congestion on the road responsible for this increase? Please explain.
4?3 cle;_,L
r Paul B. Clark
Environmental Engineer
Water Quality Compliance Branch
Public Water Supply Section
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources
A-5

?„C1?IC1l:V
n \?cney I'ro)Cc[ ]?e

t'O)c:C: N? 11:' .x-`--i?0?•---_----.?_ 1 y[)C Of Pr0)CC:I' L?lalh?/na _
lie;inC should be. advised Ell-ac Mans and specificacions for all water• s}-,sec
The a
I-
pp
m1proverilelltS must be- approved by the U!vislon of tl:Vl1'Oilil'.C!ll'Rl Hes1.Ch pr!or eQ:lhe•aw;
'
ec
of a contract or the iniciacioLl Of consmictioti (as requ:-ed by 1SA ITCAC 1SC .0300 ec. s
For information, contact the Pubic Wxce:' Supply Se_cion, (919' 733-2460.
? This pL'ojecc will be classified as a. non corii^lUl?icy ou'r.ic water supply and !nclsc comply w
-
r
-? plic:
scace and federnl drilikit?e `inter n-lonlcorlll'; regclLrerne:':cs. For r.?ore ;nformaC:on the ap
should contact the PubiiC Wacer Supph' Sccelon, (91c'! 733-23, .

-; .Tr t wt gill reco-nmend closure of fecc'or' adjac

f ??
his project is conscructcd as proposed., .
-
I
L r
:nlcatlon pro
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For Ir!iormation rz-gardin; che .shell??sh s
lic:int should contact the Shell. ish Sanic:c'Dn Branch ac [phone].
the a
oo
111,
--- The spoil disposal area(s) proucscd for chi: project -?a•: produce a mosG_uitc breeding prebl:
r
?
1----? f
For inforZ-iacion concerning ap_ propr!ace tnosquico -:onccol measures, the applicant-she
contact Che P ub11C J7iealCh I'es= marngeze^:c. Section c (919) 726-897C.
-- ; The applicant should be advised that ,ciUC cc :ne re.111 ,r:.l or 6e_ oL.clon o.
1
?- Zn cxz-_nsive rot eZnc control ?rogra ? ?a• be- neccssz. Ln order to'preveal.
structures
,
mlbraClOn of- CIiC l'Ode^l'' CC he : Eorm;Lzlt)i.. CO!iC: Cii1i?d rGdCnt' CQil
concoct the local heait ; depa:::r,enc or c-:e Pu` tic :=ealti: Pest Mana?erren..Sect!or:, ac
733-6407.
-----? T& applicant should be- advised . cc c_!lcacc •che !.-)cal healer- deparemenc regarOing
re'cuirements foe sercic Unlrl !rsi: 21:on:? cos lrgll!ce - unuer _?.. ... ..• i•.:. . -• -
?Ol';!l?.t10.. C^!'=Cr^:!EiJ :rnfir. C1n:: i icl. ocn.etr nn-sII:C waste GLsoQs:iL mcllWds, l:Unzl.?C
Or L :
.
G,... C'..? `{{a+•r'._1':CC°? S??_C•?n 1f ra Iq\? ??••?n?5
--, The applicanm should br- nd 'to coni.., the. 1, ca ienlcli de;??;rcl?lell;. l•^.hacui^g =he sa:
1..... .) aCllll'I!:S rCgl.ll:-Cd for (111's I)1'0
lt l.?
1- iC %l::tlll? W;11.C1' 11!!r; ?t'!1' 17• :t,Il??:11 ;: dLll!(l1? lilt] CO11S1.1-.;C;'ik.:I1, I:,:l:if loi' dic: %V:li:(:
I- I'C10Cll lOl'l IiIU$t 1` Slll)I!1lr.L',... :?% t: 1. IC 11 Qf i:11 ll':llllile!'.C'.l I''.ea`I:ll I?l:?7il( `?{a` L' S
lCct:oll, l'1n11 P,.r 'ICCV I CAL:C:II, !. 1.)O _SL. :"'!Ai :i SQL la ;R31C1",
?J..jsf+r?ii-kl'•VICDJCI -
Iot. .:11 re ....r
ScctLbn/)3rnnch. .
*7Z?.
A-6
NCWRC,,HCF,FRLLS LAKE
TEL:[phone] reb ub'ut 1L_.ZD NO.uuo r.ur
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co natp
HabiL'at Conservation Program
DATE: February 6, 1995
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Environmental Assessment (EA) for I-85 improvements,
from US 29-601 to north of SR 2120, Rowan County, North
Carolina, TIP No. I-2511, SCH Project No. 95-0471.
Staff biologists of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the subject EA and are familiar with
habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review
was to assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
Our comments are provided in accordance with certain 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).
The proposed project involves widening existing I-85 from a
four-lane divided facility to an eight-lane divided interstate
facility. Interchanges and structures will be upgraded and
replaced as needed. The project length is approximately 13.2
miles. Wildlife habitat losses include approximately 217 acres
of forested lands with approximately 1500 square feet of wetland
impacts anticipated.
We feel that the EA adequately addresses our concerns
regarding wildlife and fishery resources in the project area. At
this time, we will concur with the EA for this project and
anticipate our concurrence with the upcoming Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). However, we request that NCDOT
continue to implement Best Management Practices to minimize
wetland impacts and to avoid impacts to off-site natural
resources. If stream crossings require channel relocation, we
A-7
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:y1y-:D L6-'j rcu u0 1= --
Memo
Page 2
February 6, 1995
request that NCDOT follow the "voluntary stream relocation
guidelines".
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. .'If we
can be of any further assistance please call me at (919) 528-
9886.
cc: Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
David Dell, U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
A-8
,A VAYZ
17
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 31, 1995
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook 1 ???/V w
Deputy State' is?t i6 Preservat.l?
ion fficer
SUBJECT: Widen 1-85 from north of SR 1500 to north of SR
2528, Rowan County, 1-2511 BB, State Project
8.1631502, ER 95-9047
SCE/\
?O
f UUN 0 5 1995
2
CN OF
?.4YS
aIGHWmlE
?
We have received the notification for a nationwide permit for the above project
and would like to comment.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. However,
because the survey of historical architectural resources in Rowan County was
conducted over a decade ago, there may be historic structures in the project area
of which we are unaware. In letters dated August 26, 1992, and July 6, 1994,
we requested a survey of historic architectural resources for TIP project 1-2511.
We have not yet received a response to our request or additional information
about the presence or absence of structures over fifty years old which might
cause us to revise our survey recommendation.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend.
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Wayne Wright, Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-9
?al?hpct-y
71P F -Z? I I Federal Aid County.
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
On (I LNF I c -1-1 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review sessionlconsultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? here 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.
J
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
«ne
identified as
considered not eligible t'cr the National Register and n[1 further evaiuation of them is necessary•
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:*
Representative,
i
DOT
FHwA, for e Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Represe,Qcative, SI-IP0
tare Historic Preservation Officer /

Date
It 1 s[ rvey repot is prey C°?, .:n"? Ccmv UI (1'.1 )-0(T:) ;l,^tl Lh 'i[t Ci.ed 1:S[ Will tt ...C Lu'
JuR g c?
Date
Date
Date

A-10
NOTICE OF AN OPEN FORUM PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF I-85 FROM US 29-601 TO NORTH OF
SR 2120, LONG FERRY ROAD, IN ROWAN COUNTY
Project 8.1631503 I-2511 Rowan County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the
above open forum public hearing on March 28, 1995 between the hours
of 4:00 pm and 8:00 pm at the Seth Murdoch Auditorium, Rowan County
Agriculture Center, 2727 Old Concord Road in Salisbury.
Interested individuals may attend this informal drop in
hearing at their convenience between the above stated hours.
Division of Highways personnel will be available to provide
information and answer individual questions regarding this project.
The project will widen I-85 from-the existing four lane
divided facility to an eight lane divided facility with auxiliary
lanes in some locations. In addition, interchanges and service
roads will be upgraded to current standards. Some additional right
of way and the relocation of some homes and businesses will be
required as a result of the widening.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. C. B.
Goode, Jr., P.E. at P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 or phone
[phone].
A copy of the Environmental Assessment describing the project
and a map setting forth the location and design are available for
public review at the Rowan County Manager's Office, 202 North Main
Street in Salisbury.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled
persons who wish to participate in the hearing to comply with ADA.
To receive special services, please contact Mr. Goode at the above
address or phone number or fax [phone] to provide adequate
notice prior to the date of the meeting so that arrangements can be
made.
A-11
I-85
FROM US 29-601 CONNECTOR
TO NORTH OF LONG FERRY ROAD
PROJECT 8.1631502
TIP NO. 1-2511
ROWAN COUNTY
OPEN FORUM PUBLIC HEARING
SETH MURDOCH AUDITORIUM
MARCH 28, 1995
A-12
Purpose of Hearing
Today we are holding an "Open Forum" public hearing. This is a format where
individuals may drop in anytime and speak with a representative of the Division of
Highways about this project. This gives citizens the opportunity to ask questions and
receive information one on one style. We find this style works well when there is a
project of this nature where many individual property owners are expected to have
questions about the effects of the project on their property. The opportunity to offer
comments about the project is still provided, either through comments spoken to
representatives or through written comments submitted as a part of the hearing. The
written comments will be accepted for a period of 15 days following today's hearing.
The attached comment sheet includes an address where these comments may be sent.
Now that the opportunity is here, you are encouraged to ask questions and submit
comments about this project. All input will be reviewed and discussed by Department
staff. Changes requested will be considered as to how they will affect the cost, safety,
and design integrity of the project. Those changes that meet these criteria may be
made to the project.
Purpose of Project
1-85 has become very congested in the Salisbury area. This type of congestion not
only slows traffic and makes driving uncomfortable, but also creates a high accident
potential, especially on a high speed highway. In addition, there is a very high
percentage of truck traffic. As shown below, traffic volumes are expected to increase
dramatically over the next twenty years, the normal planning period for highway
projects.
1997 Average Daily Traffic - high 52,900 vehicles per day (near Jake Alexander
Blvd.)
- low 43,400 vpd (near Long Ferry Road)
2017 Average Daily Traffic - high 104,100 vpd (near Jake Alexander Blvd
I - low 81,300 vpd (near Long Ferry Road)
The accident statistics for this roadway show that the accident rate for the urban portion
of the project is about the same as the statewide average except that the fatality rate is
higher, but the accident rate for the rural portion of the project is substantially higher
than the statewide average.
Most of the interchanges on this project have two way ramps. This was done many
years ago nationwide as a way to save money. However, over the years as traffic
volumes have grown and accident histories have been developed, it has become
apparent that this configuration is not safe. Motorists generally do not expect to meet
traffic on interstate ramps and the result has been head on collisions and wrong way
A-13
movements onto the interstate. The Federal Highway Administration no longer permits
two way ramps and that policy has been adopted by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. This is one reason why the ramps are being changed on this project.
Also, as traffic volumes have increased over the years, the interchanges that were
designed many years ago are no longer adequate. Short acceleration and deceleration
lanes and poor sight distance have generated many problems. The interchanges
planned for this project are designed to meet the latest state and national standards.
Project Information
Length: 13.2 miles
Typical section: Widen to four lanes in each direction with auxiliary lanes at the
following locations: between Peeler Road and Peach Orchard Road
between Julian Road and Jake Alexander Boulevard
between Jake Alexander Boulevard and US 52
There will be a 46 ft. grass median for most of the project except from just north of
Julian Road to just north of Bringle Ferry Road where the median will be 22 ft. wide with
a concrete barrier. Interchanges and service roads will be revised to accommodate the
widening, increased traffic, and current safety standards.
Right of way widths will be variable to accommodate widening, but a minimum of 300 ft.
will be required.
Relocations: Residences: 14
Businesses: 11
Non-profit: 1
Estimated costs: Right of Way - $ 10,275,000
Construction - $117,100,000
Total - $127,375,000
Tentative Schedule:
From US 29-601 to north of Webb Road
Right of Way Acquisition - July, 1995 - Construction - January, 1997
From north of Webb Road to north of Julian Road
Right of Way Acquisition - August, 1995 - Construction - October, 1997
From north of Julian Road to north of Bringle Ferry Road
Right of Way Acquisition - October,'1996 - Construction - October, 1998
From north of Bringle Ferry Road to north of Long Ferry Road
Right of Way Acquisition - October, 1997 - Construction - October, 1999
1
A-14
M
n
m
0
H
D
z
m
D
H
m
H
0
m
0
CA
m
v
a
r
0
z
c?
N
N
m
v
H
D
z
N
N
0
A
A
0
A
J
A
co
C2
rf)
N
N
rn v
* D
z
O
?O
V,
rn
C?
O
V ?
rn
O
z
A-15
COMMENT SHEET
Widening of 1-85 from the US 29-601 Connector to North of SR 2120
1-2511 Rowan County Project 8.1631503
March 28, 1995
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND10R QUESTIONS:
Comments may be mailed to:
C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E., Public Hearing Officer
N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
A-16

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 8, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee

Through: John Dorn
F
Monica Swl
irt
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA fot,1 85 from US 29-601 to SR 2120
Rowan County
TIP # 1-2511
DEHNR # 95-0401, DEM # 10830
[D F= F1
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The document states that 0.03 acres of waters including wetlands will be impacted.
Approximately 200 feet of stream will be relocated. DOT should adhere to DOT's
Stream relocations/ channelization guidelines.
Information about hazardous material sites was known in 1992. If DOT had
contacted the Groundwater Section immediately, several sites could be closed now
thus making the widening alternative an even more favorable alternative (cost and
environmentally based).
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of
a 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
i85rowan.ea
cc: Asheville COE
Eric Midkiff, DOT
Ted Bush, Groundwater Section
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs D S
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):

This oroiect is beinq reviewed as indicated below:
p3 41.04
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Air El Coastal Management El Water Planning
El Fayetteville
? Water
El Water Resources Environmental Health
? Mooresville ?Groundwater 1Nildlife Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer orest Resources ? Radiation Protection

hi
t
? W ? Recreational Consultant El Land Resources El David Foster
on
ng
as
? Coastal Management Consultant
fy)
arks and Recreation ? v6g, -E i
lI::?C??
? Wilmington ? Others if
VV
nvironmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart 'JAN 1 A 1995
FJ*4VfRONWNTAI S
CIENC
RRAhrk EB
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Ps-104
• Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
. I
I-85
From US 29-601
To North of SR 2120
Rowan County
F. A. Project No.'s IR-85-3(131)69 and IR-85-3(132)74
State Project No.'s 8.1631502 and 8.1631503
T.I.P. No. I-2511

9
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
and 49 U.S.C. 303
(9 93
I
4 APPROVED:
i
r2 -7-`T4 , 4?w?
Date „f,.,-H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date Nic as G , P. E.
f °/bivi ion Administrator, FHWA
I-85
From US 29-601
To North of SR 2120
Rowan County
F. A. Project No.'s IR-85-3(131)69 and IR-85-3(132)74
State Project No.'s 8.1631502 and 8.1631503
T.I.P. No. I-2511
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
J is--7-91L
S. Eric Mi ci 'f, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
J. Wilson Strou
ect Planning Engineer, Unit Head
r ?
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
CAROB ••,
??. ?ESSIDNq
SEAL
197091
To
F. A. Project No.'s
State Project
T.
I-85
From US 29-601
North of SR 2120
Rowan County
IR-85-3(131)69 and
No.'s 8.1631502 and
I. P. No. I-2511
SUMMARY
10
4
1. Type of Action
IR-85-3(132)74
8.1631503
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative
action, Environmental Assessment.
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to improve Interstate 85 from US 29-601 to north of
SR 2120 in Rowan County. The existing four-lane, divided facility is to
be widened to an eight-lane, divided facility with a 22- to 46-foot
median. Auxiliary lanes are proposed at various locations. Interchanges
and service roads along the project will be designed and revised as needed
to accommodate the proposed mainline widening, and inadequate structures
will be replaced. This 13.2 mile long project has an estimated cost of $
127,375,000, including $ 117,100,000 for construction and $ 10,275,000 for
right of way acquisition. In addition, $ 10,221,000 has been spent in
prior years on preconstruction activities. The 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) has allocated $ 139,151,000 for the proposed
project including $ 12,030,000 for right of way acquisition, $ 116,900,000
for construction, and $ 10,221,000 spent in prior years.
3. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
The pavement condition along the project is deteriorating at a rapid
pace. NCDOT pavement rehabilitation projects have helped, but only
delayed the need for reconstruction. The proposed improvements will
provide needed pavement rehabilitation as well as subgrade improvements
which will increase the life of the surface pavement. Also, the proposed
improvements will provide additional travel lanes which will alleviate
current and future capacity deficiencies along the studied portion of
Interstate 85. In addition, interchange and service road revisions will
provide safer access to businesses and neighborhoods in the project area.
More efficient travel and improved access will result in increased
economic benefits to users of the facility and surrounding businesses.
It is anticipated that 15 residences, 11 businesses, and 1 non-profit
organization will be relocated as a result of the project. It is
predicted 108 residences and 27 businesses and a church will approach or
exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria in the design year (2017);
however, no receptors were found to be impacted by a substantial increase
in future exterior noise levels. No significant impacts to plant and

1?
animal life are expected. Impacts to wetlands will be minimal. No
federally-protected threatened or endangered species will be impacted. No
recreational facilities or sites eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places will be involved. No prime farmland impacts are expected.
The proposed improvements will not cause significant negative impacts to
air quality.
4. Summary of Special Project Commitments
a. Special Permits Required
The majority of impacts to "Waters of
in the form of Surface Water impacts at
addition, one small wetland area, measuring
impacted. It is anticipated Surface Water
meet the criteria for a Department of Arn
accordance with 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14. Al!
quality certification will be required fry
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
b. Geodetic Survey Markers
the United States" will be
stream crossings. In
1500 square feet, will be
and wetland impacts will
y Nationwide Permit in
o, a Section 401 water
)m the NC Department of
Twenty-two geodetic survey markers will be impacted. The N. C.
Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
C. Railroad Coordination
Any improvements to Interstate 85 which may impact the railroad
will be coordinated with the Carolina-Northwestern Railway.
d. Underaround Storaae Tanks and Hazardous Materials
Fourteen operational and four non-operational facilities with
the potential for underground storage tank (UST) involvement were
identified. If any of the UST facilities are to be impacted, those
sites will be further investigated for possible fuel leakage during
the right of way acquisition phase of the project.
I-85 currently crosses the site of an abandoned city landfill,
located just north of Old Concord Road (SR 1002). Any construction
in this area will receive special consideration and subsurface
investigations.
e. Utilities
Any relocation of public utilities along the project will be
coordinated with the appropriate utility or local government agency.
f. Noise Abatement Measures
The installation of noise abatement measures will be further
considered upon completion of the final design of the project and the
public involvement process. An area along the project located
approximately 1100 feet north of Old Concord Road (SR 1002) has been
identified as a reasonable location for a noise barrier. See page 35
for a description of noise impacts due to the proposed action.
g. Floodway Modification
The proposed improvements can be implemented without any
significant adverse impact on the existing floodplains and floodways.
Floodplain impacts will be assessed in detail during final hydraulic
design. If floodway revisions are required, NCDOT will coordinate
with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local authorities
for approval.
h. Stream Modification
Approximately 200' of channel realignment will be required just
south of Julian Road (SR 2528) on the east side of Interstate 85.
The existing single barrel reinforced concrete box culvert at this
location is above headwaters and will be retained and extended.
5. Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of this project, the widening of an existing
roadway, alternative alignments are not practicable. Due to the traffic
and development characteristics of this route, only a median divided
facility was studied, with the number of lanes proposed based on desired
capacity. Impacts to existing development were considered when
determining interchange configuration and alignment.
The "No Build" alternative was considered and rejected, due to the
traffic and safety benefits provided by the proposed improvements. Also,
pavement conditions along Interstate 85 continue to deteriorate. Although
past pavement rehabilitation projects have prolonged the life of the
existing pavement, those improvements were designed for temporary pavement
stability until total reconstruction of Interstate 85 could be funded.
The "Alternate Modes of Transportation" alternative was rejected due to
the fact that highway transportation is the dominant mode of
transportation in the area, and the project involves widening an existing
highway, though public bus transportation would be a likely supplement to
improve the existing facility.
6. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were
consulted regarding this project:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Env., Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Centralina Council of Governments
Rowan County Commissioners
Mayor of Salisbury
Mayor of Spencer
7. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. BASIS FOR PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Existing Conditions
1. Length of Studied Section . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Functional Classification . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. Major Drainage Structures . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10. Speed Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11. Railroad Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12. School Bus Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . .
C. Accident Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community . . . . .
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III.
A. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Project Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Recommended Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Length of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Project Termini . . . . . . . .
3. Proposed Cross Section . . . . .
4. Proposed Right of Way Width
and Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Required Structures . . . . . . . . . .
6. Interchange and Service Road Revisions . . . . .
7. Auxiliary Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9. Permits
10. Railroad Involvement
11. Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
8
8
13
13
13
14
14
14
A. Recommended Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation Alternative. . . . . 14
C. "No Build" Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS . . . . . . . 15
A. Land Use Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Status of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. Future Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B. Social and Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Neighborhood Characteristics and
Social Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. Economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3. Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4. Rel ocatees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
C. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Architectural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2. Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
D. Envi ronmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
a. Terrestrial Communities . . . . . . . . . . 23
b. Aquatic Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
C. Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Federally-Protected Species . . . . . . 27
2. State-Protected Species . . . . . . . . 28
2. Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
_ 3. Jurisdictional Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Traffic Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8. Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
9.. Stream Modification . . . . . . . . . 46
10. Hazardous Materials and Underground
Storage Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
11. Geodetic Survey Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
12. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A. Comments Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
B. Informational Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
C. Public Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
TABLES

Page
. Table 1 - Bridge Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2 - Accident Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3 - Proposed R/W Limits Between Interchanges . . . . . 7
Table 4 - Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities . . . 26
Table 5 - Approximate Locations of Creeks and
Streams Crossing the Project . . . . 26
Table 6 - Federal Candidate Species Listed for Rowan County. . 29
Table 7 - Hearing: Sounds Bombarding Us Daily . . . . . . . . 33
Table 8 - Noise Abatement Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 9 - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary. . . . . . . . 38
Table 10 - Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary . . . . . . . . 39
Table 11 - Noise Barrier Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 12 - One Hour CO Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Improvements
Figure 2A - Proposed Improvements in the Vicinity of US 52
Figure 3 - Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 - Proposed Cross Section
APPENDIX
Comments Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-25(a)
100-Year Flood Plain Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-26
Relocation Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-32
Information Workshop Press Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-44
Traffic Noise Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-45
Air Quality Input Data A-51
Informational Workshop Handout A-55
I-85
From US 29-601
To North of SR 2120
Rowan County
F. A. Project No.'s IR-85-3(131)69 and IR-85-3(132)74
State Project No.'s 8.1631502 and 8.1631503
T. I. P. No. I-2511
I. BASIS FOR PROPOSED ACTION
A. Existing Conditions
1. Length of Studied Section
The studied portion of I-85 is 13.2 miles in length. The
project vicinity is shown in Figure 1.
2. Functional Classification
Through the city limits of Salisbury, I-85 is classified as an
Urban Principal Arterial-Interstate. The remainder of the studied
portion of I-85 is classified as a Rural Principal
Arterial-Interstate.
3. Existing Cross Section
Interstate 85 is a four-lane, divided facility with twelve-foot
travel lanes, ten-foot shoulders, and a thirty-foot grassed median.
4. Right of Way
From the beginning of the project at US 29-601 to SR 1505, the
existing right of way width is 260' between interchanges. From Mt.
Hope Church Road (SR 1505) to Webb Road (SR 1500), the existing right
of way is 500 feet in width between interchanges. For the remainder
of the project, the existing right of way is 260 feet in width
between interchanges. Right of way width is symmetrical about the
centerline of the facility median. Variable right of way limits exist
throughout the interchange areas.
5. Alignment
The existing horizontal roadway alignment contains no curves
greater than 3 degrees, and the vertical grade does not exceed 3.5
percent at any location along the project.
6. Structures
Existing structures along the project are described on page 2 in
Table 1.
2
TABLE 1 BRIDGE DATA
Clear Su i- Estimated
Bridge Feature Date Roadway Structure ciency Remaining
No. Intersection Built Width Length Rating Life

94 US 29-601 1967 34' 345' 96.2 33 yrs
102 SR 1505 1956 26' 180' 46.2 11 yrs
109 Webb Rd. 1956 26' 211 70.2 21 yrs
111 Peeler Rd. 1956 26' 185 42.6 11 yrs
112 Peach 1956 26' 192' 49.9 10 yrs
Orchard Rd.
113 Julian Rd. 1956 26' 186' 53.7 21 yrs
114 Jake Alex. 1980 68' 234' 98.0 46 yrs
Boulevard
117 Southern 1956 28' 135' 70.1 14 yrs
Railway (NB)
115 Southern 1956 28' 135' 70.1 16 yrs
Railway (NB)
118 Old Concord 1956 28' 186' 73.2 23 yrs
Road (NB)
119 Old Concord 1956 28' 186' 73.2 23 yrs
Road (SB)
123 US 52 (NB) 1955 28' 143' 61.0 16 yrs
124 US 52 (SB) 1955 28' 143' 45.0 10 yrs
127 Bringle Ferry 1955 26.1' 180' 35.8 14 yrs
Road
128 Correl St.(NB) 1955 28' 128' 73.4 18 yrs
129 Correl St.(SB) 1955 28' 128' 63.1 21 yrs
131 Andrews St. 1955 28' 128' 76.0 19 yrs
(NB)
132 Andrews St. 1955 28' 128' 78.0 21 yrs
(SB)
134 SR 2120 1957 26.1' 180' 40.8 10 yrs
7. Major Drainage Structures
The following is a list of major drainage structures along the
project:
10' X 10' reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) located
just north of SR 1505.
10' X 10' RCBC located just south of Webb Road.
6' X 6' RCBC located just north of Webb Road.
6' X 5' RCBC located just south of Peeler Road.
- 7' X 7' RCBC located just north of Peeler Road.
3
- 8' X 7' RCBC located south of Julian Road.
- 7' X 7' RCBC located just south of Julian Road.
7' X 7' RCBC located just north of Julian Road.
Triple 42-inch pipes at US 52.
Quadruple 11' X 13' RCBC located north of Andrews Street.
8. Access Control
I-85 is a fully controlled access facility in accordance with
Interstate design standards; however, there are breaks in the control
of access at several of the interchange ramps.
9. Utilities
The proposed improvements could possibly impact water, sewer,
gas, power, television and telephone lines. Impacts to utilities due
to the proposed improvements are considered to be medium to high in
severity. The appropriate utilities or local government officials
will be consulted concerning possible relocation of utilities.
Considerable utility impacts can be expected in the vicinity of
the US 52 interchange. In this area, overhead power, telephone, and
television lines exist. In addition, underground gas, telephone,
cablevision, water and sewer lines are in the vicinity of this
interchange.
Overhead power, telephone, and television lines as well as a
water line are located in the vicinity of Bringle Ferry Road
(SR 1002). A sewer line is located near Correl Street (SR 2114).
Overhead power lines as well as underground telephone and sewer lines
are located in the vicinity of the Andrews Street (SR 1915)
interchange, while overhead power, telephone, and television lines
are also located at the SR 2120 (Long Ferry Road) interchange.
The following is a list of underground utility owners in the
vicinity of the project:
City of Salisbury
Piedmont Natural Gas Company
Duke Power
Southern Bell
Vision Cable
MCI
10. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along the studied section of I-85 is
65 mph.
4
11. Railroad Crossings
Carolina-Northwestern Railway crosses I-85 at a grade separation
approximately 2400 feet north of Jake Alexander Boulevard. Two
135-foot long bridges carry I-85 traffic over the railroad.
12. School Bus Data
Eight school buses travel I-85 between US 29-601 and SR 2120
twice each weekday.
B. Traffic Data and Capacity Analysis
The estimated traffic volumes in vehicles per day (vpd) for the
studied facility are as follows (see also Figure 3):
1997 Average Daily Traffic =
(Near
(Near
2017 Average Daily Traffic =
(Near
(Near
high 52,900 vpd
Jake Alexander Blvd.)
low 43,400 vpd
Long Ferry Road)
high 104,100 vpd
Jake Alexander Blvd.)
low 81,300 vpd
Long Ferry Road)
The design hourly volume (DHV) is estimated to be 12% of the ADT.
Truck traffic will comprise approximately 27 % of the ADT (21 % TTST and
6 % Dual).
The concept of level-of-service is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and how these
conditions are perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A
level-of-service definition generally describes these conditions in terms
of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic
interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety. Six levels are defined
for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available.
They are given letter designations from A to F, with level-of-service A
representing the best operation conditions and level-of-service F
representing the worst.
A mainline capacity analysis was also performed for the years 1997
and 2017 to determine the level of service at which the facility would
operate with the addition of the proposed improvements. In 1997 it is
projected that the new facility will operate at LOS C. By the year 2017,
the proposed facility will still accommodate projected traffic and operate
at LOS D.
An additional capacity analysis was performed for the US 52
interchange area along US 52. In the years 1997 and 2017, US 52 will
operate at LOS F with no improvements. With the addition of the proposed
improvements, US 52 will operate at LOS C through the design year 2017.
C. Accident Analysis
Table 2 presents a comparison of accident rates along the studied
segment of Interstate 85 and the statewide rates for similar urban
interstate facilities. The rates shown for I-85 were obtained from
studies conducted from June 1, 1990 to May 31, 1993. The statewide rates
were obtained from studies conducted from 1990 through 1992.
TABLE 2 ACCIDENT RATES
(per 100 million vehicle miles)
Average Statewide Rates
For Interstate Routes
Accident Type Interstate 85 Urban Rural
All Accidents 100.4 118.7 57.3
Fatal 0.9 0.6 .9
Non-Fatal 43.6 46.0 22.6
Night 26.9 29.2 18.1
Wet 30.0 31.6 11.2
These figures indicate the accident rates along the studied section
of I-85 were similar to the corresponding average statewide rates for
urban interstate facilities. Only fatal accident types rated above the
statewide average. However, the accident rates along I-85 exceeded all
corresponding average statewide rates for rural interstate facilities. A
portion of the proposed project is designate "Rural", while another
portion, through Salisbury, is designated "Urban".
Further review of the accident data reveals that many of the
accidents were concentrated in and around the interchange areas along the
subject project. Lengthening acceleration and deceleration lanes, adding
auxiliary lanes, and eliminating dangerous ramp access and configurations
will help reduce accidents occurring at interchanges. Rear-end collisions
and vehicles running off the road constitute the largest percentage of the
accidents. The proposed improvements will help reduce the number of these
types of accidents as well as improve the overall safety of the highway.
D. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community
The proposed improvements will alleviate the current and future
capacity deficiencies along the studied portion of I-85. In addition,
safety will be enhanced along the project as a result of the widening and
interchange realignment. The ability of emergency vehicles to respond
quickly will be improved. Road user costs savings will be realized as a
result of more efficient travel, while improved access will result in
increased economic benefits for local businesses.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve
I-85 from US 29-601 to just north of SR 2120 in Rowan County. The project
area is shown in Figure 1. The existing four-lane facility is to be
widened to an eight-lane interstate facility with a 22- to 46-foot median.
Additional auxiliary lanes are proposed at various locations. The
interchanges and service roads along the project will be revised to
accommodate the proposed widening. Inadequate structures along the
project will be replaced to conform to current design standards. The
proposed improvements are shown in Figure 2. This 13.2 mile long project
has an estimated cost of $ 127,375,000, including $ 117,100,000 for
construction and $ 10,275,000 for right of way acquisition. In addition, $
10,221,000 has been spent in prior years on preconstruction activities.
B. Project Status
This project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The TIP recommends rehabilitating the bridges and widening
Interstate 85 from US 29-601 to north of SR 2120 (Exit 81). The proposed
improvements are to be federally-funded. The TIP has allocated $
12,030,000 for right of way acquisition and $116,900,000 for construction.
The total amount of allocated funds for the project is $139,151,000,
including $10,221,000 spent in prior years. Right of way acquisition is
scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1995 and construction is scheduled to
begin in fiscal year 1996.
C. Recommended Improvements
1. Length of Project
The studied portion of I-85 is 13.2 miles in length.
2. Project Termini
The project's southern terminus is at the interchange of I-85
and US 29-601. At this location I-85 consists of four 12-foot lanes
with 10-foot paved shoulders and a 30-foot median. US 29-601
consists of four 12-foot lanes with 10-foot paved shoulders and a
30-foot median. The project's northern terminus is just north of
SR 2120. At this location I-85 consists of four 12-foot lanes,
10-foot paved shoulders with a 30-foot median.
3. Proposed Cross Section
The proposed cross section consists of eight 12-foot lanes, four
in each direction, separated by a 22-to 46-foot median with 12-foot
shoulders. The 22-foot median is proposed for an approximate 3.4
mile section of the project from just north of Julian Road to just
north of Bringle Ferry Road in order to minimize impacts to heavy
development through that area. A median barrier will be
7
provided at this location. A 46-foot grassed median is proposed
through the remainder of the project. Auxiliary lanes will be
provided at various locations. The proposed cross section is shown
in Figure 4.
The 46-foot median allows the flexibility of adding one
additional lane in each direction in the future within the proposed
median. Future travel lanes cannot be accommodated within the
proposed 22-foot median. However, additional travel lanes can be
added to the outside of the 22-foot median section with the
acquisition of a minor amount of additional right of way. Proposed
overpasses in that area will be designed so that additional outside
travel lanes (one in each direction) can be accommodated in the
future.
4. Proposed Right of Way Width and Access Control
The acquisition of additional right of way will be necessary to
contain the proposed improvements. Variable amounts of new right of
way will be required along the mainline facility and interchange
areas. Table 3 describes the proposed right of way limits between
each interchange. The approximate proposed right of way limits are
also given in Figure 2.
TABLE 3 PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LIMITS BETWEEN INTERCHANGES
FROM TO R/W LIMITS
US 29-601 SR 1505 300'
SR 1505 Webb Road 500'
Webb Road Peeler Road 350'
Peeler Road Peach Orchard Road 300'
Peach Orchard Road Julian Road 300'
Julian Road Jake Alexander Blvd. Variable
Jake Alexander Blvd. US 52 320'
US 52 Bringle Ferry Road 300'
Bringle Ferry Road Correl Street 300'
Correl Street Andrews Street 360'
Andrews Street SR 2120 300'
8
In keeping with Federal Highway Administration policies
regarding Interstate routes, the NCDOT will maintain full control of
access along the subject section of Interstate 85. Access will also
be controlled along those roads crossing Interstate 85 in the
immediate vicinity of the ramp terminals. All service road access to
Interstate 85 ramps will be eliminated. Service road extensions will
be provided where necessary to allow access to roads crossing
Interstate 85. Improvements to roads crossing Interstate 85 and to
service roads are described Section II-C(6) of this report.
5. Required Structures
All structures which carry traffic over Interstate 85 along the
project, with the exception of the Jake Alexander Boulevard (US 601)
bridge (No. 114) and the US 29-601 bridge (No. 94), will be replaced
in order to accommodate the proposed widening of I-85 and to conform
to current design standards. These structures, with the exception of
the Jake Alexander Boulevard and US 29-601 bridges, cannot be
retained and rehabilitated because the existing horizontal clearances
beneath those structures are not capable of accommodating the
proposed interstate widening.
It is anticipated that those structures carrying Interstate 85
traffic over roads crossing Interstate 85 will also be replaced in
order to conform to current design standards (horizontal and vertical
clearances). However, during the final design of the project, the
possibility of retaining and rehabilitating those bridges will be
investigated. The bridges carrying Interstate 85 traffic over
Andrews Street (SR 1915) must be replaced due to the proposed
realignment of that road. It is anticipated all major drainage
structures described on Page 2 can be retained and extended.
6. Interchange and Service Road Revisions
The following is a description of the proposed interchange and
service road revisions along the project.
US 29-601
Additional travel lanes will be provided along I-85 in the
vicinity of US 29-601 and at the ramps associated with that
interchange. Two travel lanes each will be provided for the US
29-601 southbound ramp and US 29-601 northbound ramp. Southbound
I-85 will consist of four travel lanes just north of US 29-601 and
three lanes just south of that point. Northbound I-85 will
accommodate three travel lanes just south of US 29-601 and four
travel lanes and one auxiliary lane just north of US 29-601, tapering
down to four lanes just south of Webb Road (SR 1500).
Mt. Hope Church Road (SR 1505)
No interchange exists at this overpass; however, this road will
be realigned slightly to the south of the existing location. The
cross section of SR 1505 will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes and
9
8-foot shoulders. The proposed cross section will maintained for a
length of approximately 2400 feet. Two service roads, SR 2587 and SR
2586, will be realigned outward from I-85 to accommodate the proposed
widening. The existing bridge will be replaced.
Webb Road (SR 1500
The existing diamond interchange at Webb Road will be expanded
to accommodate the proposed widening of I-85, and adequate
acceleration and deceleration lanes will be provided. Webb Road will
be shifted slightly to the north, and the existing bridge will be
replaced. The Webb Road cross section will consist of two 12-foot
travel lanes separated by a raised median and left-turn lanes at the
ramp terminals, with 8-foot shoulders. The proposed cross section
will be maintained for a length of approximately 3800 feet. SR 2585
will be realigned and extended to tie into Webb Road west of the
interchange. Access from service roads to interchange ramps will be
eliminated.
Peeler Road (SR 2538)
The existing diamond interchange at Peeler Road will be expanded
to accommodate the proposed widening of I-85, and adequate
acceleration and deceleration lanes will be provided. Peeler Road
will be shifted slightly to the north and the existing bridges will
be replaced. The proposed cross section of Peeler Road consists of
two 12-foot travel lanes separated by a raised median and left-turn
lanes at the ramp terminals, with 8-to 10-foot shoulders, and will be
maintained for an approximate length of 3800 feet. SR 2584
(Furniture Road) will be realigned to tie into Peeler Road
approximately 1300 feet west of the proposed bridge. A new service
road will be constructed in the northwest quadrant of the Peeler Road
interchange. The new road will tie into Peeler Road west of the
bridge and terminate approximately 900' north of the Peeler Road
bridge. SR 2643 (Lane Parkway) will be realigned to tie into Peeler
Road approximately 1000' east of the bridge, while a new service road
will ti_e into Peeler road at the same location and will service the
northeast quadrant of the interchange. Access from service roads to
interchange ramps will be eliminated.
Peach Orchard Road (SR 1526)
The diamond interchange will be expanded to accommodate
widening, and adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes will be
provided. The Peach Orchard Road alignment will be shifted slightly
to the south and the existing bridge will be replaced. The Peach
Orchard Road cross section will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes
separated by a raised median and left-turn lanes at the ramp
terminals, with 8-to 10-foot shoulders. The proposed cross section
will be maintained for a length of approximately 2400 feet. SR 1526
(Henderson Grove Road) will be realigned and extended to tie into
Peach Orchard Road approximately 600' west of the bridge. Porter Road
(SR 2582)) will be realigned and extended to connect to Peach Orchard
Road approximately 600' east of bridge. Access from service roads to
interchange ramps will be eliminated.
10
A few property owners in the vicinity of the Peach Orchard Road
interchange have requested the interchange be eliminated. A petition
was received by NCDOT containing 13 signatures requesting the closing
of the interchange. The petition is included in the appendix of this
report. However, other property owners have written NCDOT requesting
the interchange remain open. Nearly 3000 vehicles per day currently
use the interchange, while 6900 vehicles are expected to use the
interchange by the design year.
NCDOT will again consider the utility of the Peach Orchard Road
interchange after reviewing comments received during and following
the public hearing.
Julian Road (SR 2528)
The existing diamond interchange at Julian Road will be
converted to a partial cloverleaf interchange with ramps and loops
located on the south side of Julian Road. The proposed Julian Road
cross section consists of two 12-foot travel lanes separated by a
raised median and left-turn lanes at the ramp terminals, with 8-to
10-foot shoulders, and will be maintained for an approximate
4700-foot length. Adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes will
be provided. SR 2580 and SR 2574 (East Ritchie Road) will be
realigned and extended in order to tie into Julian Road approximately
800' east of bridge. Access from service roads to interchange ramps
will be eliminated.
Jake Alexander Boulevard (US 601)
The Jake Alexander Boulevard diamond interchange will remain
basically the same. Lutheran Synod Drive (SR 2577), the service road
located in the northwest quadrant, will be realigned slightly to the
west to accommodate the proposed I-85 widening. The existing bridge
at this location (Bridge No. 114) will be retained.
US 52 (East Innis Street)
A number of improvements are proposed along US 52 which are
designed to relieve traffic congestion and improve safety in the
US-52/I-85 interchange vicinity. Inadequate signal spacing and the
convergence of several highly utilized roads have combined to
deteriorate the traffic carrying capacity of the US 52/I-85
interchange. This interchange is currently operating beyond capacity.
In addition, existing access points along interchange ramps, as well
as a large number of uncontrolled conflict points due to strip
development along US 52 have created safety hazards throughout the
interchange area while adversely affecting the interchange capacity.
The following recommendations will improve the safety and traffic
carrying capacity in the interchange area. See Figure 2A for proposed
improvements in the vicinity of US 52.
11
US 52 will be widened to allow for more through and turn lanes.
A raised island will separate opposing lanes along US 52, with
openings provided only at proposed signals. Improvements to US 52
will be maintained along that facility for a length of approximately
4300 feet. See Figure 2A for lane configurations along US 52.
The existing US 52 diamond interchange will be converted to a
single point urban interchange. This type of interchange uses one
signal to accommodate converging interstate ramp traffic and US 52
traffic, eliminating one signal from the current facility. The
proposed single point urban design has the capability to handle more
traffic than the existing interchange. In addition, access from
service roads (Bendix Drive and Skyline Drive) to the interchange
ramps will be eliminated.
East of the I-85 interchange, the existing signal located at the
intersection of Faith Road (SR 1006) and US 52 will be eliminated
along with the Faith Road\US 52 intersection. Bendix Drive will be
extended and will connect to US 52 just west of Cox.Lane where a new
traffic signal is proposed. Cox Lane will be eliminated. Bendix
Drive will be extended north of US 52 to connect to Council Road.
The proposed traffic signal at the intersection of Bendix Drive and
US 52 will basically provide the same service as the existing Faith
Road signal (providing access to US 52 for businesses located along
Bendix Drive and Faith Road), but will-be located a greater distance
from the I-85/US 52 interchange signal, allowing improved storage and
encouraging steady traffic flow. In addition, the extension of
Bendix Drive to Council Road will improve access to the Oakland
Heights Neighborhood.
Skyline Drive's intersection with the interchange ramp will be
eliminated, and that road will be extended in order to connect to
Council Road (the existing ramp will be removed as a result of the
proposed single point diamond interchange). Council Road will be
connected to US 52 by the Bendix Drive extension.
The intersection of Stokes Ferry Road (SR 1006) and US 52 will
be eliminated, while Newsome Road will be extended south to intersect
US 52. A signal will be added at the new Newsome Road/US 52
intersection. That signal will allow adequate spacing from the
proposed Bendix Drive signal. Also, this improvement will provide
better access from Newsome Road to US 52, since users of Newsome Road
currently must turn left onto Stokes Ferry Road before accessing
US 52. The Stokes Ferry Road\US 52 intersection will no longer be
needed, since full movement access will be provided at the proposed
Newsome Road\US 52 intersection.
Since the Faith Road intersection with US 52 will be eliminated,
westbound Faith Road traffic will be encouraged to enter US 52 at the
existing Avalon Drive intersection. The existing Avalon Drive/Faith
Road intersection will be realigned, so that a horizontal curve will
connect the two roads. The signal located at Avalon Drive and US 52
will be retained allowing full turning movements. This improvement
will significantly reduce the amount of traffic presently converging
onto US 52 near the I-85 interchange at Faith Road.
12
The Newsome Road extension, the Bendix Drive connection to
Council Road, and the extension of Skyline Drive to Council Road are
recommendations designed to improve access to the Oakland Heights
Neighborhood. In addition, Pinewood Avenue (See Figure 2, Sheet 7)
will be extended east in order to tie into Newsome Road, for further
improved access to Newsome Road which connects US 52 and Bringle
Ferry Road. Other proposed improvements in the vicinity of this
neighborhood are designed to improve safety: Skyline Drive's
intersection with the I-85 ramp will be eliminated and Mack Drive
(See Figure 2, Sheet 7) will be terminated in a cul-de-sac at Bringle
Ferry road due to the poor sight distance at that existing
intersection.
West of the US 52/I-85 interchange, the existing signal located
east of Arlington Street on US 52 will be removed. A new signal will
be provided at the intersection of Arlington Street and US 52.
Eliminating the signal east of Arlington Street and adding the
Arlington Street signal will provide adequate signal spacing and will
provide improved access for future development associated with
Arlington Street. Arlington Street on the north side of US 52 will
be widened to three lanes to provide for a left turn lane. In
addition, a small access road with a culvert is proposed in the
southwest quadrant of the US 52 interchange which will provide access
from Arlington Street to businesses located in that quadrant.
Bringle Ferry Road (SR 1002)
No interchange exists at Bringle Ferry Road; however, some
service road realignment is proposed at this overpass. Mack Street
will be terminated into a cul-de-sac at its intersection with Bringle
Ferry Road due to lack of sight distance at that location. Bringle
Ferry Road will be realigned slightly to the north, and its cross
section will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes and 6- to 10-foot
shoulders. The proposed cross section will be maintained for a
length of approximately 1500 feet. SR 2113, located in the northwest
quadrant of the interchange, will be realigned to tie into Bringle
Ferry Road approximately 300' west of the bridge.
Correl Street (SR 2114)
No interchange exists at this location; however, a new service
road will intersect Correl Street approximately 400 feet west of the
overpass. The service road will continue north and intersect Depot
Street, just west of the Andrews Street interchange with I-85.
Andrews Street (SR 1915)
The Andrews Street interchange will remain a diamond interchange
and will be relocated to the north in order to straighten the
existing curve along Andrews Street. The proposed cross section of
Andrews Street consists of two 12-foot travel lanes separated by a
13
raised median and left-turn lanes at the ramp terminals, with 10-to
12-foot shoulders. The proposed cross section will be maintained for
an approximate length of 2600 feet. Adequate acceleration and
deceleration lanes will be provided. The new bridges carrying
traffic over Andrews Street will be relocated approximately 200'
north of the existing bridges. A new service road in the southeast
quadrant will connect to SR 1915 approximately 700' east of the new
bridges. The new service road will continue south and tie into
Choate Road (SR 2125). A new service road connection is also
proposed in the southwest quadrant of the Andrews Street interchange.
That service road will tie into Depot Street approximately 600' south
of Andrews Street. The new service road will continue east toward
I-85, then head south, parallel to the interstate, and connect to
Correl Street. Access from service roads to interchange ramps will
be eliminated.
Long Ferry Road (SR 2120)
The existing diamond interchange at this location will be
expanded to accommodate widening, and adequate acceleration and
deceleration lanes will be provided. The proposed cross section of
SR 2120 consists of two 12-foot travel lanes separated by a raised
median and left-turn lanes at the ramp terminals, with 8-to 10-foot
shoulders, and will be maintained for a length of approximately 2000
feet. SR 2181 and SR 2183 will be relocated to the west to tie into
SR 2120 approximately 750' west of the bridge. SR 2180 and SR 2182
will be realigned to the east and connect to SR 2120 approximately
600' east of the bridge. Access from service roads to interchange
ramps will be eliminated.
7. Auxiliary Lanes
Due to the short distances between interchanges along the
project, both northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes will be
provided between the following interchanges:
- Peeler Road and Peach Orchard Road
- Julian Road and Jake Alexander Boulevard
- Jake Alexander Boulevard and US 52
8. Design Speed
The proposed design speed is 70 mph along Interstate 85.
9. Permits
All stream or creek crossings and the only wetland area within
the project limits will meet the criteria for a Department of Army
Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14. In
addition, a Section 401 water quality certification will be required
from the NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
The conditions and best management practices described in the
provisions of 330.5(b) and 330.6 will be followed.
14
10. Railroad Involvement
Currently two 135-foot structures carry I-85 traffic over the
Carolina-Northwestern Railway. The location of this grade separation
is approximately 2400' north of Jake Alexander Boulevard. Proposed
improvements call for replacing the two bridges at the existing
locations. Proposed improvements concerning the railroad will be
coordinated with the Carolina-Northwestern Railway.
11. Bikeways
The need for special accommodations for bicycles along the
project has not been identified.
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative consists of widening I-85 to an
eight-lane, median divided facility from US 29-601 to SR 2120. The
proposed median width is 46 feet through the majority of the project, and
22 feet from just north of Julian Road to just north of Bringle Ferry Road
(3.4 miles). The 22' median is proposed in order to minimize impacts to
development through that highly developed area. In addition to the eight
travel lanes, northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes are proposed
between Peeler Road and Peach Orchard Road, Julian Road and Jake Alexander
Boulevard, and Jake Alexander Boulevard and US 52. Interchanges and
service roads will be revised as needed to accommodate widening.
Inadequate bridges along the project will be replaced, while existing
drainage structures may be retained and lengthened.
Varying amounts of right of way will be required along I-85.
However, most right of way acquisition and developmental impacts will
occur at the interchanges. Figure 2 and 2A show the proposed improvements
along with the proposed right of way limits.
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation Alternative
No alternate mode of transportation is considered to be a practical
alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant mode of
transportation in the area, and the project involves widening an existing
highway. Public bus transportation would be a likely supplement to the
proposed improvements, thus extending the useful life of the upgraded
facility.
C. "No Build" Alternative
If the "no build" alternative were chosen, it would have a
considerable negative impact on transportation in the project area. I-85
through the subject area is a highly congested facility at present,
especially during peak periods. With the projected increases in traffic,
the service provided by the existing facility would deteriorate even more.
15
Increased congestion would lead to higher operating costs and increased
travel times. Motorist safety would also be sacrificed leading to even
greater losses due to accidents and deaths. Therefore, the "no build"
alternative has been rejected.
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Land Use Planning
1. Status of Planning
The project area includes the jurisdictions of the City of
Salisbury, the Town of East Spencer, and Rowan County.
The City of Salisbury adopted its Salisbury 2000: Strategic
Growth Plan in 1988. The plan is essentially a growtF management
toot- whici presents the City's policies and guidelines regarding the
location, type and intensity of new development. The City enforces a
zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations. The zoning ordinance
is currently being revised. No new zoning districts are expected to
result from the revisions.
The Town of East Spencer also enforces a zoning ordinance and
subdivision regulations. The town has not updated its most recent
land use plan, which was adopted in the mid-1970's, and is therefore
effectively out of date.
Rowan County has only recently established a Planning Department
within county government. The County has not adopted a land use or
comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, or subdivision regulations to
date. However, the staff has proposed a set of policy statements for
a draft land development plan currently being prepared. The Rowan
County Planning Board has approved the policy statements, but they
have not yet been adopted by the Board of Commissioners.
2. Existing Conditions
I-85 traverses land which is generally rural in character, with
farms, woodlands, and scattered residences. Some commercial and
industrial uses are located at the rural I-85 interchanges. Within
Salisbury, the Rowan County seat, the project area is characterized
by typical urban development with a wide range of intensive land
uses.
Scattered residential development is located in the vicinity of
the US 29-601 interchange at the southern end of the project. The
Webb Road interchange provides access to a large flea market complex,
gas and convenience stations, a mobile home dealership and a
distribution center immediately in its vicinity.
16
The Peeler Road interchange (SR 2538) provides direct access to
two truck stops and four light industrial sites, including the
Piedmont Garden and Florist Supply Company and Levco Incorporated on
the west side of I-85; and Lane Company, LaSalle-Deitch Distributor,
and Southern Marine, all accessed by a service road on the east side
of I-85. The land between Peeler Road and Peach Orchard Road (SR
2539) remains wooded and undeveloped. Little development has
occurred in the vicinity of I-85 and Peach Orchard Road. A church
was recently constructed on the east side of I-85, accessed from the
service road. The service roads on both sides of I-85 provide access
to scattered residences. One industrial use, Vendors Supply of North
Carolina is located on the west side of I-85.
Land uses in the vicinity of the interchange of I-85 and Julian
Road (SR 2528) includes a Moose Lodge, a warehouse, linear
residential uses, and the Rowan Rescue Squad, all on the west side of
I-85. A mobile home park, gas station, scattered residences, one
industry, and an auction company are located on the east side of the
interstate.
Development along the interstate becomes much more extensive
approaching the City of Salisbury. The Jake Alexander Boulevard
(US 601) interchange provides access, via service roads to the
Rowan-Cabarrus Community College, Moore's Lumber, Carolina Freight,
and Days Inn. Other commercial uses at-the interchange include fast
food restaurants, motels, gas stations, and industrial uses.
Although some scattered parcels of undeveloped land remain, most of
the land along I-85 from Jake Alexander Boulevard to the Bringle
Ferry Road overpass is urbanized.
Both industrial and residential uses are located on each side of
I-85 in the vicinity of Old Concord Road. The Fairview Heights
neighborhood on the west side of the interstate, is a low income
neighborhood which has recently been improved with federal funding
assistance from a Community Development Block Grant (CDBP). In
addition, two homes have been constructed in the neighborhood through
the Habitat for Humanity organization. Anticipated relocations
within the Fairview Heights neighborhood are discussed in section
IV-B(4) of this report.
The US 52 interchange is the most densely developed area along
the project. A variety of land uses typical of strip commercial
development are located on both sides of the interchange. Within the
southeast quadrant of the US 52 interchange is the Oakland Heights
subdivision and the Oakland Heights Park. The park, which includes
playground equipment and a soccer field used by the City's Park and
Recreation youth program was developed with Land and Water
Conservation Act (LWCF) funds. Section 6(f) of that Act requires
that the conversion of any property improved or purchased with LWCF
monies must be approved by the US Department of Interior and must be
replaced with land of comparable recreational value, location, and
usefulness. The park land will not be affected by the proposed
improvements.
17
Two developments, including a public housing complex and housing
for the elderly are located on the east side of I-85 near Bringle
Ferry Road.
Land use is again predominantly undeveloped and wooded north of
Bringle Ferry Road. Some mixed development has occurred at the
Andrews Street interchange (SR 1915), including a truck stop on the
west side, and linear residential uses on Old Union Church Road (SR
1915) east of I-85. A waste water treatment facility is located on
the west side of I-85 between the SR 1915 and SR 2120 interchanges.
Several commercial businesses are located at the SR 2120 interchange,
including trucking transfer centers and warehousing.
3. Existing Zoning
Rowan Count As previously noted, Rowan County has not adopted
a zoning or finance.
City of Salisbury All of the city zoning districts along I-85
permit urbanization. An M-1, Light Industrial District, encompasses
most of the land on each side of I-85 from Julian Road to Jake
Alexander Boulevard. The Rowan-Cabarrus Community College is
contained in a CU, College and University District, and the land
fronting Jake Alexander Boulevard at the interchange is zoned B-6,
General Business District in the southwest and northeast quadrants.
Industrial zoning districts dominate the area between Jake
Alexander Boulevard and US 52 and includes both Light Industrial and
Heavy Industrial districts. Exceptions include the residential zoning
districts which incorporate the Fairview Heights neighborhood and
General Business and Highway Business Districts in the northeast,
northwest, and southwest quadrants of the US 52 and I-85 interchange.
The southeast quadrant is a R-8, Single Family Residential District.
Residential zoning dominates both sides of the interstate near
Bringle Ferry Road. B-CS, Convenience Service Business District, and
M-1, Light Industrial District, dominate the area from east of
Bringle Ferry Road to the East Spencer municipal boundary.
Town of East Spencer Most of the land adjacent to I-85 in East
Spencer is zone I-1 or I-2, Industrial districts which permit
varying intensity of manufacturing and industrial uses. The only
other zoning district in the project area is a C-3, Commercial
district, located on both sides of I-85 east of Andrew Street.
4. Future Land Use
C?itof Salisbury According to Salisbury 2000, new growth
within the City's jurisdiction has occurred predominantly to the
west, southwest, and northwest of the city center. This development
has included major commercial and retail facilities, as well as
residential and office development. Development in the I-85 vicinity
has included light industry and traveler-oriented retail uses. The
18
overall purpose of the plan is to establish policies which will
encourage new development and redevelopment near the center of the
community, resulting in a compact community, with the efficient
provision of urban services.
The project area from the City of Salisbury's northern planning
area boundary, located approximately one mile north of Bringle Ferry
Road (SR 1002), to just south of the Julian Road interchange (SR
2528) is designated as a "Primary Growth Area". Salisbury 2000
defines this as the portion of the "urban growth area where services
and facilities are already in place or can be provided most cost
effectively. This is the area where growth and development is
especially encouraged.
The project enters Salisbury's "Secondary Growth Area" south of
Julian Road to just north of the Webb Road interchange west of I-85
and just south of the Peach Orchard Road interchange east of I-85.
This area is also a portion of the City's "Urban Growth Area." Urban
services can be provided to this area, but on a lower priority basis
than in the Primary Growth Area.
Finally, the land on the east side of I-85, from just south of
Peach Orchard Road to the southern study area boundary at Webb Road,
is designated as Rural. Urban development will be discouraged in this
area at least through the year 2000.
Rowan Count As previously stated, the County has not adopted a
comprehensive -p Fan or zoning ordinance at this time.
Rowan-Cabarrus Community College The 105 acre "north campus"
serves approximately 4,000 students annually. The Rowan-Cabarrus
Community College (RCCC) Board of Trustees adopted a Master Plan in
1991 for the expansion of the Salisbury campus. Most of the campus
tract is currently undeveloped, with the existing buildings located
in the extreme western end of the property, facing I-85. As the
campus expands, the focal point will be turned inward, away from the
interstate. According to the Master Plan, the campus will ultimately
include 396,000 square feet of classroom and office space, and 2,407
parking spaces.
Short-term plans call for the construction of two additional
classroom buildings and a new gravity flow sewer line which will
follow a draw located southwest of the existing buildings. The sewer
line will be located within an existing culvert under I-85.
The access road to the campus and a portion of a parking lot are
located within the I-85 study area. The campus is experiencing a
parking shortage at this time, and daily overflow parking on the
shoulder of the access road often totals 150 to 200 vehicles.
19
B. Social and Economic Development
1. Neighborhood Characteristics and Social Imaacts
Rowan County is located in the central section of the state. It
is bounded by Davidson, Stanly, Cabarrus, Iredell, and Davie
Counties. According to the 1990 U.S. Census, Rowan County has a
total population of 110,605. Salisbury is the county seat of Rowan
County and has a population of 23,087.
The proposed improvements will improve safety and travel
efficiency for users of Interstate 85. Interchange and service road
revisions will provide safer and better access to businesses and
neighborhoods. The proposed project will not disrupt neighborhoods
and communities.
Residents of Oakland Heights Neighborhood will lose direct
access to the Interstate northbound entrance ramp from Skyline drive.
However, it is the opinion of the NCDOT that this access to I-85 as
well as all intersections of service roads and interchange ramps
should be eliminated to improve the safety and efficiency of the
interchange. In addition, Mack Road, which currently intersects
Bringle Ferry Road near I-85, will be terminated in a cul-de-sac near
Bringle Ferry Road due to poor sight distance at this intersection.
However, a number of road improvements are also proposed which are
designed to improve access to the neighborhood. Skyline Drive will
be extended south and will tie into US 52. Also, Pinewood Avenue
will be extended east in order to tie into Newsome Road, while
Newsome Road will be extended south to connect to US 52. The proposed
improvements will provide more convenient access to Newsome Road,
US 52, and Bringle Ferry Road. Neighborhood residents can continue to
access Interstate 85 via US 52 instead of the potentially hazardous
ramp intersection.
2. Economic Factors
During the month of May, 1993, Rowan County had a total labor
force of 57,370. Out of this total, 55,170 persons were employed.
This left an unemployment total of 2,200 or 3.8 percent.
The proposed improvements will provide positive economic
benefits to the project area. Established institutions, industries,
and commercial establishments will be enhanced due to increased
accessibility. Economic activities will also be enhanced by improved
safety and reduction in traffic congestion which will allow greater
efficiency in transporting goods and products.
3. Public Facilities
One public facility along the project will be impacted due to
the proposed improvements. The Rowan County Rescue Squad located in
the southwest quadrant of the Julian Road interchange will be
relocated due to the proposed improvements to that interchange.
20
4. Relocatees
It is anticipated fifteen residences, eleven businesses, and one
non-profit organization will be relocated as a result of the project.
Four of the residential relocatees are tenants, while two of them are
minorities. Five of the business relocatees are tenants. Adequate
replacement housing will be available for all residential relocatees.
The proposed improvements will not cause a housing shortage in the
area. Suitable business sites are available in the project area for
business relocatees, and business services will still be available
after completion of the project. In the vicinity of US 52, where
most of the business relocatees are encountered, replacement sites
are available within the general area, however, none are available in
the immediate vicinity. Since location is extremely important to
most of the businesses affected in the US 52 area, several may have
to be discontinued.
Five of the residential relocatees are located in the low income
Fairview Heights neighborhood near Old Concord Road as mentioned in
Section IV-A(3) of this report. Two of the potential Fairview
Heights relocatees are considered elderly. As stated above, adequate
replacement housing is available for all anticipated relocatees in
the project area, including low income housing. Also, no public
housing will be impacted by the proposed improvements.
Last Resort Housing will be considered if the financial
situation of tenants or owners warrants such action. Relocation
reports for the proposed project are included in the appendix (pages
A-32 to A-43). These reports, which describe impacts from
interchange to interchange, include a demographic profile of the
displacees as well as a list of anticipated business relocatees.
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.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff
will be available to assist displacees with information such as
availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale
or rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation
Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will
force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost
or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of
ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent
Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
21
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted
in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and
the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through
133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do
business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard
to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will
schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets
decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at
least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property.
Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not
generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial
facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be
within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced
will receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as
(1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement
housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing
owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation
officer will also supply information concerning other state or
federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will
provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate
the displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired
for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners,
NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for
replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any
increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement
to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased
interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed
$22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing
provision.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by
the NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless
and until comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided
for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as
22
income for the purposes of the Internal
the purposes of determining eligibility
of any person for assistance under the
other federal law.
Revenue Code of 1954 or for
or the extent of eligibility
Social Security Act or any
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable
replacement housing is not available, or when it is unavailable
within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment
exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by
the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can
be provided.
C. Cultural Resources
1. Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented
by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section
106 requires that if a federally-funded, licensed, or permitted
project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation will be given an opportunity to comment.
Photographs, maps, and information about the area of potential
effect (APE) were provided by NCDOT and reviewed with the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The site was surveyed on
July 2, 1992 by an NCDOT staff architectural historian, and no
structures were found to be over fifty years old.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for
the National Register in the APE, no further compliance with Section
106 is required. SHPO will be afforded the opportunity to comment
through the document review process.
2. Archaeological Resources
The Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has
reviewed the proposed project regarding the identification of
archaeological sites. The SHPO stated in a letter (See page A-18)
dated August 26, 1992: "Given the extent of development, prior
construction activities, and the nature of topography within areas
adjacent to the existing right-of-way, we consider the proposed
project unlikely to affect archaeological resources that might be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
We, therefore, recommend no further archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project."
No further archaeological investigations were conducted by
NCDOT.
23
D. Environmental Effects
1. Biological Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
Disturbed/Roadside, Pine Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory
Forest, and Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest are the
terrestrial communities found in the project area. The
following is a discussion of each of these communities.
Disturbed/Roadside
This community includes roadsides, medians, deforested
zones, agricultural fields, lawns, etc. Man maintains this
community through various mechanical and chemical methods
including fire, tilling, mowing, timbering, and herbicide usage.
Portions of this community form a buffer zone between I-85 and
other associated plant communities. Early successional plants
such as tall fescue (Festuca sp.), sericea (Les edeza cuneata),
pokeweed (Ph totolac?ca amer ana), woolly mullein Ver ascum
thapsus), b al ckberry (Ru u-), winged sumac (Rhus co aT na),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lon Gera Japonica), dog fennel Eu atorium
ca illifolium), goldenrod Soli a,o_ sp.) and other mem ers o
the Asteraceae family flourish in these disturbed areas. Tree
species such as tulip tree (Liriodendron tuli ifera), sweetgum
(Liquidambar stryraciflua), w5nge e m Ulmus a ata , red cedar
(June erus vier iniana and scrub pine Pinus vir iniana) are
also found along roadsides and in abandons -fie sites. The
plants found in this community produce fruits and seeds which
many animals depend on for survival.
The vegetation of these disturbed areas attracts
invertebrates (primarily insects) which in turn serve as a food
source for amphibians and other vertebrate species. Amphibian
species likely to be associated with this area include slimy
salamander (Plethodon lutinosus), American toad (Bufo
americanus), Fow e s toad Bu o woodhousei), and gray treefrogs
(Hy la crysoscelis, H. versico or).
Reptiles likely to occur in the area include eastern box
turtle (Terra ene carolina), eastern fence lizard (Scelo orus
undulatus five-line' skink (Eumeces fasciatus), rat snake
E ape obsoleta), rough green sna e 0 eo r s aestivus),
eastern garter snake (Thamno his sirta is , an coppere-ad
(A kistrodon contortrix . These species -live and forage on a
variety • organirsms from grasshoppers and crickets to birds and
small mammals.
24
Common birds in the vicinity of the project include
opportunistic species such as turkey vulture (Cathartes aura),
red-tailed hawk (Buteo 'amaicensis), American crow Corv us
brach rh nchosanT-M ue jay Cyanocitta cristata). Mouring
dove Zenaida macroura), tufted titmouse Parus bicolor),
Carolina wren T rot orus ludovicianus), Caro ina__c_Ficcfadee
(Parus carolinensis , northern car ina (Cardinalis cardinalis),
an house finch Car odacus mexicanus) a ss o can beound-
utilizing this habitat or rev ing an foraging.
Virginia opossum (Di?delphis vir iniana) and raccoon
(Procyon lotor) are common along rod shoulders and ditches and
search among trash for food. Eastern cottontail (S lvila us
floridanus), hispid cotton rat (Si modon His idus , an
w ite-tai ed deer (Odocoileus vir inianus commonly use these
areas for foraging as well as for en an bedding locations.
Pine Forest
This community was most likely disturbed at one point in
time and is a transitional stage between shrub communities and
mixed forest communities. Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata),
loblolly pine (P. taeda), scrub pine, and r-e-d cedar with a
scattering of bT_a_ckJ cFoak ( uercus marilandica) and willow oak
hellos) make up the broken canopy while poison ivy, grape,
Japanese oneysuckle and sericea are present in the vine/herb
layer.
Gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) and brown-headed
nuthatches (Sitta usiTT_T requent this community primarily to
forage on pine seeds. Other vertebrate species previously
discussed are also found in the pine forest community.
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
This community grows on a variety of upland soils and is
generally found on slopes leading to stream and creek bottoms
and is an ecotone between the pine forest communities and
hardwood/bottomland forest communities. Hydrology of the area
is terrestrial. A variety of animal species discussed earlier
utilize this habitat.
The canopy is open and composed of red oak (Quer?cus rubra),
white oak ( .. alba), black oak (Q. velutina), hickory (Carya
spp.), shortie f pine, loblolly pine, scrub pine, sourwood
(Ox dendru_m arboreum), tulip tree, sweet gum and winged elm.
Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), sassafras (Sassafras
albidum), and red cedar are common subcanopy species. T e
vine erb layer is dominated by Japanese honeysuckle and club
moss (Lycopodium sp.) which grow on pine needle and leaf litter.
25
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
This climax community is found on alluvial soils along
stream and creek floodplains. Hydrology of this area is
palustrine (seasonally or intermittently flooded).
Animals previously mentioned forage in this location as
well as use it as a travel corridor between foraging locations
and bedding areas. Additional animals found in this community
include: red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber), northern cricket
frog (Acris cre itans), eastern cingsnake (Lam ro eltis
etulus, nort ern flicker (Colaptes auratus), downy woodpecker
Picot es ubescens), prothonotary wanb7er (Protonotaria
citr oven it Seiurus aurocapillus), and beaver Castor
cana ensis).
The canopy is open and composed of shagbark hickory (Carya
ovata) black walnut (Ju la?ns _i? aa) American beech (Fagus
?ifolia), red oak, black oak, white oak, swamp chestnut oak
(. mic auxii), willow oak, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
river irc Betula ni r?a), tulip tree, w ni ged elm, American
elm, red maple, box elder, silver maple (Acer saccharinum),
sweetgum, redbud (Cercis canadensis), flowering dogwood, red
cedar, and wild cherry Prunus serotina). Japanese honeysuckle,
grape, poison ivy, trumpet creeper-, cross vine (Anisostichus
cca reolata), heartleaf (Hexast llis sp.), false so oman s seal
(Smilacina racemosa) and strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus)
make up t e vine erb layer.
Destruction of terrestrial communities along the project
alignment will result in the loss of foraging and breeding
habitats for many of the terrestrial species which utilize this
area. Approximately 330.5 acres of the disturbed/roadside
community will be impacted by construction, while new
disturbed/roadside habitat will be created along new road
shoulders and interchange areas. Piedmont/low mountain alluvial
forest impacts total approximately 133.2 acres, while dry-mesic
oak-hickory forest and pine forest communities will loose 56.4
acres and 27.5 acres, respectively. Loss of these habitats will
result in a reduction and displacement of species found in the
subject project study zone. However, opportunistic species
capable of surviving in a variety of habitats will thrive in
disturbed areas. Table 4 on page 26 lists the anticipated
impacts in acres to terrestrial communities in the subject
project area.
b. Aquatic Communities
Town Creek and its unnamed tributaries (some intermittent)
are the only water resources found in the project area.
Locations of these aquatic communities follow in Table 5 on
Page 26.
26
Town Creek supports amphibian and reptile species such as
the bull frog (Rana catesbeiana) and snapping turtle (Chel drara
serna) whiEF7ee around this creek. Fish species such as
?longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), gizzard shad (Dorosama
ce edianum), common carp ( us car io), bluehead cfiu_b
Nocomis le toce halus suckermouth re orse (Moxostoma
a i osum , channel catfish (Ictalurus uncta?tus , eastern
mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki green sunfish (Le omis
c any ellus), bluegi Lepoimsmacrochirus), largemout ass
(Micro terus salmoides), and-white crappie (Pomoxis annularis)
are also likely in ha itants of Town Creek.
Table 4 Anticipated Impacts to
Terrestrial Communities
Communities Acres
Disturbed/Roadside 330.5
Pine Forest 27.5
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 56.4
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 133.2
Total
"*" Note: Values shown are based upon an average 500 feet of
right-of-way. Actual impacts will be less. In most locations the
proposed improvements can be contained within 360' of right of way.
Table 5 Approximate Locations of Creeks and Streams Crossing
the Project Alignment
Creek or Stream Location
1. Town CreecT-Tri u?tary 0.2 mi. north o SR 1505
2. Unnamed Tributary # 1 0.25 mi. south of Webb Rd.
3. Unnamed Tri. # 2 0.25 mi. north of Webb Rd.
4. Unnamed Tri. # 3 0.5 mi. north of Webb Rd.
5. Unnamed Tri. # 4 0.3 mi. north of Peeler Rd.
6. Unnamed Tri. # 5 0.5 mi. south of Julian Rd.
7. Unnamed Tri. # 6 0.3 mi. south of Julian Rd.
8. Unnamed Tri. # 7 0.3 mi. north of Julian Rd.
9. Unnamed Tri. # 8 0.3 mi. north of Jake Alex. Blvd.
10. Unnamed Tri. # 9 0.5 mi. north of Jake Alex. Blvd.
11. Unnamed Tri. # 10 0.25 mi. north of Old Concord Rd
12. Unnamed Tri. # 11 0.25 mi. north of US 52
13. Unnamed Tri. # 12 0.25 mi. south of B. Ferry Road
14. Unnamed Tri. # 13 0.25 mi. north of B. Ferry Road
15. Unnamed Tri. # 14 0.7 mi. north of B. Ferry Road
16. Unnamed Tri. # 15 0.25 mi. south of Correl St.
17. Unnamed Tri. # 16 0.1 mi. south of Correl St.
18. Unnamed Tri. # 17 0.25 mi. north of Correl St.
19. Town Creek T ributary 0.1 mi. north of Andrew St.
27
The erosion and surface runoff associated with the proposed
action could have severe effects on the Town Creek system.
Increased sediment loads can cause mortality among less hardy
organisms and their progeny due to associated factors such as
toxic run-off, increased turbidity, reduction of dissolved
oxygen content, smothering of fish eggs, clogging of gills and
filter feeding organs. Sedimentation into Town Creek can be
harmful to local populations of invertebrates which are
important parts of the aquatic food chain.
Sedimentation control measures and best management
practices (BMPs) will be strictly enforced in order to minimize
impacts to this system. Construction operations will be
carefully planned to minimize disturbance of existing stream
banks at all crossings. Any excavated material will be removed
from the vicinity of creek crossings to prevent it from eroding
back into the water. All runoff crossing the construction area
will be directed to temporary silt basins via lateral ditches,
while rock check dams will be used to slow and filter the runoff
prior to discharging into the creek. Fill slopes will be
stabilized with seeding, while temporary silt ditches and silt
fence will be provided at the toe of the fill. Berms along the
top of the fill slope will be used to convey runoff laterally to
temporary slope drains which empty into temporary sediment
basins. Special attention will be given to proper installation
and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control
devices.
C. Protected Species
1. Federally-Protected Species
Federal law states that any action, which has the
potential to result in a negative impact to
federally-protected plants or animals, is subject to review
by the USFWS (and/or the National Marine Fisheries
Service), under one or more provisions of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. The USFWS and other
wildlife resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction over
protected species in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act of 1979. Certain plants and animals, which
are endemic to North Carolina and/or whose populations are
in severe decline, are also protected by North Carolina
law.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE)
and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended.
28
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one
federally protected species, Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii), for Rowan County as of
September, 1993. This r izomatous perennial herb grows 1
to 2 meters tall from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous
roots. The stems are usually solitary, branching only at
or above mid-stem, with the branches held in
candelabrum-style arches. The narrowly lanceolate opposite
leaves are scabrous above, resin-dotted and loosely
soft-white-hairy beneath and entire (or occasionally with a
few small teeth). The leaves are approximately 18 cm long
and 2.5 cm wide. Yellow flowers approximately 5.5 cm in
diameter can be witnessed from September to October. Stems
are often deep red in color, and the fruit of this species
is a smooth, dark gray-brown achene about 5 mm long.
This plant is endemic to the piedmont of the
Carolinas, occurring in clearings and edges of upland woods
on moist to dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams
that often have a high gravel content and are moderately
podzolized. Habitat for this species exists in the study
area. Verification of the presence of this species is
possible only between September and October when flowering
takes place. However surveys for Helianthus species in
general can be conducted prior to September and October. A
plant-by-plant survey was conducted by a NCDOT staff
biologist on September 30 and October 1, 1992, to determine
if any Helianthus species were present along the roadsides
associated-the project ROW. No Helianthus species
were found along the project limits; t erore, it can be
concluded that the subject project will not impact
Helianthus schweinitzii.
Table 6 on page 29 lists the Candidate species which
may occur in Rowan County. These species are not legally
protected 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. Though suitable habitat is present in the
project area, no surveys were conducted for these species.
2. State-Protected Species
Species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special
Concern are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species of Special
Concern Act (1987) and the North Carolina Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
records were searched to determine if any state-protected
species were located in the subject project vicinity. There
are no records of state-protected species in the project
area.
29
Table 6 Federal Candidate Species Listed for
Rowan County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
Aster geoor ianus Georgia aster C2 Yes
Lotus eh lleri Heller's trefoil C2 Yes
"C2" candidate species presently under review for federal listing for
which information indicates that listing as Endangered or Threatened
is possibly appropriate, but for which adequate data on biological
vulnerability and threat(s) are not currently known or on file to
support propose rules.
2. Water Resources
Town Creek and its unnamed tributaries are part of the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. Town Creek is approximately 30 feet wide
with depth ranging from 1 to 4 feet, while creek flow is from west to
east. Substrate is composed of silt, sand and gravel. Eighteen
tributaries of this creek flow east to west through the project study
area (See Table 5). These tributaries range in width from 1 to 3
feet and depth is usually less than 1 foot.
Town Creek and its unnamed tributaries have a best usage
classification of C. Any stream which is not named in the schedule
of stream classifications carries the same classification as that
assigned to the stream segment to which it is a tributary. Class C
waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-11 will be
impacted by the proposed project, nor are these resources located
within 1 mile of the subject area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses
long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates. These organisms
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. Good water
quality is associated with high taxa richness (the number of
different types of organisms) and the presence of many species
intolerant to pollutants and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Water
quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species
and leads to a community structure quite different from that in an
unstressed stream. BMAN information is not available for the
immediate project area.
30
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
lists one discharger (Town of Salisbury) for Town Creek (a tributary
of Crane Creek). The Town Creek discharger is located upstream of
the study area.
Potential impacts to Town Creek include increased sedimentation
from construction-related erosion. This impact is viewed as
temporary; however, poorly managed application of sedimentation
control policies can result in serious damage to the aquatic
environment. Increased sediment loads can cause mortality among less
hardy organisms and their progeny due to associated factors such as
toxic run-off, increased turbidity, reduction of dissolved oxygen
content, smothering of fish eggs, and clogging of gills and filter
feeding organs. Sedimentation and erosion control measures will be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of this project in
order to minimize impacts to water quality.
3. Jurisdictional Wetlands
The majority of impacts to "Waters of the United States", as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 in accordance with provisions of section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), will be in the form of
Surface Water Impacts. All creek or stream crossings are anticipated
to be Surface Water Impacts and are under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Creek and stream crossings are
listed in Table 5 on Page 29. In addition to Surface Water Impacts,
one wetland area located north of SR 1505 along the west side of I-85
will be impacted. This wetland measures approximately 1500 square
feet. Surface Water and wetland impacts are likely to be authorized
by provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14. This permit authorizes fills
for roads crossing waters of the United States provided:
a. The width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary
for the actual crossing;
b. The fill placed in waters of the United States is limited
to a filled area of no more than 1/3 acre. Furthermore, no
more than a total of 200 linear feet of the fill for the
roadway can occur in special aquatic sites, including
wetlands;
C. The crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to
prevent the restriction of, and to withstand, expected high
flows and tidal flows, and to prevent the restriction of
low flows and the movement of aquatic organisms;
d. The crossing, including all attending features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete
project.
31
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state
issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted
or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of
the United States. A Section 401 water quality certification will be
required from the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources prior to issuance of the Federal Section 404 permit.
Projects authorized under General Nationwide Permits usually do
not require mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement
between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the
Army. However, the Corps of Engineers retains the authority to
require mitigation if project construction results in more than
minimal adverse environmental effects.
4. Soils
A current Rowan County Soils Survey is in the process of being
completed. Information will be made available as soon as the Soil
Conservation Service (Rowan County Office) forwards the project site
maps.
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Rowan County and the City of Salisbury are participating in the
National Flood Insurance Regular Program. Flood Insurance Rate Maps
for Rowan County and for the City of Salisbury which show the
100-year Floodplain limits, are included in the Appendix of this
report (See pages A-26 through A-31).
Outside the Salisbury corporate limits, the floodplain areas are
primarily undeveloped and wooded, with future development planned.
Within the Salisbury corporate limits, there is considerable
residential and commercial development in and adjacent to the
floodplain; however, such development is carefully controlled by the
city's floodway administrator to ensure compliance with Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations. The proposed
improvements can be carried out in such a way as to not significantly
impact the existing floodplain. Floodway impacts will be assessed in
detail during final hydraulic design. If floodway revisions are
required, NCDOT will coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency and local authorities for approval.
6. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies
or their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition
and construction projects on prime and important farmland soils.
These soils are designated by the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
The SCS was asked to determine whether the proposed widening project
will impact farmland soils. The SCS responded that although a modern
soil survey for the county is underway, no mapping for the project
corridor is available at this time. Therefore, the Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating cannot be completed and the project's
potential impact to farmland cannot be determined. Further
consideration of farmland impacts is not required.
32
7. Traffic Noise
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed project on noise levels in the immediate project area. This
investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land
uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise
levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise
impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic
noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the
abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing
as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If
traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the
noise impacts must be considered.
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted
from many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power
generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic
noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency range
to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound
levels measured using A-weighting are often expressed as dBA.
Throughout this report, references will be made to dBA, which means
an A-weighted decibel level. Several examples of noise pressure
levels in dBA are listed in Table 7 on page 33.
Review of Table 7 indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as
they go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or
annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things.
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise.
3) The type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important
to note that individuals have different hearing sensitivity to noise.
Loud noises bother some more than others and some individuals become
angered if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of noise
33
TABLE 7
HEARING: aDUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUNAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

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

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

90
D Diesel truck 40 mph SO ft. away
E s0 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuss cleaner
I Passenger car SO sph SO ft. away MODERATELY LOUD

H TO
E Quiet typswriter
L 60 Singing birds, winpow ter-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

SO
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average haw
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper S feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRTwa^Tn OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 I THRESHOLD FOR ACITL'E BEAR=(;
Sources: world Book, Raad-ticlfally Atlas of-the. Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, -Industrial Noise and Bearing
Conversation- by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Barford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heins.)
34
also enter into an individuals judgement of whether or not a noise is
objectionable. For example, noises occurring during sleeping hours
are usually considered to be much more objectionable than the same
noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise
from other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at
night when background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would
generally be much more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn
in the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with
activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal
conversation would be possible while sleep might be difficult. Work
activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted
by loud noises while activities requiring manual effort may not be
interrupted to the same degree.
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises
which intrude into their lives, particularly if the noises occur at
predicted intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to
regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noises,
factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In
relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control
have developed rapidly over the past few years.
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement
criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned federal
reference (23 CFR, Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement
criteria for various land uses is presented in Table 8 on page 35.
The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound
which in a given situation and time period has the same energy as
does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound
levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise
level with the same energy content.
Ambient noise measurements were taken along the project at
representative locations using a GenRad 1988 Precision Integrating
Sound-Level Meter and Analyzer. The noise levels were recorded for a
20-minute interval during anticipated peak noise periods. Traffic
counts were also taken at these measurement sites during the sampling
periods. The existing Leq noise levels were taken along 1-85
approximately 1600 feet north of Webb Road (SR 1500) and 1600 feet
north of Bringle Ferry Road (SR 1002). The ambient measurement at
the first site (81.2 dBA) was taken 25 feet from the center-line of
the near lane of I-85 and the ambient measurement at the second site
(79.2 dBA) was taken 50 feet from the center-line of the near lane of
1-85.
35
TABLE 8 _
NOISE ABATiIOHT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (MA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of these qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
H 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or H above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotals,, public meeting roams, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditosines.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFA) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
r
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 Cuidelices.
36
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 level at site 1 was 2.9 dBA
higher than the measured value and at site 2 it was 1.8 dBA higher
than the measured value. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed
to "bunching" of vehicles and actual vehicle speeds versus the
computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated
procedure. In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars driving at
different speeds through a continual changing highway configuration
and surrounding terrain. Obviously, to assess the problem certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and
OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction)
procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their
speeds, the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills,
depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if
applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top
elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The proposed
roadway cross-section will consist of eight 12-foot lanes with a
46-foot median throughout the project except a section between Julian
Road and Bringle Ferry Road where eight 12-foot lanes and a 22-foot
median will be utilized. Only those existing natural or man-made
barriers were included. The roadway sections were assumed to be flat,
thus, this analysis represents "worst-case" topographic condition.
The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise
predictions for the traffic conditions during the Design Year of
2017.
Peak hour design and Level-of-Service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were
used with proposed posted speed limits. Thus, during all other time
periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in
this report.
First, the computerized model was utilized to enable the
determination of the number of land uses (by type) which, during the
peak hour in the design year 2017, would be exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and those
land uses predicted to expect a substantial noise increase. The
basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 25, 50, 100,
200, 400, 800, and 1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane
(adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The location of these
37
receptors was determined by the change in projected traffic volumes
along the proposed project. The result of this procedure was a grid
of receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise levels
were calculated for 170 identified receptors. In six areas where
there were a larger concentration of receptors, a more detailed
coordinate system was utilized to more accurately determine future
noise levels.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Table N-3. This table is included in the appendix of this
report (See pages A-45 to A-50). Information included in this table
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.
The number of impacted receptors in each activity category are
given in Table 9 located on page 38. There 27 businesses and 108
residences predicted to be impacted by approaching or exceeding the
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria. Other information included in Table 9
is the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours.
This information should assist local authorities in exercising land
use control to prevent further development of incompatible activities
and land uses within local jurisdiction.
Table 10 located on page 39 indicates no receptors will
experience a substantial increase in their exterior noise levels.
Also, the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified
receptors range from +2 to +9 dBA. Increases of this magnitude are
common with widening projects because the widening often moves the
center of the near lane closer to the receptors. When real-life
noises are heard, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes
of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA
change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the
loudness of the sound.
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 8 value),
or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT
definition of substantial increase is also shown in Table 8.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category.
Alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical
orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize
impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise
abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts
and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise
abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of
siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive
areas. In regard to this project, the horizontal alignment has been
adjusted to minimize environmental impacts and construction costs.
38
TABLE 9
TOM N0I3Z ABATDMW CRITIIIIA SUMMAR7
I-65 From Us 29-601 to North of SR 2120, Rowan County
Stag Project # 6.1631302, TIP 8 I-2511
Description
1. US 29-601 to SR 2428 (Julian Road)
2. SR 2428 (Julian Road) to US 52
3. US 52 to SR 1002 (Rringle Terry Rd)
4. SR 1002 to North of SR 2120
Maximum Predicted Contour
Laq Noise Levels Distances
dSA (Max imum)
50' 100' 200' 72 d8A 67 dSA

88 81 76 346' 511'
85 61 75 331' 496'
84 80 75 316' 476'
85 81 25 334' 494'

NOTES - 1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from canter of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dSA and 67 d8A contour distances are measured from center of Proposed roadway.
Appr=4-ts, Number of Impacted
Receptora Accordinq to
Title 23 CPR Part 772
A 8 C D E
0 27 7 0 0
0 44 15 0 1
0 25 2 0 0
0 12 3 0 0
0 108 27 0 1
39
TABLE 10
TAAMC NOISE LEVEL IIICREASE SWA8W W
I-85 From us 29-601 to Worth of SR 2120, Iowan County
State Project 0 8.1631502, TIP / 1-2511
RECEpRnR EXTERIOR NOISE LIM INCREASES substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
section <-0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 increasse(1) Critaria(2)

1. U3 29-601 to SR 2528 0 2 34 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. SR 2528 to US 52 0 12 58 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. Us 52 to SR 1002 0 12 18 0 0 0 0 0 0
4. SR 1002 to 0. of 3R 2120 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0
}
r
TOTALS 0 26 126 0 0 0 0 0 0
(1) An defined by only a substantial Increase (see bottom of Table 92).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
40
Traffic system management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project, traffic management measures
are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their
effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can
often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid
mass attenuable measures may include earthen berms or artificial
abatement walls. However, these mitigating measures may not be
feasible or reasonable in all cases, particularly for receptors with
frontage along primary or secondary roads which cross the proposed
project. Reduction of traffic noise from the proposed roadway may not
necessarily lower the noise levels at these receptors to within the
recommended noise abatement criteria and/or below a substantial noise
level increase.
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 feet from the barrier
would normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of
40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to
approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-1976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section
3.2, page 5-27).
Based on past project experience, isolated receptors and/or
scattered receptors generally require noise barriers which are too
costly because of the length and height required for a reasonable
noise level reduction. For this reason, no isolated receptors or
areas where there are scattered receptors were analyzed in detail for
this report.
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
their case.
All impacted receptors were considered for noise mitigation.
The evaluation was accomplished in two steps. First, a qualitative
barrier evaluation was performed for each impacted receptor which
41
considered each receptor's FHWA NAC activity category,
source-receptor relationships, impacted site densities, and the
ability to have continuous barriers. For many impacted receptors,
noise mitigation measures were deemed not feasible, reasonable or
cost effective due to the aforementioned discussion concerning noise
abatement. However, the qualitative evaluation resulted in six
potential barrier locations.
The second step of the barrier evaluation involved the computer
modeling of noise barriers at these six potential locations using the
FHWA's noise barrier simulation model OPTIMA. The analysis was
accomplished by developing barriers which would meet minimum noise
reduction goals at the impacted sites. The cost of the barrier and
the cost per benefitted receptor were then calculated. Table 11 on
page 42 contains the results of the abatement analysis for each
potential barrier site. NCDOT defines a benefitted receptor as any
receptor, impacted or non-impacted, receiving a minimum noise level
reduction of 4 dBA with the placement of a noise mitigation measure.
Except for potential barrier location 4, all noise barriers were
determined to be unreasonable at this time due to the cost of the
noise reduction benefits versus the cost of the abatement measures.
A barrier is considered reasonable if its cost to benefit ratio is
below $ 25,000. Based on the studies completed to date, NCDOT is
likely to install noise abatement measures in the form of a barrier
along I-85 located approximately 1100 feet north of SR 1002 (Old
Concord Road). These preliminary indications are based upon
preliminary design for a barrier varying in height from 17 to 19 feet
and 900 feet long at an approximate cost $220,000.00. This wall will
reduce the noise levels by 4 to 9 dBA for 12 residences (R87-105) in
the Village Concord Mobile Home Park. If during final design these
conditions substantially change, the abatement measures will be
reevaluated. A final decision on the installation of abatement
measures will be made upon completion of the project design and the
public involvement process.
The traffic noise impacts for the "Do Nothing" or "No Build"
Alternative were also considered. If I-85 were not widened and were
to remain a 4-lane divided highway, 113 residences and 20 businesses
in the immediate project area would experience traffic noise impacts
within the next twenty years. However, no receptors will be impacted
by a substantial increase since noise level increases would be in the
2 to 4 dBA range. As previously stated, this small increase would be
a barely perceptible change to individuals living and working in the
area.
The major construction elements of this project are expected to
be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction
noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by
and those individuals living or working near the project, can be
expected, particularly from paving operations and grading equipment.
42
TABLE 11
NOISE MRIER SOMmy
I-85, OB 29-601 Co SOrth of SR 2120, RO-a County.,
PXOJ-t i 8.1531502, TIP t I-2511

BARRIER RECEPTORS AVER=
REDUCTION BENSFIT3gp BAR=TER
RECEPTORS LENOIR
(PT)
WALL
BEIOTE (!T)
APPS
WALL COST
COST/BENSp'IT?,r0
RECEPTOR
1 1-4 8.3 3
681
13-16
; 125,500

i 41,833
2 7-11 3.3 3
800
16-22
i 204,700

i 68,233
3 68-80 8.4 g
1,404
16-19
S 321,800

S 35,755
4 87-103 6,4 '
12). 900
17-19
S 220,000

i 18,333
5 108-113 6,2 6
1,400
13-19
; 322,900

S 53,817
6 124-146 6.6 20
` 3,573
16-19
; 901,800

i 45,090
43
However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction
noise and that construction is generally restricted to daytime hours,
these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission
loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made
structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
Along this project, many of the 170 identified receptors already
approach or exceed the FHWA Noise abatement Criteria. No receptors
were found to be impacted by a substantial increase in future
exterior noise levels (See Table 10). However, 108 residences and 27
businesses are predicted to approach or exceed the FHWA Noise
Abatement Criteria in the Design Year of 2017.
All impacted receptors were considered for noise abatement.
However, only 1 potential area, a 900-foot section approximately 1100
feet north of Old Concorde Road, could be recommended for likely
noise abatement. Based on preliminary engineering, a vertical
concrete noise wall could provide necessary attenuation at a
reasonable cost for 12 receptors at an approximate cost of $220,000
or $18,333 per benefitted receptor.
During the design phase of this project, a design noise report
will be prepared in order to obtain a more detailed analysis of the
impacts and possible noise abatement measures. A final decision on
the installation of abatement measures will be made upon the
completion of the final design of the project and the public
involvement process.
8. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution is produced many different ways. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent
sources. Other origins of common outdoor air pollution are solid
waste disposal, forest fires and burning in general. The impact
resulting from the construction of a new highway or the improvement
of an existing highway can range from aggravating existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air conditions. Motor
vehicles are known to emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO ), and lead
(Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Autd'lnobiles 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.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor
near a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local concentration is based on CO emissions from
cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances
within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a
pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the
local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the
local sources."
44
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the
NCDOT Traffic Noise/Air Quality staff using line source computer
modeling, and the background concentration was obtained from the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration components were
resolved, they were added together to determine the ambient CO
concentration for the receptor in question and to compare to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form
ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and
NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new
cars. Hence, the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the
atmosphere should continue to decrease as a result of the
improvements on automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of
ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of
hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as
sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to
form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The
best example of this type of air pollution is the smog found in Los
Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions
and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from cars
are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the
project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular
gasoline. The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of
regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead. Tetraethyl lead is
added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. To
help eliminate lead emissions, newer cars have catalytic converters
and burn unleaded gasoline. Also, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead
content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of
gasoline in 1974 was two grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite
average had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon. In the future, lead
emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels
and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air
45
Act Amendments of 1990 make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded
gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because
of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed
project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting
Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the
project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and
worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes were based
on the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide
vehicle emission factors were calculated for the Completion Year of
1997 and the Design Year of 2017 using the EPA publication "Mobile
Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE4.1 mobile source emissions
computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor resulting from the widening
project was determined to be a residence (receptor #82). The
receptor is located on the east side of I-85, approximately 500 feet
north of SR-1002 (Old Concord Road). The "build" and "no-build"
one-hour CO concentrations for the above receptor for the years of
1997 and 2017 are shown in Table 12.
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. Refer to Tables Al, A2, A3, and A4 in the Appendix of this
report for examples of input and output data (See pages A-51 through
A-54).
TABLE 12 ONE HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS (PPM)
Nearest Build No-Build
Sensitive
Receptor 1997 2017 1997 2017
R-82 5.4 6.5 3.6 7.8
46
The project is located in the Metropolitan-Charlotte Interstate
Air Quality Control Region. The ambient air quality for Rowan County
has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an area where
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any
transportation control measures, the conformity procedures of the
Clean Air Act of 1990 as amended do not apply to this project.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations
will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by
the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Care will be taken to insure that burning will be done at the
greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during
construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents.
9. Stream Modification
Some minor stream rechannelization is anticipated. The existing
8' X 7' reinforced concrete box culvert located just south of Julian
Road (SR 2528) will be retained and extended. The extension will
require approximately 200' of channel realignment on the east side of
Interstate 85. The structure is located above headwaters.
10. Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks
The files of the Division of Solid Waste Management were
consulted to ascertain whether any unregulated dump sites or other
potentially contaminated properties exist within the proposed project
limits. Based on those records and the EPA's Superfund list, one
site, The Bendix Corporation, was identified within the project
limits. However, this site, which is located approximately 3000 feet
southwest of the I-85 and East Innis Street interchange, should not
create a hazardous materials involvement problem.
I-85 currently crosses the site of an abandoned city landfill,
located just north of Old Concord Road. Any construction in this area
will receive special consideration and subsurface investigations.
Based on a reconnaissance survey of the project area, fourteen
operational and four non-operational facilities with the potential
for underground storage tank (UST) involvement were identified. An
effort will be made to minimize impacts to all of those facilities.
If any of the UST facilities are to be impacted, those sites will be
further investigated for possible fuel leakage during the right of
way acquisition phase of the project.
47
11. Geodetic Survey Markers
Twenty-two geodetic survey markers will be impacted. The N. C.
Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
12. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction
activities, the following measures, along with those already
mentioned, will be enforced during the construction phase:
a. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of
the right-of-way and provided by the contractor, unless
otherwise required by the plans or Special Provisions or
unless disposal within the right-of-way is permitted by the
Engineer.
b. During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other
operations will be removed from the project, burned, or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina 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.
C. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent
endangering the safety and general welfare of the public
and to prevent diminishing the value, utility, or
appearance of any public or private properties.
d. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the
contractor before work is started. The schedule will show
the time relationship between phases of the work which must
be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule, the
contractor will be required to follow those provisions of
the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
siltation. These contract provisions are in accordance
with the strict erosion control measures as outlined in the
Department of Transportation's FHPM 6-7-3-1. Temporary
erosion control measures such as the use of berms, dikes,
dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
e. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as
possible to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
f. An extensive rodent control program will be established if
structures are to be removed or demolished.
48
g. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
h. The construction of the project may cause some disruptions
in service to the utilities serving the area. Before
construction is started, a preconstruction conference
involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and
the Division of Highways will be held to discuss various
construction procedures, including a discussion of
precautionary steps to be taken during the time of
construction that will minimize interruption of water
service.
i. Prior to construction, a determination will be made
regarding the need to relocate or adjust any existing
utilities in the project area. A determination of whether
the NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible for this
work will be made at the time.
j. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for
use on this project, the contractor shall obtain a
certification from the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of material from the
borrow source will have no effect on any known district,
site, building, structure, or object that is included or
eligible for inclusion in 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.
k. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be
subjected to brief disruption during construction of the
project. Every effort will be made to insure that the
transportation needs of the public will be met both during
and after construction.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
The project has been coordinated with the appropriate federal, state,
and local agencies. Comments were received from the following agencies:
U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
City of Salisbury
Copies of the comments received are included in the appendix (See
pages A-1 through A-25).
49
B. Informational Worksho
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held at the Rowan County
Community Building in Salisbury on November 17, 1992. Approximately 20
people attended the workshop. A press release advertising the workshop is
included in the appendix (page A-44).
An aerial mosaic showing a 500-foot corridor and interchange study
areas was presented. Each attendee was given the opportunity to review
the mosaic and ask questions and make comments. In addition, handouts
were available to all workshop attendees. Each handout contained a
comment sheet which could be completed and submitted to the Division of
Highways. A copy of the workshop handout is included in the appendix
(page A-55). The handout and aerial mosaic displayed at the workshop
described the proposed improvements as widening Interstate 85 to a
six-lane facility with a 46- to 70-foot median. No specific interchange
improvements were presented due to the preliminary nature of the design at
that time. No right of way limits were presented, only a study corridor,
which more than adequately covered the proposed right of way limits.
Comments received were considered during subsequent planning and design
activities.
The majority of those attending the workshop were residents of the
Oakland Heights Neighborhood, located adjacent to I-85 between US 52 and
Bringle Ferry Road. Those residents were upset by recent NCDOT improvement
projects that have limited access to the neighborhood. They were also
concerned the improvements associated with this project would further
compromise access to the neighborhood, and opposed any changes that would
do so.
Currently, residents of Oakland Heights have direct access to the
northbound entrance ramp of I-85 at US 52. For safety reasons, this access
will be eliminated under the proposed improvements. In addition, Mack
Street which currently intersects Bringle Ferry Road near the interstate
bridge will be terminated in a cul-de-sac near the intersection. The
elimination of this intersection is necessary due to the poor sight
distance at this location. However, attempts have been made during the
early planning and design phases of the project to improve access to the
neighborhood. Skyline Drive will be extended to connect to Council Road,
while Council Road will be connected directly to US 52 by the extension of
Bendix Drive, providing better access to US 52. Also, Pinewood Avenue
will be extended east in order to tie into Newsome Road, while Newsome
Road will be extended in order to connect to US 52, again providing better
access to US 52 for neighborhood residences.
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following the completion of this report
to provide more detailed information on the proposed project to local
citizens and to receive additional comments on the project.
SEM/plr
ROWAN COUNTY
y°dM?
Cooleer
,ille Woodleel
•? level drhf
t
Woe'
i
_ Bev Po01 WI Sa
d• m ui c
e e Bier
r R O5
We Crr
IS
Mlle S
e andi
?'•h`ille? '? ?

0i

: 4
v , J f

j
t ?
-
1

a?'
i

^
+ 40 E 1 1 ,

••?? ?? ?'

1
f 1• 1

m

r ?II

i

?j? yyy
???•lrti, 1 ? y..F ? iii,.. ,y?? y?J ? .
y ' ,? •? ? f:?.U

1 s

`

.x n3

?
Y Y
1

?
J1 •

? .? -
?
'. •
• y +?. .w
000
CL 0. Ck.
« y 000
cc cc CC

s
y
„ +t i '

01

4f' ,
'r fffF '

r.
? ? .
' ? ? ` ' ?.? -
fi
?, ' • , _

1Y `

?
? , ! t ?
•e ?' _ ? ? ? i ., a
7 _

II
i .

R

r r
yr
?

t J ,

r r r` ,.
?
I r r ? I
1 r 1

1 1 r

a d • ?
j . ? ?'. 1 ? ? ?, :? 'may •

40

1 ?
t 8,11
r 9

VFW

1

? r urn { 1':
1 1
• ?
? .
c r
.
? { ? r 1
r ? .f K w * : ? ,,Ire,; .+"' .
.. r S .p _ o ftv
Y n
?' ! y
r
a r ?, ? ,

N
r
1
rl
re,
? t
Moll
? yl
-po
x
ooN? oa 1 ?'
?? Nx T__ 1 1 ? ,e

-54

y"O
d

s

1E?
•
y
r'? ?b;G`'- Y'j.
' ?! Y 1r?
a
?* ? ,}
t ?' ?
• t
ti r

} a
# ?

I

??
?
....
??? gam:. ,;
..• s•
.vh ??
..
.,?_
' "?
e-f :'F
. y ?«
¦ ?,,. -
"ar?4
!'•
f
W
H
0
J
Q
Q
U
O
1

Ol
m
W o
N d
N
'

ID O a
N
? m
Z
N
W

N ?l7
.iN
N

ZSl ON ;
F

l ?? Q
t
V
l7 ?
m r
f
?

N

U has)
7
° 1t
cr
_Z ?? L
CD
MW
W
\)
?
oosI US ?A iNN
,4 c v,

?0? .?N
C4 -C
r?Ln In

I

t CY
N
N
cn
c?
?f
NN
r?
T

y

N
f v
Lo

rccy

>4 /
N Nf -dN
\
??
O

?-i N
? ?^ l71 f0
BeSZ US ri0 N
. 4

Nf w
N
N
m{m
flV? N
f ?N

N N
? -
^
0

w
R

o ?
? 0 W

j, a c
a
r
O

cn \?

T- co
d
R
E
N
W
T--
0
CD
U)
in
co
tr)
co
Y

m
O
Y

A
uNi N
W

I
t Q.
?
a

°J
t?cvj O
T
z
N
W
2
!1?
N Y
1?, (-Via
mIr
;
sass as CA0 '-via
'A"

}
via v

Q
v1I ? .4N
N
OO
?
N

fl m

al
Q
N
f{ OO
O7V1 N
f QUO
mVl h
N
f f
I t
U)
N
N

R
rl cN
tJ
?
C
1J
?
V
W
pp??
OOI Ito
.-1 N 1Vl7
.-1 Off'
N
N T
T
easy as (?? f?a N ti o

COI Y
\\ ' r
O
N ¢

C
VA OD

0 1 •-IN

LO
CA o ? .
co _
co

N O?

ON f

1 1d

N

r
-1
Q
N Q
to d
R
1 t

a
?,n N
LJ.I

L
.-i N N J N -I N
LOOL as ??,. N Nr I ?? ?N X08 sn
9
r;A 1
It
f 1. t7
f N N
9

if)
N
Lf)
Ch
co
v
9 9
m m
In
1t
m
LO
U) p-
? ?p j + VI CD N
y /r/ 1\ fL
N
Colo P4 Ln
co
mm coo
ZS sn N -? ?` ?? co
?o
NI f0
N l!1 (? co
D
N
w Nt Imo
Z 'n
JJ
Y
N
?m ?O
l f?
kn
N
N f? N
a: ?i l7
N
N
OR
N
Q:
N
K
-Ilt vi m
ML as l U
r730
v
ft
1 9e
M W NY
Y V
OOZZ us
0
a
0
0
T
0
LU
J
0
>
a
v
t4
N

tm
R
?
0_
U
W

Y / > a CC
N
= T
o o
??
N c V
C7
C) LO
co LL
r I
V
d
R
E
LU
a
d d
It
N
W co
V) Q
C4 Ln f \ N N -W
NLn?? v?Nly
??4 f?IN `? 1D
N ".iN 1 ?
Utz us
col?
of /
r?
r-C .-I N
O
O
N
Nco WN
coVl co N
f7 f
?t
U
W
? N
x
a cn
o D
z in
W co
Y
r1
Nlv
N
cc
N
Q
2
0
co
Cl)
z
W
W
Q
0
I-
,4 r
c
a
0
0
T
Z
N
W
J
0
>
F--
O
Q

w
c

0
m

c
M
m
m
0-
U

U
T 41
Q c c 1=
N r
o o
/ rt

a) co
L.L

.Q
c
N
W
w
a
z
0
U
w
(n
O
U
0
rW
V
0
M
0
r
CL
z
a x
w a
N
N
Ci
io
T
ZD
T
T
W
60
co
a
T
0
Cl)
N
T
fV
T
NT
W
V
1.L
Z
Q
w
CV
N
0
z
O
J
Q
D
w
w
O
a
O
cr.
CL
cn
F4
m
w
Fd
cr_
a
CID
z
a
0
w
Q
M
APPENDIX
J. clv-
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
r, - WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890 f- I V
G
6; WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 4r/ O
IN REPLY REFER TO August 28, 1992
Planning Division AU
O
UV, t?
?? OH?GNW ?Yp?`???
RESE
• Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
This is in response-to your letter dated July 20, 1992, requesting
information to assist in evaluating potential environmental impacts of
"I-85, from US 29-601 to north of SR 2120; Rowan County; State Project
No. 8.1631502 (TIP No.'s I-2511BA and I-2511BB), Federal Aid Project
No. IR-85-3(131)69; and State Project No. 8.1631503 (TIP No.'s I-2511CA,
and I-2511CB), Federal Aid Project No. IR-85-3(132)74." The proposed
improvements consist of widening the existing 4-lane divided highway to
a 6-lane divided facility with bridge and culvert widening/extensions or
additions as required.
The I-85 widening would not cross any U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
constructed flood control or navigation projects.
The project is sited in Rowan County and the city of Salisbury. Both
governmental units participate in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The
I-85 widening has planned crossings, including longitudinal, of Town Creek
(Rowan County and Salisbury). This stream has been studied by detailed
methods with the 100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway
defined. The longitudinal crossing between East Innis Street and Bringle
Ferry Road may have significant impacts on the floodway and may require
mitigation measures to limit the upstream impact. The improvement's
hydraulic effects on the 100-year flood levels and the floodways should be
addressed in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The project
also has planned crossings of Concord Road Creek (Salisbury), Gravel Pit
Branch (Rowan County), Julian Creek (Rowan County), and Town Creek Tributary
(Rowan County) which have been studied by "modified detailed methods" with
the 100-year flood elevations determined, but a floodway was not defined.
The improvement's hydraulic effects on their 100-year flood levels should
be addressed in the draft EIS. For streams studied by "modified detailed
methods" and those other stream crossings, the roadway and drainage
A-1
-2-
structures widening and extensions or additions should be designed with
no more than a 1.0-foot surcharge above the 100-year flood. The final
project's hydraulic effect should be coordinated with Rowan County and
Salisbury for possible revisions to their flood insurance maps and report.
Executive Order 11988 should be reviewed and complied with.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or
any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed
improvements, including disposal of construction debris. On February 6,
1990, the Department of the Army and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to
determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the
Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Under this MOA, "first,
impacts to waters and wetlands should be avoided or minimized through
the selection of the least damaging, practical alternative; second,
taking appropriate and practical steps to minimize impacts on waters
and wetlands; and finally, compensating for any remaining unavoidable
impacts to the extent appropriate and practical." When final plans
for the widening of I-85 are complete, including the extent and
location of any work within waters of the United States and wetlands,
our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review those
plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the Army
permit requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Steve Lund of our Regulatory Branch, Asheville, North Carolina,
at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to provide information for this project.
If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sinq&el?,
Lawre ce W. Saunders
Chief, nning Division
BCF (w/cy of inc. corres.):
CESAW-PD-E/Long
CESAW-CO-E/Taylor
CESAW-CO-EA/Lund
A-2
Q PP??,: fNT OF TAM -
United States Department of the Interior AME
t P
fN O
7 b
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE , W¦
'1fgRCH 9 Raleigh Field Office ¦
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 1, 1992
2 1992
Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager p?? p
P l ann i
ng and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways f,
N.C. Department of Transportation Post Office Box 25201 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Subject: I-85, from US 29-601 to north of SR 2120; Rowan County; State
Project No. 8.1631502 (TIP #s I-2511BA and I-2511BB), Federal Aid
Project No. IR-85-3(131)69: and State Project No. 8.1631503 (TIP
#s I-2511CA and I-2511CB), Federal Aid Project No. IR-85-3(132)74
Dear Mr. Ward:
For your information, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is providing an
updated listing of Federally listed species for the subject project.
The attached page identifies the Federally listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing as endangered (PE) or
threatened (PT) which may occur in the area of influence of this action.
There is no Federally-listed critical habitat in the project impact area for
any of the above referenced species.
Your concern for endangered species is appreciated, and we look forward to
working with you on endangered species matters in the future.
Sincerely yours, .
Debbie Mignogno
Endangered Species Coordinator
Enclosures
A-3
REVISED JANUARY 1, 1992
Rowan County
Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate" (C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Georgia aster (Aster aeorgianus) - C2'
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) - C2*
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
A-4
nAr,
arC 3, 3 -
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Cam, ?, ? ! -+ ' ? 1 _•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett .__.,
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee V
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 93-0057 - Scoping - Widening of I-85,
From US 29-601 To North of SR 2120
DATE: August 24, 1992
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the Department of Transportation's scoping notice
regarding the proposed widening of I-85.
The attached comments reflect specific concerns of our
divisions that should be addressed and recognized in the proposed
environmental document. The Department of Transportation is
encouraged to notify our reviewing divisions with any problems or
• questions they may have in addressing these concerns.
Thank you for the opportunity to 'respond.
MM:bb
Attachments
cc: David Foster
A-5
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-765' Telephone [phone]
An Frn:al nnnnrwurv -Ihrma^?e Acr1nn -,,1-

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission -
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager 7- e /?
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 18, 1992
SUBJECT: Request for comments on the widening of I-85, from
US 29-601 to north of SR 2120; Rowan County, North
Carolina, TIP Numbers I-2511BA, I-2511BB, I-2511CA and
I-2511CB), State clearinghouse # 93-0057.
I.,
The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
completed a review of the proposed project scoping notice. Our
comments are provided in accordance with 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).
This project involves the widening of I-85 from the existing
4-lane facility to 6 lanes along the existing alignment. The 18
bridges along the projects' length will be widened and raised as
needed to provide proper clearance, and interchanges along the
route will be revised as needed to accommodate the widening.
Impacts to fisheries resources should- be minimal if erosion and
sedimentation control measures are maintained throughout-the life
of the project. Acreages of upland and/or wetland habitat
impacted should be listed by cover type, and the contribution of
this project to the cumulative loss of such habitats should be
assessed in the environmental document. Special attention should
be given to the environmental impacts from the revised
interchange locations and documentation of projected increases in
secondary development at these locations should be included.
Borrow or fill sites should-be included in determining habitat
impacts, where applicable.
The environmental document should also include complete
inventories of fisheries and wildlife resources within, adjacent
A-6
Memo Page 2 August 18, 1992
to, or using the construction corridor, including accurate data
on State and Federally listed rare, threatened, endangered, or
"special concern" species. Additional information on listed
species may be obtained from Randy Wilson, Nongame and Endangered
Species Program Manager, at [phone].
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input at the
planning stage of this project. If we can further assist your
office, please call David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator, at
[phone].
DLS/DLY/lp
cc: Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame and Endangered Species Program
Manager
David Yow, Habitat Conservation Highway Coordinator
rf r,
I
A-7
?n
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor August 14, 1992 A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Director
MEMORANDUM `A` ?, IAA' l6 Imo,/? r
To: Monica SwihartV?'' V V rL7
Through: John Dorne?\
From: Eric Galamb ?yY?-
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for EA/EIS/Scoping Documents
1 85 from US 29-601 to north of SR 2120
Rowan County .
State Project DOT No. 8.1631502, TIP #1-2511 BA and 1-25111313
EHNR # 93-0057, DEM WQ # 6433
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
the following topics be discussed in the EA/EIS/Scoping documents:
A. Will borrow or waste locations be in wetlands?
B. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The stream
classifications should be current.
C. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original
stream banks were vegetated, it requested that the channelized/relocated
stream banks be revegetated.
D. Number of stream crossings.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests that these catch
basins be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible
party for maintenance.
G. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salcm
704/251-6208 9 19/4 86-154 1 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919x395-3900 919/896.7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportuniv)k'kf rmative Acnon Employe-8
H. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating
jurisdictional wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) . Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Total wetland impacts.
vii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DEM.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this project.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Applications
requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 will require written
concurrence.
checklis.sco
cc: Eric Galamb
r
A-9
"STArt'
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Stanford M. Adams
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Garner Road
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
August 12, 1992
n c ? ,
C,
? , loo
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Environmental Assessment Unit
FROM: Don H. Robbins
Staff Forester
SUBJECT: DOT EA Scoping for Proposed Widening of I-85 from US 29-601 to North
of SR 2120 in Rowan County
PROJECT 419 3-005 7
DUE DATE 8-19-92
To better determine the impact, if any, to forestry in the area of the
proposed project, the Environmental Assessment should contain the following
information concerning the right-of-way purchases for the project:
1. The total forest land acreage that would be taken out of forest
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil
series, that would be involved within the proposed right-of-way.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed
project.
A-10
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
PROJECT #93-0057
Page 2
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any
merchantable timber that is to be removed. This practice is
encouraged to minimize the need for piling and burning during
construction. If any burning is needed, the contractor should
comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning.
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
forest land outside the right-of-way and construction limits. Trees
outside the construction limits should be protected from
construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a
practice that impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging
substances over the root systems of trees.
DHR:la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File
1392

A-11
Department of Environment, Health, a_;WNatural Resources I Reviewing Office:
C
C
C
C
C
C
L
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
L
All appltcatfons, Information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the Same
Regional Office. u.....,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. Ltt:L
Date:
D-005 After review of this project It has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals Indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Of REOWREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct 8 operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of

facilities, sewer system extensions, t sewer
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application 30 days
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual
(90 days)
NPDES - permit 10 discharge Into surface water and/or Application 100 days before begin activity. On-site inspection '
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities .
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to 90.120 days
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES '
Perm II-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(NIA)
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued 7 days
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application Conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Po
Permit to construct 3 operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emi
i
S 60 days
ss
on
ources as per 15A NCAC 21H. N/A ?w .11? (90 days)
?- Q//n,- ?,1
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520. (cam - ?J
I
Demolition or renovations of structures containing 1 - -
asbestos material must be In compliance with 15A ( L

NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal
NIA 60 days
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820.
(90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2DA800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion d sedimentatro
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouslity Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before be rnnin activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany
the plan 30 days)
-
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site Inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be ptrmit6d. The :pprcpnate Wnd (.0 Jaye)
must be received befbre the permit can be Issued.
North Carolina Suming permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources If permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with org.wfl0 Wit than five acres of ground clearing activities are Invotved. inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum b planned."

Oil Refining Facilities
NIA 90.120 days
(NIA)
If permit required, application 80 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. Qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Safety Permit Inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv
ad plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And t60 days)
a 40A permit from Corps of Engineers. An Inspection of site is roces-
sary to verily Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 1200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee Used on a
percent a or the total project Cost will be required upon completion.
q r¢ m sue.
Continued on reverse
PERMITS
DI Permit to "if exploratory dl or pas well
Cll Geopht•iucal Expbration Pennit
01 Stint Wcti Construction Permit
01 101 water OuNity Certification
DI LAMA Permit for MAJOR development
nj CAMA Permit for MINOR development
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS
Flit surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C.
conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon
abandonment, be Plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Application filed with EHNA al least 10 days prior to Issue of permit
Applicafton by telle(. No standard application form.
---------------
Application tee based on structure size is charged. Must Mroiude
descriptions 4 drawings of structure & proof of ownershlp
of riparian property.
N/A
2250.00 fee must accompany application
$50.00 fee must accompany application
1--1 Ssveral geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed,
J N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 please notify:
A k---_-
Nom . pr•.cess
Time
iststutory time
Irm?l)
10 days
KAI
10 cays
(NIA)
15.20 (jays
(1UA)
60 days
(130 days)
55 aays
(150 days)
22 days
(25 days)
-- - -,.r ..e",. n required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapler 20.0100.
Notification of the proper regional olhce is requeslad If "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovertd.during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 21-1.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. ,-
•
Other comments (attach additional (N/Al
Gapes u necessary, being certain to cite comment authority).
G w- ?o rQl NSJ ticwe?et' S/??i/? y we/Ls re i b
C' C1 >??.>? Ct be,rr?4?1H+2'GV1< /puS ?/? G?ryvc /"?? C1000rG<?,NG>? t?r?4. /5,4 1()L46 ?a G . C/0D .
5?ou /c/ aq? L/ST S /e yore lb.,.tt?elt/14 Pr?T? u6a..?lo.rF,r tN>< /kp--i -1
clc c o ".644 1:5-4 IVe, e- a N ?l 00 - /Uo C.e i kf/J Q, t l C.OLq-L 5-4U4 4 z

REGNL
•Ouestions regarding these permits should be add es edto thheFR
ep onal
? Asheville Regional Offi
A Office marked below,
ce
.
59 Woodfi
n Place
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Asheville, NC 28801 Suite 714 Wachovis Building
- (704) 2514208 Fayetteville, 28301
[phone]
1
Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 9150
? Raleigh Regional Office
Mooresville, NC 28115

(104) 6631699 3800 Barrett 609
Suite 101
Ralei h, NC 277609
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, INC 27889
[phone]
D WinslonSalem Re ionao'Orfice
8025 North Poiglv?.
Suite 100
Winston Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
[phone]
D Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, INC 28405
[phone]
A-13

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources "
DMslon of Land Resources_
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS
William W. Cobey, Jr., Seuetary
Project Number: 3 '" C'o
Project Name: j _.Y l f'?
County: /('G `t - 6ct T v

61 I,, 1 ^qn .?
;Charles f is 'Gardner
1` 7Difed:or
Cl- Geodetic Survey

This project will impact 22-geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
qeodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
J .
Reviewe Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
z '1-4/• 7?C 7-30-92
Reviewer Date
F-14
P.O. Box 27687 • Melgh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirrnattve Action Employer
>-
IV,
t? R r^ ° r t ^ t r•f
c7l
:g I t .,0 j ry 'i
•' Cr, c-`\">3 ?` , W n 1?r / .`,.\ - ? ? ? ,^,, _ / - ,ten $
^
3
{ ?. G '?? ? r?o 1 .' • ? ?` 1"• p ''. f ? _ iii t' ? ^?o -o - : rrs z
a-'?' .•, ' a.:...i a •, It .. ?.4? ?C. ':?. "' s n ? •. I•o-:
Y?i ;5_ 1„?Y::. ???a. ?. ? \ ?N S 'ter - ;;r' / -? ... _ ?;.?a, ? 1] ? .rV G? N u ?':"i?.r? ?4;?;.#P.Q /?? ;? fS£???V-JV r? res o ? 0..::?,?5.:: _ 8 _ _ 0 2 n ?
? ?.+ ?1 ?• V • ] ??? ? 'Y Y g"r+'? ? ^ i ? ? - v 8 r 1. '? ..,.
l
q .? __? - t:.; •:. ?. ,tea n ] ?
CL?
tle
.•; V ?1`1`?? 1111 ?'' O _ _ g ??? / 1! O ' _ V_??? j - 1
/•I 2?`? G may- =^ ?! z^ ° ? Y r:X S:cti ? ? ?r t• •
ju
-ra• ?y - 3 "' Q ? r? ?? ..? ? .° ? .r •i ,. ??a u n ? , n '??. ?0`s Q
a?
6 a p C•.aJ^ a?'G . ^ u?a '' ;j'? {.. -??= ` ? ?- n g u ? ?•^ ? ? ?, 114
7,71
- - x ?•. p t*r cfN v ^ ?'"Y S *- c ' --/
(o'! •r . lJ
J a 2 . f ' - o' I-`a
IS. c
i "A.
1- 0
000 ? °'rc a i:iii
•`i ? \\\ ? ? ? °t _ ? ?:,_J -. 11 r. ? X34'= ? - ?' ..,?` ? ?•
\•• ` ?I ?., N
no
h. J cC%. s 9
State of North; Caroli na
Department of Environment,.:Health, and Natural Resk-c.1 wv
Division-of Soi&Yan Water Conservation G-? b ,; l
t t_
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor David W. Sides
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary ,.Director
August 3, 1992
ti J
c-;
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison v
SUBJECT: Proposed Widening of I-85 from the Vicinity of Spencer
to China Grove, Rowan County. Project No. 93-0057
The Environmental Assessment should identify any unique, prime,
or important farmlands that would be impacted by the project. A
wetlands evaluation should also be included. Actions that
minimize impacts are desired.
DH/tl
A-16
PO Box 2'687 PjIr:kh. Nur:h C.,vt,hna 27 M 1.7687 Telephone [phone]
.An Fqul Opeximtnity alnrmanve action Fmnlovrr
NORTH CAkOLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEly
REV IEn DISTFIBUTIDN
:PT OF AGP I CUL TUR E
PT OF CUL RESOURCES
:PT OF EHN12
:PT OF T RAN S PO RT AT ION
PT OF CC&PS - NFP
ATE PLANNING REGION F

'ROJ ECT I
?PPL NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
,FDA 00002
IESC SCOPING FOR COMMENTS - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO 1-85, FROM
US 29-601 TO NORTH OF SR 2120
I T IP I- 25118A, 1-251166, 1-.2511CA, 1-2511CB
:ROSS -REFERENCE_ NUMBER
REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT. SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE BY THE ABOVE INDICATED
DAT E. IF ADDITIONAL REVIEW TIME IS NEEDED CONTACT THIS OFFICE.
.----------------------------------------------------------------- 87oPZ-
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLONING I S SUBMITTED SS5
( ) NO COMMENT
II 'I COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY
DATE
A-1'
STATE NUMBER 93-E-4220-0057
DATE RECE I VED
07 23 92
STATE AGENCY RESPONSE DUE 08 30 92
LOCAL RESPONSE DUE
REVIEW CLOSED
J?{
cam.. ? f J
08 29 92
09 01 92
F02
?11 i A
it 1? l) a nor 1 1 AUG 1992
. srATZ o
s
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
August 26, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways V
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State ftiric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: 1-85 from US 29-601 to north of SR 2120, Rowan
County, 1-2511 BA/BB/CA/CB, 8.1631502,
8.1631503, IR-85-3(131)69, IR-85-3(132)74, CH 93-
E-4220-0057
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Kesler Manufacturing Company, Cannon Mills Plant No. 7 Historic District.
Park Avenue and Boundary Street, Salisbury. (A map showing the
boundaries is enclosed.) The district was placed on the National Register of
Historic Places on June 20, 1985.
Paul Mathias Bernhardt House. 305 East Innes Street, Salisbury. The
Bernhardt House was placed on the state study list on January 10, 1992,
because it appears worthy of further investigation to definitely determine its
eligibility for listing in the National Register.
For purposes of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and barring
a finding to the contrary, we consider the Bernhardt House eligible for the National
Register and protection under federal law.
A-18
109 EastJones Street -9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L. J. Ward
August 26, 1992, Page 2
Since the comprehensive survey of Rowan County's historic architectural
structures was conducted over twelve years ago, there may be additional
structures in the project area which we would now consider historic. Therefore,
we recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by a qualified
architectural historian to identify the presence and significance of any additional
historic structures, buildings, or districts.
Given the extent of development, prior construction activities, and the nature of
topography within areas adjacent to the existing right-of-way, we consider the
proposed project unlikely to affect archaeological resources that might be eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. We, therefore, recommend
no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
.environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
Enclosure
cc: -St"ate Clearinghouse
Heidi Gallanti, Salisbury HPC
V/.
A-19
l\f
__ - ??•- -•'a*??T\ 1 1 '1 111 ___"' ,,,///?
__ V /tl ? •?? e I _ _ ` n
-3 ? e? ;gyp ? `•? . \ . , / • /. , ` ? x-111' "? - ?
--; l J
of --\' _ _ - ?-'- - • ' ? -- .i'-?'_ ?.
'. ? ?? `ate •? __ ? ? _J!'1 a ?• °.:\ \ ..; =??- ?'?
_zr
.60
I D
u: , s Rpy
77
\.y ear. i s4hs• \ ?? a •aa:a ya _ ~ -1 -`'' _? '1
-44 T
\:.t;\);•:?. ..". ?, - ,ter ? ':?*?':- :. :. .?\•'? "a ? _ •\ ?,
• ,.: ? r Lam. .a •i^ .Z . -
hLY4
0 4-J
C) CD 0
CL? C4 Le) C) rl)
IT M 10
00 00 ca
?:E? ./? :v . ? .? / •l //' U U O f•'1 (•"'t (Y1 4' • yam.' '?•-
U-4 -4 ri
= -4 (n a\ co cn
en C.4
CY'\ ON r,
0 'T 'T 'T
/ •, ?„4 ?" I d.' C O 1rl L/1 vl i . 3 I: • ' ;1' ' / I
C .--1 Q\ ' ??f•• ? •?, '
` roc `,,;.• o? U p ? Y? ?
\ ?? Y. - " 7 Z ° 1 \ r ,tea
?. ?•y'L? m ?, `? ,^? '` _ -rte//-?' -
---------
./
d SrA1t' o
Q ORTH CAROLINA
__N DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
116 West Edenton Street, Education Building BO& E1TMR-MGE
Raleigh, NC 2 7603-1 71 2 `stgt 90-e?iryendent
August 7, 1992
AUG ' 11 f992
DIVISION C -7
MEMORANDUM HtGHWA1,
`r ?t=SEAS
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Research
NC Divi0of hways
FROM: Charle s Assistanrintendent
AuxiliarRE: I-85, from US 29-601 to north of SR 2120; Rowan County; State
Project No. 8.1631502 (TIP No.'s I-2511BA and I-2511BB), Federal
Aid Project No. IR-85-3(131)69; and State Project No. 8.1631503
(TIP No.'s I-2511CA and I-2511CB), Federal Aid Project No. IR-
85-3(132)74
Please find attached communication from Gilbert D. Dyson, Director of Safety
for Rowan-Salisbury Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Attachment
A-21
an equal opportunitv/affirmative action emplover
?ROwaN o
o ROWAN - SALISBURY
Gy`
BOARD OF EDUCATION
POST OFFICE BOX 2349
SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA 28145-2349
.9PiPn .? ?1S
TELEPHONE [phone]
August 6, 1992 AUU t 1'?J-
Mr. Charles H. Weaver
Division of School Planning
Department of Public Instruction
Raleigh, NC 27603
Dear Mr. Weaver:
I am in receipt of your letter of 7/22/92 concerning I-85
improvements.
We do not travel I-85 at all, but we do route our buses across the
bridges designated for improvement along I-85 that you refer to.
It would be helpful to us if we could be notified ahead of time
before any bridges are closed to assist us in re-routing buses
during the times of the prescribed improvement.
Sincerely,
Gilbert D. Dyson
Director of Safety
c: Dr. Joseph F. McCann
A-22
46 E I V?!?
Q 10
SEP 4 992
y
?v DiVIStON OF
HIGHWAY S?Q
RESE.AN;
September.l, 1992
Mr. L. J. Ward, PE
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: I-85 from US 29-601 to SR 2120
State Project No.: 8.1631502
TIP No's.: I-2511BA and I-2511BB
Dear Mr. Ward:
This is in response to your letter of July 20, 1992 to Mayor
Kluttz requesting information which may be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental /cultural impacts of the subject project.
The City is aware of the following issues which will need to be
studied:
1. Floodways - I-85 parallels Town Creek, a Federally
Regulated Floodway, from just north of China Grove to
just north of East Spencer. The widening project may
encroach into the floodway fringe; however, if it is
necessary for the project to encroach beyond the fringe
into the floodway, approval must be obtained from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). I serve as
the floodway administrator 'within the Salisbury City
Limits and extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction-. For
further information, I may be reached by phone at (704)
638-5200. Mr. Danny Johnson serves as administrator for
the unincorporated portions of Rowan County. Mr. Johnson
may be reached by phone at [phone].
Attached for your use are copies of the City and County
floodway maps, cross-section information, and topographic
maps. I have marked the City floodway map to also show
the approximate locations of the remaining
environmental/cultural concerns.
CITY OF SALISBURY A-23
P.O. BOX 479, SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA 28145-0479
I-85 from US 29-601 to SR 2120
September 1, 1992
Page Two
2. Park and Recreation Facilities - The City of Salisbury
owns a neighborhood park located at the intersection of
Skyline Drive and Longview Avenue (Rowan County Tax Map
57-A, Parcel 100). A portion of the park appears to be
within the proposed 500-foot wide corridor.
3. Historical Properties - The State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) has identified two sites of historical
concern in the vicinity of the project: the Kesler
Manufacturing Company, Cannon Mills Plant No. 7 Historic
District, and the Paul Mathias Bernhardt House, 305 E.
Innes Street. I have marked the location of both sites
on the City Floodway Map. The scale of this map (1" _
1000') is more useful than the scale of the SHPO Map (1"
= 24,000').-
4. Abandoned Landfill - I-85 currently crosses the site of
an abandoned City Landfill (Rowan County Tax Map 68,
Parcels 48, 49, and/or 108). Any construction in this
area should receive special consideration and subsurface
investigations.
5. Educational Facilities - The Rowan Cabarrus Community
College (RCCC) main campus is located at the interchange
with Jake Alexander Boulevard (formerly Klumac Road).
There is potential for the project to effect access to
the campus (Rowan County Tax Map 60, Parcel 72).
6. Neighborhood Access - Access to the Oakland Heights
Neighborhood has been restricted by the original
construction of I-85 and subsequent safety improvements.
Skyline Drive and Mack Street both appear to be partially
within the proposed 500-foot wide corridor. The
neighborhood will speak out in force at any public
hearing if consideration is not provided to protect
and/or restore access to the neighborhood.
7. Thoroughfare Planning - In response to the State TIP
Public Hearings, the City of Salisbury has made several
requests related to I-85. When the interstate is
widened, we request the existing bridges over East Innes
Street and Old Concord Road be lengthened to allow these
streets to be widened. We also request consideration be
given to providing a new interchange at, or near, Bringle
Ferry Road. The interchange would facilitate the
relocation of Highway 52, a project which has been
actively supported by the Division Engineer. The
interchange would also relieve congestion at I-85 and
A-24
I-85 from US 29-601 to SR 2120
September 1, 1992
Page Two
Innes Street, and would improve access from I-85 to
Salisbury, Spencer, East Spencer and the High Rock
Lake/Dan Nicholas Park area.
The Salisbury Area Thoroughfare Plan is currently being
updated by the Statewide Planning Branch of NCDOT. Decisions
effecting the widening of I-85 will have a major impact on the
updated plan.
If you need additional information concerning any of the above
issues, please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Dan Mikkelson,PE
City Engineer
DM:vb
Attachments
pc: Margaret Kluttz
Danny Johnson
Doug Waters
A-25
P"4?j --T - 2-5 1 1

- - ?' Hr64wA 8F-
v. e- O GcJ - eft-
Ys ?-?
?F-
tj A C_ 4 (? ?00
...
? - orvrs? ? _
/Rph
y -lc?-o?+s

a --k e
C, I
Ids
00.
CL CC.Pl
C4./ke- s^, e- v-A. e- w Ko
T7?9 5-
A--25(a)
IS
canes
J? ?1
?? , Y-7
JJJJ??-?:-
??4JJC?a.
J-? /?

R t,
ZONE C
Rd.
5pp•
\ AREA NOT INCLUDED L
O 743 !}t::
• ? ZONE B,
O1j t -ZONE 8
RM14
750
-Ilc )
\ ZONE A3
Q! C \? '\
3 p
/ C-1
L ,n n ZONE L
ZONE A2-.?
/ 'ZONE B
100 YEAR
NRR '? FLOODPLAIN LiIV1ITS
?? ... 767
ZONE B ^-
0 6>ff Stet
cri ^66 e Rd
`v /Sp0
ZONE A2
LIMIT OF DETAILED STUOY 770 l Q?
START OF MODIFIED ZONE B 110 F?
DETAILED STUDY RM149 778
--ZONEAt3
RM153
6.718 O IN-
0 \ Ct
?? OT i OPJ? L0
?y 779 F10 CIRCLE n/
\C _m ZONE A6
i ZONE A2 _O
777 N 780
RM154 gpAD
WEAVER
78
RM0
l 50 State 78/ Rd. 2549
785
LIMIT OF
MppIFIED 0€TAILED STUDY _
BEGIN IA-26 RM155 X00
PROJECT ZONEAz
804
---------- I \? ZONE C
ZONE
O\
? i
I J•
ZONE B
O ZONE A3
i Q
LS
\ CD
S`r ? ••? N
o e (n
AREA NOT $N-LWCCO
74
ZONE B-
2539
i OqC, S ` 0
qO,O
1
ZONE B
RM14
' i
w7` "Pa. 2 53 9
l
y ?
ZONE A3 ^o `
c e, I Slob
3 \p e R d•
xrr, 5? ° `D 253g .
r ` ZONE C
111,x/, :!M!7 OF MODIFIED
100 YEAR
DETAILED STUDY
,?•., -\ I IT-7
Pl.IF. M,
{J"
ZONE B FLOODPLAIN LIMITS ?r?pR
ins s'
eoa l \ IL
LIMIT OF MODIFIED
"•' DETAILED STUDY\
798 RM 1 73
6 '? 196
P,M176x 190_
ZONE A2
.
790
H
? 1 g5 ?? 9 00
e 119
Store 751-
Rd /SOO -27 -EBB - 116 M175 RM172 7.5
!( p
'.G. L N E. A2 S ,ugh; Ide 11 o"s
?1
65 0
;? Y 1
ZONE C i ; 740
y?O 745
Rpqr) 7
161
?
ZONE A2 C.)
\ ?V LIMIT OF MODIFIED 771
DETAILED STUDY
747 1 s f 775
Imo- O f a
6)
O
rv? ? X55 N ? ,
ZONE A3 -?
761 ?a
LIMIT OF MODIFIED r I
DETAILED STUDY /
r./
i

a
O
U
C
O

lr
r
SOUTHERN RAIL WA Y,
ZONE C
Y(ZONE B,

c
O
73
START OF MODIFIED
DETAILED
STUDY- Julian 7Y-iburarp_
ZONEA3-
P/r 'ZONE B" ;
r
RM
151
ZONE C
Z ONE
.r
100 YEAR
721 v .
ZONE A2 r FLOODPLAIN LIMITS
R M oL ?
15 2
ZONE B -3:
LIMIT OF 732
DETAILED STUDY
?p O
va 737
ZONE C 735 Z
1-10
ONE C ??
L - -- ---- _._.A-29
??\\??_/J/(?//7 ? ? V r l • RMIf )]I.ff1 An r1/1t•n, n.J Iw^Ir, •I I•.tt 10.11,•Mrf Mw^Ir,•ytlr,tr rll nt. RM17'
?1 ? ? )/ / +I IJrMMt1 ? tMMr? ILtrlntr /w Ar•NNNl. lnt. , ,^
/ / RMI) )t0.fff A N Ir•.• t••lr rr in rw I•Ntr , •r ^ r G•. RMy. _
/ •r Centr• ••tn Grtl, r ••mr r :fO I, • N.
RdlROlli I?i\\ ./ / \ _// Inn Merl. Elllr•NI• •I rMe•?11IL,r•nrrrl A..ir'r•. a.
Glfh ? 7 I % ? / r?\ eM11• nf.n° " • ? • 'n r. • er, •rr .rr < ,n.r a '^ •,•?! Rr^n•
/ ' ntn teere im r(rl r 1l.rwrn rr •Irrr•
'JI 1 \ I , 1fo rrn .
\?L 1?I I1? l ? nr? 1 A•••? .I,r•, I •"I Crtnt Ci rr 1. •E11t01iNr0 OY Man,., G.rEH1 =; ? /I
RM42 al /
S1T / I
I(?STEEL STR
I11,' lr
L
ST I U
-rOETAILE
U Y,
T NOR T"
I ~ ??r SHAVER
STREET
? R N ! f RV R A
, R?,M451/, 4 / I- ' a pl ??j4
? r \ o? AfAY TT MALK \ \ \O
r S?? I ?? NeOUNDARY }T1CEE' \ y
` ?!LIM1I
L CT10 S; OU V =f TT '.\\\ n
?
ONTAINEO 1N??-t./3' zl LIMIV,OF MB 'Park Avenue
11 OCT AYLED Branch
CULVERT
ST DY
`Il n wq?N"? rlErtwrrsl ll \\ \\
I X11 II / I LIMIT ??J I GReC O?J"1/ar Nf/eN9o43 ?- _
DETAI6ED !I ST r?r ?? / ?- '
STU Y. ?. I
r?r i? SS X ^YAP "''V£O
J?I
w1??V l:J RM3 v-.. RMS • gcEL /oo? iI. \ \ J?
kS ''?- ..?I I?T?I RM4! RM6 / ?SXYc rAJE o.Vr_ \ l
I: N,y1 r r I EAST COUNCIL STREET !I
JT. 1 ?lllIlls
i
/ ARLINGTON ?\I`Il- ' T 1 r STREET
1 Tp.RV II ^? •1• C)
qVE GR_IEN. L r ???
EAR F
I`1 9; I ??`_ lr ? \\ y CONTAINEOOIN CULVE FIT O f /
I ;?/ -/ /J\ 1r r s
/ ?? SOUTH
?/ / // aOVNOARY \
?/ Tilotnat St ?RM1 STREET/
Lei ti kk ?? \
.1.' 100 YEAR FLOOD
CONTAINED IN
CULVERT
?y \\r Sp /V MO/KIN
rHoVkC?+S/ / \ RM65
dranfh% RM12
Branch
Fribulary
LIMIT OF
` I; \O a ?,. O OE TAI LED STUDY \
?jv \\ _ ' / \ CAROLINA BLVD
T
I ?? o aX m4P Ge RM26 v9.
?? `vANCE II AvE ? Akc EC / // ? RM25
RM66 \ P 9 /c FIM22?? vll..uorr..
A/ ' MADISON
V1INDUSTRIESr OZ _ /1 T r I` N
ENTRANCE P.
?? \ Ro AO \ \ RM24/ -? M21
PONOE\\ / OC /r/qC Npq TMWES '_-\, ROwA` N C-1R?LEI % Oq\? \ `'.,J
Concord Rood Qeek RM16?Q
II
RM ',
\\` I Rh117 \ 1\?\ \\
? b d 1 ? LIMIT OF ?1
MSC % OETAI LED STU DY\ 1
100 YEAR
30 FLOODPLAIN UMITS
1 A( 10A1o X. L ocAr/D rJ or
/ , ?T ?Ro WAm - cA/T A 41205 Col IA rrY
OF ?NC?
N p'? l
... \ \ , ZONE
C? PS aEE`
NOE
C i
G p ?O
V C Y NN MEN P?PD ?? ?.?
O F ? N z°G E e J
0 ONE
e Bronch 0 650 ?64
l A P Ro{Iroo
\ ? R ? Z°NE G
1
i 64 Ra.
ZONES ? ZOB E 2\2?
Lp°k (7 O
1 ? a plan
D'
G
Z°NE
Z°NE e ?PP?S` g• rooms ??
?G h?o
a4 Al
z°NE G M c CO ,6 0 ? njess ?
1
ZONE 0
END
`PROJECT
PM?a3 Un10n
?1d Rd \9\?
stole
Z°NE G _
6,,0
o -
660
ZO ?.1E ?' i \? ?
'LONE e` f ?C ?'•? ,
68
_688 a? ? II
C\j
7Y ? ? N ? 1
100 YEAR
v
FLOODPLAIN LIM! I EB (A-31?.
? •? o 0

R E L O C A T I O N R E iP O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: OOL!<VTY: Rowan _ Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO., I_251_1 ,_` F.A. PROJECT* IR-85-3(131)69
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 1-85 from LIS 29-601 to North of SR 2120
SECTION - From US 29-601 to Southside Webb Rd. (SR 1500)
ESTIMATED D I S'LA
S INCOME LEVEL
_ .
Type of Minor-
DisAlacee Owners Tenants Total itles
- D-13M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 LP
lndividuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families ? 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 1 1 2 ?
_ VALLE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0
Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit ? 0 0 0 0-20M N/A 4 0-150 N/A 0-20M N/A $ 0-150 N/A
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 120-4QMIN/A 1 150-Z01 N/A 120-40M1 N/A 1 150-250 1 N/A
r- -r r rr ?--r --

YES
i
P.
_EXPLA_.1_N ALL_"` F_9H
40-70M N/A
250-400 N/A 40-70M N/A 250-400 T
N/A
X 1. Will sopr..ial relocation
i
1 70-100 N/A 400-600 N/A 70-100 N/A 1400-600 N/A
serv
ces be necessary
X. 2. Will schools or churches be
ff 100 LP N/A 600 LP N/A 100 UP N/A 600 UP N/A
a
ected by displacement
X, 3. Will business services still TOTAL N/A N/A N/A N/A
- be available after oroiect
4. Will any business be dis-
X placed. If so, indicate size REMARKS (Respond by Number)

- tvoe, estimated number of
l 3. THERE ARE OTHER SIMILAR BUSINESSES IN THE AREA
emo
ovees, minorities, etc. NOT BEING AFFECTED.
X S. Will relocation cause a
housing shortage
X 6. Source for available hous-
ing (list) 4. (A)_'.'STUCKEY'S" TEXACO CONVENIENCE & TRUCK STOP.
X 7. Will additional housing EMPLOYS APPROX 10-15 FULL TIME & 3-4 PART TIME.
- orograms be needed NOT A MINORITY ENTERPRISE. BUS/OWNER
X 8. Skould Last Resort Housing
b
e considered
X 9. Are there large, disabled, (B) "DAMON'S QUICK STOP" - LOCAL GROCERY & GAS

. __. . . _ _- . I _.... `
l p . -t MSEL "M FOR DESIGN
needed for project
11. Is public housing_ avail-
able
12. Is it felt thr-re will be ad-
eouate DDS housing_ available
during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means
lei. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
comolete RFLOCATION
__..- - ..._._ -_x". u 1 1-1J 1.7 rV_r_mu/? G rl ¦ 1 1 ll'C d
1 PART TIME. NOT A MINORITY ENTERPRISE. BLIS/TENANT
6. VISUAL SLRVEY, LOCAL NEI4.1SPAPER & MULTIPLE LISTING
SERVICE.
14. SEE ITEM #6 ABOVE.
F. PTArx_ /t rc
Relocation Age
7rm 15.4 Revised pD
Date Ao
Original&1 Conv: State RelocationaAgent
A-3` 2 Copy: Area Relocation File
r-
R E L_ O C A T 1 0 N R E F= O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1631502 COUNTY: Rowan Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: I-2511 F.A. PROJECT: IR-85-3(131)69
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: I_85 from US 29-601 to North of SR 2120 SECTION - From North side of
Webb Rd. to South side of Peeler Rd. (SR 2538
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL i
Type of
Displacee Owners Tenants
Total Minor-
ities
0-15M
15--25M
25-35M
35--5DM
50 UP
Individuals 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0{
Families 0 ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 1 1 D VALUE OF DWELLING I DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
R
Farms
0 0
0
0
Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M N/A $ 0-150 N/A 0-20M N/A $ 0-150 N/A
ANSWER ALL CLESTIONS 20-40M N/A 150-250 N/A 20-40M N/A 150-25? N/A
_
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M N/A 250-400 N/A 40-70M N/A 250-400 N/A
.. ,
X 1. Will special relocation- 70-100 N/A 400-600 N/A 70-100 N/A 400-600 N/A
i

X serv
ces be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP
N/A
600 UP
N/A
100 LP
N/A
600 UP
N/A

affected by displacement
x 3. Will business services still AL N/A N/A N/A N/A
r
be available after project

/a. Will any business be dis- r,
c`, (Respond by Number)
X placed. If so, indicate size tvoe, estimated number of 3. Ti-ERE ARE OTHER SIMILAR BUSINESSES IN THE AREA

- employees, minorities, etc. NOT BEING AFFECTED.
X S. Will relocation cause a
h
h
i
e
t
or
ag
ous
na_ s
X 6. Source for available hous-
--? -_
X ing (list)
7. Will additional housing 4. (A)"BEST BUY HOMES" MOBILE HOME SALES LOT. EMPLOYS
APPROX 4 FILL TIME & 3 PART TIME. NOT A MINORITY
eded
b BUS/OU ER
ENTERPRISE
programs
e ne .
X S. Should Last Resort Housing
id
d
b
e cons
ere
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
_ I A- l ... a+_ f m- i i i oc A U t g W C1 PUFY , I OCAL NEWSPAPER & MULT IPLE L IST ING
THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. i outil is ousing e
needed for project
11. Is public housing avail-
able
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
eauate DDS housing available
during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
comolete RELOCATION
J. F. MFAOr L
Relocation Aaen?//
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90
SERVICE.
14. SEE ITEM #6 ABOVE.
Date
A-33
G 2/ - ?-
51?-.; 0-5:
Acorove Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agenl
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
R 1= L O C A T I O N R E F' O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X. E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1631502COLtm- Rowan Alternate of Alternate
I.D. NO.: 1_251-1 F.A. PROJECT= IR-SS-3(131)69
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 1,_-85 from US 29-601 to North of SR 2120 - SECTION - From Northside of
Peeler Rd._ to Southslde of Peach Orchard Rd. (SR 2539)
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Disalacee
Owners Tenants
Total Minor-
ities
0-15M
15-2SM
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?
Families 1 0 1 ? ? 1 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 ? 0 VALUE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0
L 0 Q Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0
0 _ 0 ? 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M I $ 0-150 0
_ ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 49 150-250 0
YES NO
- _ EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 1 250-400 0 40-70M 135 250-400 1

-
i X 1. Will special relocation
services be necessary 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 104 400-600 3
X
-? 2. Will schools or churches be
affected by displacement 100 lP 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 3 600 UP 3
X 3. Will business services still
be available after oroiect TOTAL 1 0 328 7
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of
employees, minoritles, etc. 3. NONE DISPLACED.
X S. Will relocation cause a
housing shortage
X 6. Source for available hous- 6. VISUAL SURVEY, LOCAL NEWSPAPER & MULTIPLE LISTING
-- ing (list) SERVICE.
X 7. Will additional housing_
orograms be needed
X 6. Should Last Resort Housin4
be considered S. WILL BE IMPLEMENT-=O AS NECESSARY.
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
ld
l
f
e
er
y] etc.
amilies
--
; ? ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
X 10. i Public ousing be 9. THE ONE-RESIDENTIAL MAY BE CONSIDERED ELDERLY,
d
d f
nee
e
or oroiect HOWEVER) NO MAJOR PROBLEMS ARE ANTICIPATED.
X 11. Is public housino avail-
bl
a
e
x 12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housino available 11. CITY OF SALISBURY.
d
i
l
ur
ng re
ocation period
X 13. Will there be a Problem of
housing within financial

means 12. BASED ON INFORMATION FROM ITEM #6 ABOVE

N
A
14. Are suitable business sites .
available (list source)

T
I 15. Number months estimated to

- complete RELOCATION
-. )/
F, _NFADE.-- - /YL Z
Pelacation Agen_
Form 15.4 Revised 5/r7v

ate Approved Date-
A-34 Original & 1 Copy:
2 Copy, State Relocation Agent
Area Relocation File
T
R E L_O C A T I O IV R E P O R- North Carolina Deoartment of Transoortation
X. E.I.S. - CORRIDOR - DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT, 8_. 16.3,1,S02COUNTY: Rowan Alternate of Alternate
I . D . NO.: 1-2511 ,-,_._.._._..___... F . A . PROJECT : I R-85-3 (131) 69
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 1_85 from LIS 29-601 to North of SR 2120 - SECTION - From Northside of
Peach Orchard Rd., to Southside of Julian Rd. (SR 2528)
_ ESTIMATED DISPL.ACEES INCOME LEVEL
Tyee of Minor-
Disolacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-S M 50 UP
individuals 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? 0
kFamilies 2 1 3 0 1 2 ? ? 0
jBusinesses ? 0 0 0 VALLE OF DWELLING DSS DW1aLINGS AVAILABLE
tlFarms 0 n 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
oNon-Profit j 0 1 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 1 $ 0-150 0

ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
-a
20-40M
0
150-2S?
1
20-40M
49
150-250
0
YES
r _NO
- _ EXPLAIN ALL "YES" A49AERS 40-70M 2 250-400 0 40-70M 1 5 250-400
X I. Will special relocation 70-100 0 4.00-600 0 70-100 104 400-600 3
} services be necessary
X 2. Will schools or churches be 100 UP 0 600 U' 0 100 UP 3 600 lP 3
affected by displacement
x 3. Will business services still
b TOTAL 2 1 328 7
- e available after oroject
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X placed. If so, indicate size
tune, estimated number of 3. NONE DISPLACED.
- --- emolovees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a
h
i
ous
ng shortage
x 6. Source for available hous- 6. VISUAL SURVEY, LOCAL NEWSPAPER & MULTIPLE LISTING
ing (list) SERVICE.
X 7. Will additional housing

- programs be needed
X
? 8. Should Last Resort Housing
be considered 8. WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AS NECESSARY.
X J 9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families

ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN

I-- X 10. i ou is ousing be
d
d 9. TWO OF TFf THREE RESIDENTIAL MAY BE ELDERLY, BUT W
nee
e
for oroject SPECIAL PROBLEMS ARE ANTICIPATED:
X 11. Is public housing avail-
bl
a
e
x 12. Is it felt there will be ad- 11. CITY OF SALISBURY.
eouate DDS housing available
d
i
l
ur
ng re
ocation period 12. BASED ON INFORMATION FROM ITEM #6 ABOVE.
X 13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
M
means COM
ENT - THE ONE (1) NON-PROFIT DISPLACEE IS THE "ROWS
N A 14. Are suitable business sites COUNTY RESCUE SQUAD"
il
l
- ava
ab
e (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
comolete RELOCATION

P
J_.. F. MEADSi1?L ??--
Relor_ation Agen*_ Date Aooroved Date"
Form 15.4 Revised 5/'19Original & 1 Copy, State Relocation Agent
A-3? 2 Cooy, Area Relocation File
R E L_ O C A T I O N R E P O R T North Carolina Deoartment of Transoortation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8,1631.5.02.___-_., COLtm : Rowan Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: 1-25,1 1_ F.A. PROJECT, IR-85--3(131)69
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: I__85 from US 29-601 to North of SR 2120 SECTION - From Northside of
Julian Rd. to Southside of Jake Alexander Blvd.
- ESTIMATED D SPLACEES 1 INCOME LEVEL
Tyoe of Minor-
01 solacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50
M 50 LIP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _
p ?
Families 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 D 0
VpIIE OF DOLING DSS OLILLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 ? ? Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M I-0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M N/A $ 0-150 N/A
ANSWER ALL CLESTIONS 1 20-40MI 0 1150-2501 0 20-40M N/A 1150-250 1 N/A
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M N/A 250-400 N/A I
N A 1. Will special relocation
i 70-100 0 1400-6001 0 70-100 N/A 400-600 N/A 1
serv
ces be necessary
I N
1 IA j 2. Will schools or churches be
ff 1100 LP 0 1600 LP i 0 100 LP N/A 600 LP N/A
a
ected by displacement
N A 3. Will business services still TOTAL 0 ? 13 N/A N/A
- be available after oroiect
4. Will any business be dis- RE141RICS (Respond by Number)
N A placed. If so, Indicate size
tvoe, estimated number of
l
emo
ovees, minorities, etc. COMMENT - ALTHOUGH NO DISPL.ACEE'S ARE ANTICIPATED, TFE
N A S. Will relocation cause a PROPOSED ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY ON MOORE LUMBER CO.., M
- housino_ shortage ELIMINATE THE PARKING ENOUGH TO CAUSE THEM TO BE
N A 6. Source for available hous- DISPLACED.
- i
(li
)
n=
st
N A
I 7. Will additional housino_
I- -] programs be needed
N A 8. Should Last Resort Housinq
_
be considered
L N
? A A 9. Are there large, disabled,

N A 10 . MSE -?1 ngC DESIGN
needed for oroiectr
N A 11. Is public housino_ avail-
able
N A' 12. Is it felt there will be ad-
eauate DOS housing available
during relocation period
N A 13. Will there be a oroblem of
housino within financial
means
N A 14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RFJ_OCATION I
----=_• -F-:--"-FADE-----?- . ?_..---------
I?e I prat i on fkaen±?
Form 15.x• Revised
i
C el
Date Aooroved Date
Original & 1 Coov: State Relocation Agent
A-^F 2 Coovs Area Relocation File
RE L_ O C A T 1 0" R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X_ E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: _8.16315012.__ _ COIMY: Rowan Alternate 1 of i Alternate
I. D. NO.: F.A. PROJECT: _IR-85-3(131)69
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 1-85 from US 29-6601 to North of SR 2120 SECTION - From Northside of
Jake Alexander Blvd. to Southside US 52.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Tyoe of Minor-
Oisolacee Owners Tenants
~ Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-501 50 LIP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 •
Families 2 3
` 5 0 0 3 2 0 0
Businesses _ ? 0 - 0 ? VALLE OF DWE1L. I NG OS'S DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
!arms- - 0 _ 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
(,Jon-Profi*_ - 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 I S 0-150 3 0-20M I $ 0-150 p
ANSWER ALL OLEST I ON5 20=40MT ? 1150`250_ 0 1 20-40M 49 150-250 1 0 I
9
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 1 250-4000 40-70M 135 250-400 1

1 X 1. Will special relocation
i 70-100 1 400-600 ? 70-100 104 400-600 3

E
X serv
ces be necessarv
2. Will schools or churches be
ff
100 LP
0
600 LP 0
100 LP
3
600 UP
3
a
ected by displacement
X 3. Will business services still TOTAL 2 3

1--
be available after oro Jett 328 7
4. Will env business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. NONE AFECTED.
-- employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a 6. VISUAL SLRVEY, LOCAL NEWSPAPER & MLLTIPLE LISTING
h
i
ous
ng shortage SERVICE.
X 6. Source for available hous-
ing (Iist) 8. WILL BE IMA-E EMED AS NECESSARY.
X 7. Will additional housing_
Programs be needed 9. THERE ARE (2) TWO THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED ELDERLY,
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing HOWEVER) NO PROBLEMS ARE ANTICIPATED.
I b
i
e cons
dered
x ! 9. Are there large, disabled, 11. CITY OF SALISBLRY.
r ld
l

- - e
er
y, etc. families
; TI ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN 12. BASED ON AVAILABLE HOUSING LISTED.
X 10. i pu is ousing e
d
d f
nee
e
or project 14. SEE ITEM #6 ABOVE.
X 11. Is public housina avail-
bl
a
e
x 12. Is it felt there will be ad- COMMENT - THE (3) THREE TENANTS ARE LOCATED IN CONCORD
ecuate DDS housing available VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK. THEY ARE CONSIDERED TO OWN T1-
d
i
l
- ur
ng re
ocation period MOBILE HOME AND TO RENT SITE.
X 1.3. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial

means
x 14. Are suitable business sites
il
bl
(li
ava
a
e
st source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
.1. F. _MEADE_ -
F<e l ocat i on Aaen
Form 15.4 Revised ?vf
Date Approved Date
Original & 1 Cooy: State Relocation Aqent
A-37 2 Copy: Area Relocation Flie
E
RELOCATION
X E.I.S. - CORRIDOR
PROJECT: a 1631502
I.D. NO.: I-2511 CA
R E:1= OR T North Carolina Department of Transportation
- DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COUNTY: Rowan Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate
F.A. PROJECT: IR-85-31131)6 - (PAGE 1 OF 2)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: LIS 52 &_I-85 INTERSECTION
ES TIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Tvoe of
Disolacee
Owners Tenants
Total Minor-
ities
0-15M
15-25M
25-3SM 35-SOM 50 LP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
Families 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0
Businesses 5 2 7 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DIJ LLINGS AVAIL
A13LE
Farms 0 0 0 0 .
Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 0-150 0 0-20M 0 0-150 N/A
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 1 150-250
50+- 150-250 N/A
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 1 250-400 100,f-
250-400 N/A

X
1.. Will special relocation
i
70-100
.
TO7
0 400-600 100+- 400-600 N/A
serv
ces be necessary
X 2. Will schools or churches be 100 LP 0 600 UP 10+- 600 UP N/A
affected b
y displacement
X 3. Will business services still
be available after oroiect TOTAL 2 ? 260 N/A

X 4. Will anv business be dis-
placed
If REMARKS (Respond by Number)
i .
so, indicate size

--- type, estimated number of
emolov
i 3. THERE ARE OTHER SLISINESSES WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA
?
X ees, m
norities, etc.
S. Will relocation NOT AFFECTED.
cause a

X housing shortage
6
Sour
f 4. (A) "AMOCO CONVENIENT MART" (OUx -R OCCL IED) LOCAL

?-
-- .
ce
or available Hous-
l-
(li
t) GAS & CONVENIENCE STORE. EMPLOYS APPROX 4 FULL- TIME

X 0
s
7. Will additional housing & 2 PART TIME. NOT THOUGHT TO BE A MINORITY
ENTERPRISE.
programs be needed
x
- S. Should Last Resort Housing
b (B) "SOUTHEASTERN SAFE & LOCK CO " (OWNER OCCUPANT)

X e considered
9. Are there large
di
bl SALE & SERVICE OF SAFES, LOCKS, AND ALARM SYSTEMS.
,
sa
ed, EMPLOYS APPROX 6 FULL TIME - 0 PART TIME
NOT
elderly, etc. families .
THOUGHT TO BE A MINORITY ENTERPRISE.

X ' ANSWER TFfSE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10
i
"
•
public housing be (C)
RACE TRAC" (OWNER OCCUIED) LOCAL GAS &
needed for pro iect CONVENIENCE M

X
11. Is public housing avail- ART. EMPLOYS APPROX 3 FULL TIME & 2
PART TIME
NOT THOLC4T TO BE A M
N
R

-
able .
O
I
ITY ENTERPRISE.
X 12. Is it felt there will be ad- (D) "YOST-& CROWE AUTO CENTER" (OWNER OCCUPIED) LOCO
equate DDS housing available TIRE SALES & SERVICE. EMPLOYS APPROX 6-8 FULL TIME 8

X during relocation period
13
Will ther
b 2 PART TIMF. NOT THOUGHT TO BE A MINORITY
.
e
e a oroblem of ENTERPRISE.
HcYus'inq within financial

X means
14. Are suitable business sites (E) "WINKS - KING OF BARBECUE" (OWNER OCCLFIED) LOCA
BARBECLE RESTAURANT. EMPLOYS APPROX
10-12 FL!
I
TIME
available (list source) .
._
_
& 4-5 PART TIME. NOT TI-gLIG 4T TO BE A M!
WFITY

15. Number months estimated to .
.
camolete RELOCATION
Je-?I ocatNFODEgaen 1 - 8'kluT
irm 15.4 Revised Date Approved pa±o y
Original & 1 Coov: State Qelocation Agent
2 Coov: Area Relocation Fil.
R E L O C A T 1 0 N R E R O R T Nortk Carolina Department of Transoortation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.1631502 COUNTY, Rowan Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate
I.D. NO.: I-2511 CA F.A. PROJECT, IR-65-3(131)69 (PAGE 2 OF 2)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. LIS 52 & I-% INTERSECTION
(F) "GRANITE AUTO REPAIR" (TENANT OCCUPIED) LOCAL AUTO/TRUCK SERVICE. EMPLOYS APPROX 6 FULL TIME
& 0 PART TIME, NOT ?NOUGHT TO BE A MINORITY.
(G) "EXXON SERVICE STATION" (TENANT OCCUPIED) LOCAL FULL SERVICE - SERVICE STATION. EMPLOYS
APPROX 3 FULL TIME & 2 PART TIME. NOT THOUGHT TO BE A MINORITY ENTERPRISE.
(H) "HAROLD'S MOTEL" (OWNER OCCUPIED) ROOMS TO RENT. OLDER IN TOWN MOTEL. MAY BE CUTOFF - NOT
COUNTED IN NUMBERS ABOVE.
(I) "BP CONVENIENCE MART" (OWNER OCCUPIED) NOT IN R/W, HOWEVER, DUE TO REMAINING ACCESS] MAY
DISPLACE. NOT COUNTED IN NUMBERS ABOVE.
6. LOCAL NEWSPAPER, VISUAL SURVEY & MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE.
3. YES - WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AS NECESSARY.
9. POSSIBLE - NO PROBLEMS ANTICIPATED.
11. CITY OF SALISBURY.
12. BASED ON AVAILABLE HOUSING ABOVE.
14, ALL OF THE BUSINESSES AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT ARE LOCATED ON AN INTERSECTION OF AN
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY AND A MAJOR US HWYS, THEREFORE, LOCATION IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO MOST
OF THE BUSINESSES AFFECTED. THERE ARE SITES AVAILABLE WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA, HOWEVER, NONE
IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. IT IS EXPECTED SEVERAL MAY HAVE TO BE DISCONTINUED.
-J, F, MEADE (j/ 8'3 I - IV
Relocation t Date
=arm 15.4 ReviseA190
?_-3 A
ADDroved I?ate
Or;oinal & 1 CoDv: State Relocation Ament
2 Ccov! Area Relocation F;le
1,
R E L_ C3 C A T 1 O PJ R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X. E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR - DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: _8,...1,1,315Q2COUNTY. _ Rowan Alternate i of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: ._I-7511 _ F.A. PROJECT: IR=65-3(131)69
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT.- 1-85 from US 29-601 to North of SR 2120 SECTION - From Northside of
Bringle Ferry Rd. to Southside Correll St. (SR 2114)
_ ESTIMATED D I SPLA INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Disolacee_
Owners
Tenants
Total Minor-
ities
0-15M
15-25M
Ind•jviduals 0 0 0
- 0 0 0
Families 2 0 2 2 1 1
Businesses 0 0 0 p VALLE OF DWELLING
Farms -
- 0 0 -` 0 0 Owners Tenants
Nnn-Profi t 0 0 p 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150
_ A
3 NSWER ALL OLESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250
YES N0 ____EXPLAIN_ALL_"YES" ANSWE
1 RS 40-70M 2 250-400
Y, 1. Will special rel ocation 70-100 0 400-600
OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
For Sale For Rent
0-20M 1 $ 0-150 0
20-40M 49 150-250 0

40-70M 135 250-400 1
70-100 104
1 400-600 3
100 LP 3 /,nn LP 3
25--35M 35-SW 50 LP
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
services be necessary 0
X 7_. Will schools or churches be 100 LP 0 600 LP 0
affected by displacement
X 3. Will business services still TOTAL 2 p
be available after oroiect
Wi I I a - h
328
7

X

X n usiness be dis-
olaced. If so, indicate size
tvoe, estimated number of
emoloyeesp minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a
h REMARKS (Respond by Number)

3. NODE AFFECTED.
ousina shortage
X
- 6. Source for available hous-
i 6. LOCAL NEWSPAPER, VISUAL SURVEY, & MULTIPLE LISTING

X ng (list)
7. Will additional housina SERVICE.
_

x programs be needed
8. Should Last Resort Housing
_

X be considered
9. Are there large, disabled, S. WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AS NECESSARY.

elderly, etc. families
`-

-
X ?
X i ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10• i ou is housing be
needed for project
11. Is public housing avail-
9. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY, HOWEVER, NO MAJOR PROBLEMS
ARE ANTICIPATED.

able
x 17. Is it felt there will be ad-
eauate DDS housing available 11. CITY OF SALISBURY.
during relocation period
x 13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial

N
A means
14. Are suitable business sites 12. BASED ON AVAILABILITY LISTED.

available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION j
- ? i "
F. I-EALE
Relocation Aa_ent Date Aooroved Date-
erm 15.4. Revised 5/90(/, A Original & 1 Coov: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy, Area Relocation File

R E L_ O C A T I 01"A R E P O R T Nord, Carolina Deoartment of Transoortation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: a..1F,31502 COLII`tTY: Rowan Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
F.A. PROJECT; IR-85-3(131)69
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 1-85.from _L.5_.29-601.,_.to„North of SR 2120SECTION - From Northside_-
Correll St. to Southside of Andrews St. (SR 1915)
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
,Tvoe of Minor-
,Disolacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-5QM 50 IJz'
Indivir-u.715 0 0 0 0
_- . _.___.._..._........:...__...-------__...._-___....__.. 0 0 ? 0 0 -
r?mi I ie 1 ? 1 0
...._
... ? 1 ? 0 0 -
_
.._
n- s r, n s n
. ..................... 0 0 0
.-.....
_-_ VALLE OF DWELLING

- DSS DWELL I NGS AVAILABLE
F M. r m S ?

.___
'---.-- -.......... .......... 0
? n ---s- -- -
Owners Tenants
For Sale For Rent
Fo
thn--FIrnf j t. 0 17 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 ?-20M 1 $ 0-15? 0
ANSWER ALL GILEST10NS 20-40M 1 150-250 0 20-4.0M 49 150-250 0
vFS NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS
_.
-_- _
_.__..__.._.._ _
_
-
-
- 40-70M 0 250-400 0
--,. 4.0-70M 135 JZS0-400 1

V I
6 i
1
a
soPCial relocation
ti
7
on ,--
70-100 0 400-600 0 _
70-1
00 104 400-600
3
_ ? ---° ? services be necessary 4----?-- } .
X 7. W i I I sr.hoo Is or r_F-urches be 100 LP 0 600 LP 0 100 UP 3 600 LP 3
affected by d i so I acement -

._._._......
-- 7. (Jill business services stiIlj
be available after oro ier_t TOTAi_ 1 0 32!j
-i 7
11 . Will any business be rii5- REMARKS (Resoond by Number)
X clar_ed. If so, indicate size
tvne, estimmttmd number of 3. NXF- AFFECTED.
-- ° - emolovees, minorities, etc_.
)( c7 . (J i I I r e l or_at i nn cause a
_......... _. ._._. hous i no skor tape
Source for available hous- 6. LOCAL. NEWSPAPER, VISUAL SURVEY, & M_LTIPLE LISTING
i nq (I j s t) SFRV I OE 7

)<
7. LJ i I I add i t i ona I Hous i na .
- --? --I oroarams he needed
P. Shnu I d Last Pesor t Hous i na
-
- -- be considered B. WILL BE IMPLEMFSITED AS NECESSARY.
X ? 9. Are there lp,pe, disabled,
_
_ - elderly, et,:.-. families
ANSWER TI-ESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
f X f 1.0. 1JiTT nu T , -F pus i ng e - 9. N0(`F ANTICIPATED.

_
-- needed for orniect
%: 11. I s nub l i c hous i na_ avai I-
_--? --? able
J .17. Is it felt tIiere will be ad-
eauate DDS hrjusjnm available 11. CITY OF SALISBURY.
°° - during relocation aeriod
x 13. Will there he a oroblem of
kousinn within financial
- means 12. BASED ON AVAILABLE HOUS I NG LISTED A90\F
.
I\If A 1/1. Are suitable business sites _
- -- available (list source)
V=. Number montl's estimated to
C r_omn_fete PGI_I)r:ATi(Y4
-----_._. l. 1 ..._._... _......... .
J. `. ?r:.anr t>1
R21or?*ion Agenh_
^r m 15. /, P P v i s e d
5/,S
Date Aooroved Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
A-?' 2 Conv: Area Relocation File
s
RI= L-OCAT 101 1
X E. I. S. CCY?P I OCR
rROJECT: 8.1631507
I.D. NO.: !-2511.
REPORT
DESIGN
COUNTY: Roman _ _
F.A. PROJECT: IR-85-3(131)Inc?
Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
DESCR I rT I QN OF PROJECT : !-85 from U93 27-601 to Nor tk of -SP 2120
SECTION - From Northside of Andrews St. to Sauthside SR 2120
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL -
Tvoe of
Disolacee
-._..
!nclividi.,:?l
--- ...................
Owners Tenants
.._..._..._._.___...__....._..__........ .._..
5 0 r!
.... M,nor-
Totalities

0 0
0-ism 15-25M 25-35M 35-SOM 50 UP

0 0 0 0 0
- -

!?''s
!) 1
1 0
VALUE OF ----------------
DWI3L I NG DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
-_._....._..._.. ........_..._. n Q Owners
- Tenants For Sa I e For Pent
rJon-F'rrt
0 r!
0 0

_..
?-20M
N/A --
g 0-150
N/A
0-20M
N/A $ 0-150
-NIA
-
..... ... ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-60M N/A 150-250 N/A 20-40M N/A 150-250 N/A
YES NO
.
_ EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS
-_ _ ._----..._.............S") __ I.p-70M N/A -4p0
25p N/A 40-70M N/A 250-100 N/A

'1,A t
. _
Will seecial -e!ocation --
70-100 ---
N/A _
400-600
N/A
70-100
N/A 400-600
N/A
sere i cis he nPressarv 1- - - --4 - , --4 .-
"J A
_..._. 1 '' , L1 i I I Sr_F po I s r_.r cl?,urches be
a f f octofj I,v ra i sn I acement 100 l-P

1 N/A 600 LP N/A 100 LP N/A 600 LP
_ N/A
Wi I I bus i ness services =t ! 1 1 T0TAJ_ N/A ? N/A N/A N/A

_°_ nr0 ipr-
b ?ter {

r'1?,1 C I Inv ti,us i ness be s- REMARKS (Pesnond by Number)
placed. If Gr1, indicate si+P f
tvoe: estimate! number of
---------- .,?_-•- emr_, I r ?s? m i nTr !ties , etc.
Fl A
r W i I I reloca±i -in cause a NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF ANDREWS ST. IS AN a
D SERVICE
- +
14A A hou , i ng shor t aae f -
STATION OCCUPIED BUT UNNAMED BUSINESS POSS Il3!_E . NO
,. SOUrce for ?,»iIable hous- SIGNS - NO ACTIVITY. MAY OR MAY NOT BE A DISPLACEE BUT
- --
rJf A 7 i nc (I ! s t) LISTED ON-Y D -F- TO POTENT I A1_ .
. W i I I add i t i ona I hous ! na f
oromrams br-, nagder.4
P•1 o h ?? , Shou I d Last Resort Hous i no
` '- be cons I dPrPr4
14fa ?. Are th?rr? Iar
or disabled,
-- L- g
elderly, off-, families
F
_I`_l A_.f ANSWIER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
In. , ou Tic T,rl, gins P
- ---
l needed frir nrr7 ec+
rifA
11. Is oublic housina_ avail-
8b
N A 1.2. Is it felt tko-e ati I I be ;11'-
f f eouate Dt7S hrn_,q ! no ava i I ab I A
_..._..?.___...? dur i na rP I ormt i on period
fA A f1. 3. Will there bP a problem of
f housirim id ithiin financial
._.._4_-4 means
NfA f16.. Are suitable business sites
---?--f avai lab le ( 1 is*. source)
f 1=+. Number montks estimatPrl to
e I Como I e+.? -L r r ,N, r
r r+r-Ar)F
?leio-ation Anent, Date Approved Date
,• rn 15./t cev i sod 5/70 -.?..---
A-4` Orip_inal & 1 Ccov: State Relocation Anent
2 Coov: Area Relocation File
North Carolina Department of Transoartation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE

R E I-OC AT 1 0" R E F= O R T Nortk Carolina Deoartment of Transoortation
X_- F.I.S. CORKIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: ..8.16.31.
.502 COUNTY;
- .. _ •.. __ _owan __ __ _`__ _--_ Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I .D.
F . A . PROJECT 69--
DESCP, If' T I ON OF PROJECT : I -85... f re_,m l..(S 2q-601._ tp Nor_th of SR 2120
SECTION - Northside of SR 2120 to 2200' North of SR 2120
_............
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
......... .........
_
Tvoe of Minor-
Disolacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M
ndlVld!J.?Is ? 1] 0 0 0
arms 0 fl 0 0
_ __.._._....._.._.._ Own
Nnn-pr n ( ; + . n n 0 - -
ANSWER ALL

EXPLAIN
1. Will soer k a 1
services be
:'. Wi I I sr.ho
affected by HisoI3r_ement
'. Will business services still TOTAL
be availrhlp -.f ter oroipct
It W i l l v h,
15-25M 25-35M 35-SOM 50 LP
-- 0 0 0 ?
? 1 (1 ?
VALUE OF DWELL- I NG
ers Tenants
0M 0 $ 0-15?
0M -
0 150-250
DM 1 250-400
00 0 . 400-600
LP 1 0 1600 Lf?
1
0
0
0
0
0
.4 .c!ness be d:s- 1 REMARKS (Respond by Number)
place d . If n, indicate size!
tv0e, estimated number of 3,
emo I ovens r m; nr-jr i t. i es , etc
S. Will relocation cause a
housing shnrtq
NCX\E AFFECTED.
DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
For Sale For Rent
0-20M I $ ?-150 0
20-40M 49 150-250 0
40-70M 135 250-400 I
70-100 104 400-600 3
100 Ln 3 - 600 LP 3
328
7
Source far ;;-a r l ab l e hous- 6. LOCAL- NEWSPAPF_P, VISLAI_ SURVEY, & MJ_TIPLE LISTING
ing (fist) I SERVICE.
7. Will additi?n?1 housing
oroarams he needed
'a . Shou I d Last Pesor t Hous i no
be consideroH g
?. Are tIngre larve, disabled,
elder iv, eta. families
ANSWER TF ESE ALSO FOR ?ES I
WILL BE I MPl_ _IvENTEO AS I•ECESSARY
Il' 1. l7i nu 1 is T,oJs i n ba -C V 9. NONE ANTICIPATED.
--_ nPeded for oro iect
x 11. Is public housing avail-
ahle
X (s it felt there will be ad-
e'luate DDS Housing available 11.
-4-4 during relocation oerind
x 1.3. Will there be a croblem of
housing within financial
means 12
N A 1/,• Are suitable business sites
-? aW1ilahlp (list source)
115, Number mnntlhs estimated to
come I Pte PE!..()(-ATInN
Relora*_ion Anent /
rm 15./I RgvisPd 5/?C
0-2
QUEST IONS
20-4
ALL "YES" AIRS 4?-7
ro I C!cat l on 70-1
necessary ?-
s or churcF?es he 1100
CITY OF SAI- I SBLRY .
BASED ON AVAILABLE HOUSING LISTED ABOVE.
Date
A-43
Aooroved Date
Original & 1 Coov: State Relocation Agent
2 CODv: Area Relocation File
R F C,
James G. Martin, Governor' ' Z y?G Thom& Harrelson, Secretary
?Z/ S `7
North Caro'
Department of Trans""rtation ;,
Release: Immediate Date: Nov. 3, 1992
Contact: Julie Goodnight, [phone] Distribution:
Release No:
INFORMATION WORKSHOP FOR IMPROVEMENTS OF I-85 IN ROWAN COUNTY
RALEIGH--The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a
citizens informational workshop Tuesday, November 17, 1992, to discuss
proposed improvements to I-85 in Rowan County.
The workshop will be held from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. in the Red Room of
the Community Building located at 202 North Main Street in Salisbury.
Construction has been scheduled in the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), NCDOT's planning document for highway projects, to widen
the section of I-85 from U.S. 29/601 to north of Long Ferry Road to six
lanes. The bridges along the project will be widened and raised as
needed to provide adequate clearance. Interchanges along the section
will also be improved as needed.
The public is invited to attend the informal workshop, ask
questions, make comments or recommendations and submit material about the
proposed project. NCDOT staff officials are asking interested citizens
to meet with them on a one-on-one basis. This will give the department a
better opportunity to understand citizens, concerns about the proposed
project.
Other written material may be submitted to L. Jack Ward, manager of
the Planning and Environmental Branch, Division of Highways, N.C.
Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, N.C. 27611.
For more information, contact Eric Midkiff, project planning
engineer, at [phone].
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids and
services for any qualified disabled person interested in attending any
public hearings or scheduled meetings. Please call the Planning and
Environmental Branch at [phone] to request accommodations for your
disability.
***NCDOT***
Public Affairs Division NC DOTLINE Rubie Britt Height
P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh, N. C. 27611 1-800-526-2368 Director of Public Affairs
[phone] Media Information Updates A-44
FAX: [phone]
An Eaual Oooornmirv/Affirmaave Action Emolover
TABLE N3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
1-85 From us 29-601 to North of SR 2120, Rowan County
State Project N 8.1631502, TIP M I-2511
1/6
NOISE
AMBIENT NEAREST
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
LEVEL
RECEPTOR INFORMAT ION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
mmIMUM
-L- -Y-
INCAEAS
NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) _-
ID N LAND USE CATE GORY
US 29-601 to SR 2528 (Julian Road)
_ * 78 + 7

B I-85 170 L 71 I-85 170 L '
* 69
+ 6
1 Residence
390 L
" _ -
2 Residence B rr
390 L 63
" 240 L - - * 73 + 5
3 Residence B 240 L
?r 8
6
" 210 L _ * 74
- + 5
4 Residence B 210 L 69
'• 180 A - * 79 + 8
5 Residence B rr 180 R 71
310 L _ _ " 73 + 8
6 Residence B 310 L 65
n 440 A _ _ 65 * a
7 Residence B 440 R
" 61
rr 400 R * 68
- + t
8 Residence H " 400 R 62
340 R * 70
- + t

9 Residence
B
340 R
•?
64 "
300 R
- - * 71
+
10 Residence B " 300 R 66
" 410 R
-
- * 66 + '
11 Residence B 410 R 62 rr 270 R - - 75 +
12 Residence B " 270 R 67
" 310 R - * 73 +

13 Residence
H rr
310 R
65
rr 440 R
- * 69

14 Residence
B rr 440 R 61
rr 350 R
' 71 +

2)
B rr
350 R
64
---------- R/W-----------
15 BRes usinence(

16 Business

C rr

370 R

63
n
R
370 --

------'-----------------------R/W-----------
Business
17 C rr
R
410 62 rr
R
410 R/W----
-
------------------- -------
C R
240 68
240 R
R
74
+
18 Business " 280 R
19 Business C
n
280 R 66

170 L
_
* 80
-
+
20 Business C rr 170 L 71 210 R - - " 78 +
21 Business C 210 R 69
210 R
- - " 78
+
22 Business C 210 R 69
" 230 L _ 77 +

Business
23
C rr
230 L 69
rr 370 R
- - 71/46 +
E rr 370 R 63/< 40 * 69 +
Church
24
410 L
" -
-

25 Residence
B rr 410 L 62

" 280 R

' 74
- " -+
26 Residence H ? 280 R 66- L
-R
------
----------
W -----
B
rr
140 L 73 r 140
? *
6 +
27 Residence rr 240 R - -

26 Residence H rr 240 R 68
rr 330 L _
- " 72 +
29 Residence B " 330 L 64
" 370 -L It 71 +
30 Residence B 370 L 63
" 450 L - It 68 +
31 Residence B It 450 L 61

250 R
" - _ " 76 +
32 Residence B 250 R
?r 68 rr 390 L - 70 +
C " 390 L 63
33 Business
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's tnoise level congrroc level from
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. " ?? Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part "
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48).
A-,4, 5
TABLE N3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-85 From US 29-601 to North of SR 2120, Rowan County
State Project N 8.1631502, TIP N I-2511
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME D73TANrr../}+•
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
US 29-601 to SR 2528 (Julian Road) Cont'd
34 Residence B I-85 390 R
35 Residence B 11 330 R
36 Residence B •' 260 L
37 Residence B " 230 L
38 Business C '• 270 L
39 Business C 11 280 L
40 Residence B 380 R
41 Residence B '• 190 R
42 Business C " 630 L
43 Mobile Home B " 430 R
SR 2528 (Julian Road) to US 52
44 Mobile Home B I-85 430 R
45 Mobile Home B " 380 R
46 Mobile Home B 350 R
47 Mobile Home B " 390 R
48 Mobile Home B " 410 R
49 Mobile Home B 330 R
50 Mobile Home B " 420 R
51 Residence B " 350 R
52 Residence B '• 240 R
53 Residence B " 160 R
54 Business C 210 R
55 Business C '• 230 L
56 College E " 280 R
57 Business C " 210 L
58 Business C " 470 R
59 Business C '• 310 L
60 Business C '• 170 L
61 Business C •' 370 R
62 Business C •• 130 R
63 Business C 1 350 R
2/6
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
63 I-85 390 R - - * 70 + 7
64 •' 330 R - - * 72 + 8
67 " 260 L - - to 75 + 8
69 " 230 L - - * 77 + 8
67 •' 270 L - -
75 + 8
66 " 280 L - - to 74 + 8
63 11 380 R - - to 70 + 7
70 " 190 R ---------------------
56 '• 630 L --------------------- R/W--------------
61 •• 430 R ---------------------
61 I-85 430 R - - to 68 + 7
63 •' 380 R - - * 70 + 7
64 " 350 R - - * 71 +
7
63 '• 390 R - - * 70 + 7
62 '• 410 R - - * 69 + 7
64 " 330 R - - * 72 + 8
62 of 420 R - - to 69 + 7
64 " 350 R - - to 71 + 7
68 to 240 R - - * 75 + 7
72 160 R - - to 80 + 8
69 " 210 R - - to 77 + 8
69 •• 230 L - - to 76 + 7
66/41 11 280 R - - 74/49 + 8/8
69 It 210 L - - * 77 + 8
60 It 470 R - - 67 + 7
65 310 L - - to 72 + 7
71 '• 170 L - - - *-79 + 8
63 to 370 R - - 70 + 7
74 '• 130 R ------
64 It 350 R - - * 71 + 7
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-» Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-46
TABLE N3
3/6
- Leg TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-85 From US 29-601 to North of SR 2120, Rowan County
State Project M 8.1631502, TIP N I-2511

RECEPTOR INFORM
ATION AMBIENT NEAREST
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY NOISE
ID M LAND USE CA TEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEV
NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y-
MAXIMUM INCAEA;k
SR 2528 (Julian Road) to US 52 (Cont'd)
64 Residence B I-85 290 R

65 Residence
B
to 66 I-85 290 R
- - * 73

66 Residence

H

'.
360 R
63
It 360 R

* 70 + 7

67 Residence

B

., 270 R
67
to 270 A

- - * 74 + 7

68 Residence

B

.•
360 R
63
" 360 A

- - * 70 + 7

69 Residence

B

it
160 R
72
160 R

* 7 + 7

70 Residence

H 260 R
67
" 260 R

- to 71
1 + 5

1 Residence

B

"
140 R
140
73
" 140 R + 4

72 Residence

H

" L

200 L
73
" 140 L

--------------------- R/w--------------

73 Business

C

" 70 ..
200 L
_ _ * 77
7
+

74 Residence
B
,. 200 R 70 " 200 R
- " 74

75 Residence

B
400 R
62
" 400 R

- - 65 + 4

+

76 Residence

H
200 R
70
" 200 R

- * 74 3

77 Residence

B

"
160 R
72
..
160 R

_ _ * 77 + 4

8 Residence

B

"
440 A

61

to 440 R

_
65 5
+

79 Residence

H 350 R
64
" 350 R

- " 69 + 4

80 Business

C

"
300 R
66
"
300 R

- - * 70 + 5

1 Residence

B

•
200 R
70

200 R

74 + 4

82 Residence

B

„ 390 L
63
" 390 L

- - * 70 + 4

Residence

B

'•
140 L
430
73
'• 140 L + 7

84 Church

E

'• L 61
430 L
_ _ * 68
7
+

85 Residence
B
" 230 L 69/44 ..
230 L * 76/51

86 Business
C
" 320 L 65 ,.
320 L
- - * 72 + 7/7

87 Mobile Rome

g
190 R
70

? 190 R

- - * 78 + 7

+ 8

88 Mobile Home

B

" 440 L 61
'• 440 L

65

+ 4

89 Mobile Home
B
•• 360 L 63 '• 360 L
- * 67
+ 4

90 Mobile Home
B
n 220 L 69 " 220 L
- - " 74

91 Mobile Home

B

.•
380 L
63
" - 380 L

- * 69 + 5

92 Mobile Home

B

.r
420 L
62
" 420 L

- - " 66 + 6

93 Mobile Home

B

..
250 L
68
" 250 L

- " 73 + 4

94 Mobile Home

H
140 L
73
" 140 L

---------------------- R/W------ + 5

------

95 Mobile Home

B

It
230 L
69

" 230 L

to 7d --

96 Mobile @ome

H

It
290 L
66

'• 290 L

o 72 +
5

+ 6
450 L 61 " 450 L _
- 65 + 4
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels.
g ry E noise levels shown as exterior/interior * -> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Cate o (58/48). °> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR part 772).
A-47
TABLE N3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-85 From US 29-601 to North of SR 2120, Rowan County
State Project M 8.1631502, TIP M I-2511
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft)

SR 2528 (Julian Road) to US 52 (COnt'd)
97 Mobile Home B I-85 320 L 65 I-85 320 L
98 Mobile Home B " 250 L 68 " 250 L
99 Mobile Home B
100 Mobile Home B
101 Mobile Home B
102 Mobile Home B
103 Mobile Home B
104 Mobile Home B
105 Mobile Home B
106 Residence B
107 Residence B
108 Residence B
109 Residence B
110 Residence B
111 Business C
112 Residence B
113 Residence B
114 Business C
115 Business C
116 Business C
117 Business C
118 Business C
119 Business C
120 Business C " 150 L
" 320 L
" 380 L
" 400 L
" 170 L
" 320 L
" 220 L
" 400 L
" 210 L
" 220 L
380 L
" 410 L
" 240 R
" 360 L
" 430 L
" 160 R
200 R
" 150 R
" 210 R
" 350 L
" 430 L
" 400 L 73
65
63
62
71
65
69
62
69
69
63
62
68
63
61
72
70
73
69
64
61
62 " 150 L
320 L
" 380 L
" 400 L
" 170 L
" 320 L
" 220 L
" 400 L
" 210 L
" 220 L
" 380 L
410 L
" 240 R
" 360 L
" 430 L
'• 160 R
" 200 R
" 150 R
" 210 R
" 350 L
" 430 L
" 400 L
US 52 to SR 1002 (Bringle Ferry Road)
121 Business C 1
122 Business C
123 Residence B
124 Residence B
125 'Residence B
126 Residence B -85 390 L
" 420 L
" 390 R
370 R
" 240 R
" 190 R 63
62
63
64
69
71 1-85 390 L
" 420 L
" 390 R
370 R
" 240 R
" 190 R
4,
NOIS'
PREDICTED NOISE LEWIS LEVE;
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCRE,
* 71 + f
* 73 +
--------------------- R/W------------
* 71 + E
* 69 +
* 69 + 7
--------------------- R/W------------
* 71 + 6
- " 74 + 5
- * 69 + 7
- * 76 + 7
- * 74 + 5
* 69 + 6
* 68 + 6
* 75 + 7
* 70 + 7
65 + 4
- - " 80 + 8
* 77 + 7
* 81 + 8
* 77 + 8
* 71 + 7
68 + 7
69 + 7
- - 69 + 6
- - 68 + 6
- - * 69 + 6
- - " 68 + 4
- * 71 - + 2
- - * 73 + 2
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels.
-Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadway
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-48
TABLE N3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-85 From US 29-601 to North of SR 2120, Rowan County
State Project k 8.1631502, TIP k 1-2511
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft)
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
US 52 to SR 1002 (Bringle Ferry Road) Cont'd
127 Business C I-85 260 L
128 Residence B " 190 R
129 Residence B " 280 R
130 Residence B " 360 R
131 Residence B " 280 R
132 Residence B " 390 R
133 Residence B " 270 R
134 Residence B " 370 R
135 Residence B " 220 R
136 Residence B " 320 R
137 Residence B " 280 R
138 Residence B " 390 R
139 Residence B 300 R
140 Residence B " 390 R
141 Residence B " 380 R
142 Residence B " 280 R
143 Residence B " 240 R
144 Residence B " 200 R
145 Residence B " 140 R
146 Residence B " 170 R
147 Residence B " 450 R
148 Business C " 250 R
149 Residence B " 200 L
150 Residence B " 240 L
151 Residence B " 330 L
5/
NOISE
LEVEI
INCREI
68 I-85 260 L - - * 74 + E
71 " 190 R - - * 73 + ,
67 " 280 R - - * 70 +
64 " 360 R - - * 68 + S
67 " 280 R - - * 70 + ;
63 " 390 R - - 65 + 2
67 " 270 R - - * 72 + 5
64 " 370 R - - * 69 + c
70 " 220 R - - * 73 + 3
65 " 320 R - - * 70 + 5
67 " 280 R - - * 71 + 4
63 " 390 R - - * 66 + 5
66 " 300 R - - * 71 + 5
63 " 390 R - - * 68 + 5
63 " 380 R - - * 69 + 6
67 " 280 R - - * 71 + 4
69 " 240 R - - * 73 + 4
70 " 200 R - - * 76 + 6
74 " 140 R --------------------- R/W------------
72 " 170 R - - * 79 + 6
61 " 450 R - - * 67 + 6
68 " 250 R - - It 74 + 6
70 " 200 L - -
77 + 7
69 " 240 L - - * 75 + 6
65 " 330 L - - * 71 + 6
SR 1002 (Bringle Ferry Road) to North of SR 2120
152 Residence B I-85 200 L 70 I-85
153 ResidenC! ... B " 230. R 69 "
154 Residence B " 280 L 67
155 Residence B " 320 R 65
156 Apartment B " 170 L 72
200 L --------------------- R/W-------------
230 R - - * 76 + 7
280 L --------------------- R/W------------'
320 R - * 72 + 7
170 L --------------------- R/W-------------
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadwa}
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-49
TABLE N3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-85 From US 29-601 to North of SR 2120, Rowan County
State Project N 8.1631502, TIP M I-2511

RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY
NEAREST ROADWAY
NAME DISTANCE(ft) AMBIENT NEAREST
NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft)
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM N(
LE
IN(

SR 1002 (Bringle Ferry Road) to North of SR 2120 (Cont'd)
157 Residence B I-85 330 L 65 I-85 330 L - - * 72 +
156 Residence B " 290 L 66 " 290 L - - * 73 +
159 Residence B " 410 R 63 " 410 R - - * 69 +
160 Business C " 220 L 70 " 220 L - - * 77 +
161 Business C ^ 320 R 65 " 320 R - - * 72 +
162 Residence B " 160 L 73 " 160 L - - * 81 +
163 Residence B " 160 L 73 " 160 L - - * 81 +
164 Business C " 410 L 63 " 410 L - - 69 +
165
166 Business C
Residence B " 330 L
380 L 65 "
63 " 330
380 L
R - - * 72
- - * 70 +
+
167 Residence B " 320 R 65 " 320 R - - * 72 +
168 Residence B 290 R 66 " 290 R - - * 73 +
169
170 Residence B
Residence B 260 R
260 R 68 "
68 " 260
260 R
R - - * 75
- - * 75 +
+
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or pr9posed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribut
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing road
Category E .noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * v Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 77
A-5C
-TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: I-2511 / I-85 ROWAN COUNTY
DATE: 09/29/1994 TIME: 11:55:04.77
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD a .0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 6 (F)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: I-85 (YEAR 1997 BUILD)
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
PAGE 1
LINK DESCRIPTION " LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------R------------------------------- --------- *--------------------- ------------------- ------------------
1. NB LINK * 21.3 -804.7 21.3 804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 3174. 24.2 .0 20.7
2. SB LINK " .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 3174. 24.2 .0 20.7
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z "
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R-76, 160' R * -38.1 .0 1.8
JOB: I-2511 / I-85 ROWAN COUNTY RUN: I-85 (YEAR 1997 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.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 7.3
DEGR. * 10

A-51
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: I-2511 / I-85 ROWAN COUNTY
DATE: 09/29/1994 TIME: 11:55:37.45
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 6 (F)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: I-85 (YEAR 2017 BUILD)
ZO 108. CM
ATIM 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
PAGE 2
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
" X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ "---------------------------------------- *-- ------------------- -----------------------------------
1. NB LINK * 21.3 -804.7 21.3 804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 6246. 9.8 .0 20.7
2. SB LINK " .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 6246. 9.8 .0 20.7
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
" COORDINATES (M) "
RECEPTOR * X Y Z "
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R-76, 160' R " -38.1 .0 1.8 "
JOB: I-2511 / I-85 ROWAN COUNTY RUN: I-85 (YEAR 2017 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.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 6.2
DEGR. * 9
A-52
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION PAGE 3
JOB: I-2511 / I-85 ROWAN COUNTY RUN: I-85 (YEAR 1997, NO-BUILD)
DATE: 09/29/1994 TIME: 11:56:00.74
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-
--------------------
VS - - .0 CM/S ----------
VD .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 6 (F) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
* LINK COORDINATES (M)
*
LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
--------------------- --- *---------------------------------------- *---------- ----------- --------------- ---- ------------------
1. NB LINK * 16.5 -804.7 16.5 804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 3174. 15.8 .0 13.4
2. SB LINK * .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 3174. 15.8 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R-76, 160' R * -40.5 .0 1.8
JOB: I-2511 / I-85 ROWAN COUNTY RUN: I-85 (YEAR 1997, NO-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.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE:,* (PPM) -
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 5.3
DEGR. * 9
A-53
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION PAGE 4
JOB: I-2511 / I-85 ROWAN COUNTY RUN: I-85 (YEAR 2017, NO-BUILD)
DATE: 09/29/1994 TIME: 11:56:26.28
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
--------------------
VS = .0 CM/S ---------
VD --
.0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 6 (F) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MLXH = 400. M AMB 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
*
LINK COORDINATES (M) *
LENGTH
BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
--------------------- ---R----- ----------------------------------- "---------- ----------- --------------- ---- ------------------
1. NB LINK * 16.5 -604.7 16.5 804.7 " 1609. 360. AG 6246. 34.7 .0 13.4
2. SB LINK * .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 6246. 34.7 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
-
---------
-
-------
*
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *----- --------------------------------*
1. R-76, 160' R " -40.5 .0 1.8
JOB: I-2511 / I-85 ROWAN COUNTY RUN: I-85 (YEAR 2017, NO-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.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM) --
(DEGR)" REC1
MAX :--16.3
DEGR. * 9
A-54
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
1-85
FROM US 29-601
TO NORTH OF SR 2120
ROWAN COUNTY
T. I. R NO. 1-2511
NOVEMBER 17, 1992
Citizens Informational Worksho
A-55

CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
I-85 from US 29-601
to
north of SR 2120 (Long Ferry Road) in Rowan County
State Project No.'s 8.1631502 and 8.1631503
Federal Aid Project No.'s IR-85-3(131)69 and IR-85-3(132)74
TIP No. I-2511
PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP
This Citizens Informational Workshop is being held to review proposed
improvements to I-85 from US 29-601 to north of SR 2120 in Rowan County.
Any comments or suggestions concerning the proposed improvements or areas
of environmental concern in this study will be appreciated.
All comments and suggestions received will be considered in the
project study. It is realized that persons who are close to the project
want to know exact information about the effect'on their home or place of
business. Exact information is not available at this stage of the
project's development. Additional design work is necessary before the
actual right-of-way limits can be established. Therefore, it is not
possible for representatives of the N. C. Division of Highways to provide
exact information about the effect of the project on individual properties
at this time. More definite information will be available at a future
public hearing.
Written comments or requests for additional information should be
addressed to:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program calls for widening
the existing facility and for pavement and bridge reconstruction. The
proposed improvements will require additional right-of-way. The attached
map shows the location of the project.
DECRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed improvements consist of widening I-8S to six lanes with
a 70-foot median for most of the project length. From north of Julian
Road to north of Bringle Ferry Road a 46-foot median is proposed. The
bridges along the project will be lengthened and raised as needed to
provide adequate vertical and horizontal clearance. The interchanges
along the project will be revised as needed in order to accommodate the
proposed widening.
A-56
CURRENT SCHEDULE
Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1994
with construction scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1995.
The above schedule is subject to the availability of funds.
EXISTING FACILITY
Existing I-85 in the project vicinity is a four-lane, interstate
facility on 260 feet of right-of-way. The facility consists of four
12-foot lanes with 10-foot shoulders. The average daily traffic (1992)
along the project ranges from 36,900 vehicles per day (vpd) to 44,900 vpd.
Estimated traffic volumes for the year 2017 are expected to range from
79,500 vpd to 92,700 vpd.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Construction - $100,400,000
Right-of-way - 3 650 000
Total - $104,050,000
These costs should be regarded as preliminary only and are subject to
revision in the later stages of planning.

A-57
I

ROWAN COUNTY

0
I
14
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
COMMUNITY BUILDING
SALISBURY, NC
NOVEMBER 17, 1992
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
PORTATION T?MP1-85 FROM US ROVEMENT 29-601 TO 2120 IN ROWAN
COUNTY; TRANS
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
STATEMENTS RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED I-85 IMPROVEMENTS MAY ALSO BE MAILED TO:
MR. L. J. WARD, P.E., MANAGER OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH, P.O. BOX
25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611
A-59
?,.•? . STATEw
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DAMES h. I1UNL, J R. DIVISION OF HIGI-IWAYS
Govt 1R m P.O. RC)X 25101, RALFIGI I, N.C. 27611-5201
January 4, 1995
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SWIM ARY
RECEIVED
EIVIRONIAENTAL 9CIENLEa
Ga raACH
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for I-85, From US 29-601 to North
of SR 2120, Rowan County, State Project Nos. 8.1631502 and
8.1631503, Federal Aid Project Nos. IR-85-3(131)69 and
IR-85-3(132)74, T.I.P. Project No. I-2511
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and Natural Resources
Technical Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It is
anticipated this project will be processed with a "Finding of No Significant
impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental Assessment or
at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by February 24, 1995. If no comments
are received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy
of the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
?. Fr nklin Vick, P. E., Manager
P1arrFiing and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
R1*41

Proposed widening of I-85
from US 29-501 to north of SR 2120
Rowan County
TIP 4 I-2511
State Project id's
3.1631502
8.1631503
Federal Aid Project #'s
IR-85-3(131)74
IR-85-3(132)74
NATURAL L RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
I-251.1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
Hal Bain, Biologist
November 1992

TABLE OF CONTENTS
0 in oduction
'.? Project Description ..............................1
_._. .' ose ..........................................?
.1-
1.3 Sr.udy Area ......................................
1. iie thodology ......................................"i.
2.0 Biotic Resources
2.1 Terrestrial Communities ..........................2.
2.1.1 Disturbed/Roadside ........................2.
2.1.2 Pine Forest ...............................3
2.1.3 Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest .................
2.1.4 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest.....
2.'? du ti.c Communities .............................._
2.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...................6
3.0 i?iotResources
3.1 later Resources ..................................:
3.i.1 Streams, Rivers, Impoundments, Etc.......;
3.1.2 Water Quality ............................'
3.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........... S
).2 soils ............................................9
i . U Topics
A.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional
Issues ...................................8
..1.1 Permits ..................................s>
4.2 Mitiaation .......................................9
4.3 Protected Species ................................?)
4.3.1 Federally-Protected Species ..............9
4.3.2 State-Protected Species .................11
4.3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .......... 1"__
5.0 References ............................................12
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The fo11_c-,. i ng report is submitted for use a.s
sui plelileni: to ::?Slst In preparation of an Environmental
AssessIil°IIt
?_ . 1 P'_"'O j i;(;t Ji?SCr IptlOn
proi)osed construction includes pci'Jeiil"I:i:
it_iti in, widening and bridge improvement. ! i.
be- :id':ned symitietrically to a six-lane facility with a 70-
Loot The 70-foot median will be capablt- of
accomrnodat:ing future widening to 8 lanes. A total of 500
feet of right of way -rill be needed throughout the r1ainline
of the project .pith the exception of the secti.oii of 1-85
:chic l begins just south of Jake Alexander Blvd.
of th?-3 US 52 interchange. This section will wic-1311 6.
asynun ,tr i c,.11.iv to the west side of 1-85.
1.2 '?urnc1- ?
The 4 .?} ?>ose of this technical report is to invontor: ,
catllo(3 a,,d describe the various natural resources likely to
be =1T)acted by the proposed action. The report also attempts
to identify and estimate the likely consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. These descripTioil:,
anC?. ?still??ites are relevant only in the context of e;:?_stilic;
preliminl:r, design concepts. It may become necess<..ry to
conduct ad:itional field investigations, should desicin
Tsar lmeters and criteria change.
i.3 Study area
The project is located in the piedmont physiographic
province in Rowan County from US 29-601 to north of. SR 2120.
The topocrraphy of the area is gently rolling hills vegetated
iritrl a I11os aic of forested and disturbed areas. Elevation in
the project area ranges from 620 to 800 feet above mean sea--
1 e.,C 1 ( Figure 1) .
1. Methodology
Preliminary resource information was assembled and
revie,aed, including U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USGS)
quadrangle maps (China Grove and Salisbury) and a NCDOT
county road map. Other preliminary, off-site work was
accomplished by conducting a review of literature, reference
resources and data on soils, water resources, wildlife
populations, protected species, etc., provided by agencies of
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USF47S) and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS).

'? IIIC i' I
e IJf'J
_Is31isburyx • .
ti
0. w,
ROWAN c;ourrl r !Ile
'15`?Ille ? ? ? .?
J? 11
!SI ISBUR,Y''
12
2 IN
•{ ?...??w/ -II \rl OWI 1M4L:` > l? 'f\ _ 1 f/ -.-? J
-? `°"°?q _v?ii;"I'ii ?':AliOLI.`":'? I?)i•.i",i<i.'.11::?:i"
- = Pf.,Ati?;i:N(; :1N'I) I..'t`•'iRt)N:AIf:`:1',?i,
1-85
FROM US 29-601
TO NORTH OF SR 2120
T. I. P. N0. 1-2511

Aerial photographs and plan sh?_ets of the Subject project
(1"= 100' and 1"-200') mere also used as references of the
surrounding >rea. Site visits ,aere conducted on September 30
and October 1, 1992.
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
FAvinCJ 1n the following sections
plants and animals. These
description!; _ ti i w-, to tilil doiitlnant f lora and fauna in each
comlilunrty aild ho;`i i hese biotic components relate to one
another. Complete listings of fauna can be found in one or
more technical references in section 5.0.
The list of vertebrate species whic?: "%ere-
visuai_ly of ?, r ,ca 1 ii. 1. r, surveys ;were being conducted in
the study .re_
Tab' ? nii? l ?'? Ob.,_,-_-rved .n the Study Area
C-0-IMP-011' Ni MIE'
Carolina chic,,_<:.dee
American crow
blue jay
tufted ti tr; c _
Carolina iar:;n
brown-headed nuth..-atch
COMMON NAME
red-tailed hawk
turkey vulture
northern flicker
downy woodpecker
gray squirrel
Virginia opossum
?..1 Terrestrial Communities
DISTURBED/ROADSIDE, PINE
FORES'T', PIEDMONT/LON IrIOUNTAI1;
located in the subject project
FOREST, DRY-MESIC OAK-HICKORY
ALLUVIAL FOREST COMMUNITIES are
boundaries.
2.1.1 D4L5turbed/Roadside
This community includes roadsides, medians, deforested
zones, agricultural fields, lawns, etc. Man maintains this
community through various mechanical and chemical methods
including fire, tilling, =,,i.ng, timbering, and herbicide
usage. Portions of this community form a buffer zone between
I-85 and other associated plant communities. Early
successional plants such as tall fescue (Festuca sp.),
sericea (Iespedeza cuneata), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana),
woolly mullein (Verbascum thapsus), blackberry (Rubus sp.),
winged sumac (Rhus coppalina), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
Japonica), dog fennel (_ui tcrium capillifolium), goldenrod
(Solidaao sp.) and other members of the Asteraceae family
flourish in these disturbed areas. Tree species such as
tulip tree (L_iriodendron tulipif_era), sweetgum (Lic?uidambar
styraciflua), .winged elm (Ulmus alata), red cedar (Junip?rus
virainiana) and scrub pine (Pinus virainiana) are also found

along, roadsides and in abandoned field sites. The plants
found in this community product large; numbers of fruits and
seeds which n-tuny animals depend on for survival.
The veaetation of these disturbed areas attracts
invertebrates (?primarily insects) which in turn serve as a
food source for amphibians and other vertebrate species.
Amphibian species likely to be associated with this area
(n1_e1-.hodon glutinosus), American
'r'Owle_'s toad (Bufo woodhousei), and
-- ----------
gray treefrogs (IIyl _ cr._ysosceli.s>, H. versi.color).
Zeptil s likely to occurr in the area include eastern
bog: turtle Terra ene caroling eastern fence lizard
( Sc.:_?lopnr_l s t ,cllil,?tu.s) , five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) ,
rat.? . ! I 11 :, ,o l eta) , rough green snake (Opheodrys
---
c' -1:I Lter snake Thamno his sirtalis and
cop.% i.str.edon contortrix . These species live and
Drag .?: ..; of organisms from grasshoppers and
cric:l, an?i small mammals.
Birds common in the vicinity of the project include
opportunistic species such as turkey vulture (Cathartes
aura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo Jamaicensis), American crow
Corvus brachyrrynchos), and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata).
mourni.ilc, (? }n__:i-d macrot1l"a), tufted titmouse (Parus
b_icol.or , c_;: rolina ;rr _ n ( hr rothorus ludovicianus) , Carolina
chickacla (F'.1ru carol _nensis) , northern cardinal Cardinalis
cardinal ,:;d .ouse finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) also can
be found utilizing this habitat for breading and foraging.
Virginia opossum (Didelp_.zis virginiana) and raccoon
(Procyon lotor) are common along road shoulders and ditches
searching among trash for food. While eastern cottontail
(Syl.vi.la us *lo_r-i.danus), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
H-ipidus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
commonly use these areas for foraging as well as for den and
bedding loc"tions.
2.1.2 Pine Forest
This community was most likely disturbed at one point in
time and a transitional stage between shrub communities
and mixed forest communities. Shortleaf pine (Pinus
echina_ta), loblolly pine (P. taeda), scrub pine, and red
cedar with a scattering of blackjack oak (Quercus
marilandica) and willow oak (Q_ phellos), make up the broken
canopy while poison ivy, grape, Japanese honeysuckle and
sericea are present in the vine/herb layer.
Gray squirrels (Sciurus car_o_linensis) and brown-headed
nuthatches (Sitta pusilla) frequent this community primarily
to forage on pine seeds. Other vertebrate species previously
discussed are also found in the pine forest community.

. 1. :pry-Mes is Oa:z-',Iic,=y Forest
This cornlil'._1P.ity gro?•,'s on a variety of upland soils and is
generally found on slopes leading to stream and creek bottoms
and is an ecotone between the pine forest communities and
hardwood,/bottolnland forest communities. Hydrology of the
area i s terrestrial. variel.y of animal species discussed
earlier habitat.
1'l1 : C; a.il0 ` is op,, n and commposed of red oak (auei cU
ru, ?'_i.) , white oak Iba) , black. oak velutina_) , hickory
(C?iry4 spp.shortlea.= pine, loblolly pine, scrub pine,
: n , tulip tree, sweet gum and
eul
sou? Jood (-O-- 1<>ndrum arbor )
-- - --- - -----
winged elm. Flo,,JUri.nc dogwood (Cornus florida),
sassafra2 (SassafT-a.s Ibiduln) , and red cedar are common
subcanop sr_.eci s. he vine/herb layer is dominated by
japan« se hO: -,,si.ici le --,,,-d club moss (I,ycopoA um sp.) which
jro`a on p i nr i1 c dle nrl 1; of litter.
_ __lluvial Forest
This climax community is found on alluvial soils along
stream and floodplains. Hydrology of this area is
palustrine (seasonally or intermittently flooded).
Ani :mentioned forage in this location as
del! as use a-, a t-,avel corridor between foraging
locations pan( -, cling treas. Additional animals found in
this Community ;nclude: red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber),
northern cric'.?ct frog (Acris cr-epitans), eastern kingsnake
(LamRq-ope1t .s cietulus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratu_s) ,
downy woodpec;:.r (-Pi coides pubescens), prothonotary warbler
(Protonotari-a citrea), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus_), and
beaver C%Lstor canadensis).
The canopy i.s open and composed of shagbark hickory
(CarsTa ova'ca) , blacl> walnut (Jaicglans nigra) , American beech
(Fagus r ndi f o.1. i a) , red oak, black oak, white oak, swamp
chestnut oak (Q. michauxi_i-), willow oak, sycamore (Platanus.
occ_identa]_is-), river birch (Betula nigr__a), tulip tree, winged
elm, American elm, red maple, box elder, silver maple (Acer
sacchar i.n_u.m) , s,aeetgum, redbud (Cer_cis canadensis), flowering
dog?,oo 1, red cedar, and ,gild cherry (Prunus serotina).
Japanese honeysuckle, grape, poison ivy, trumpet creeper,
cross vine (hni.sosticnus capr.eolata), heartleaf (Hexastylis
sp. ), false soloman's seal (Smilacina r_acemosa_) and
strawberry bush (Euon?mus ameri_canus) make up the vine/herb
layer.
J
2.2 Aquatic CominuniLies
Torn Creek and its unnam-d tributaries (some
intermittent) are trie only rater resources found in the
proposed project alignment. Locations of these aquatic
communities follow in Table 2.
Table 2. Appro.-:imat(-, Locaa:.ions of
C,_ eeks and Sty tams Crossing
the Project :).lignment
Creel: or Stream Location
1. Town Cr eel: 0.2 mile north of SR 1505
2. Unnamed Tribu tary rt 1 0.25 mile south of SR 1500
3. Unnamed Tri. if 2 0.25 mile north of SR 1500
4. Unnamed Tri.. 4 3 0.5 mile north of SR 1500
5. Unnamed Tri. # : 0.3 mile north of SR 2538
6. Unnamed Tri. +' 5 0.5 ,Wile south of SR 2528
' Unnamed ?'ri . r? r ^ . > mile south of SR 2528
S. Unnam d Tri . f 0 ... :Wile :north of SR 2528
9. Unnamed Tri. r 8 0.3 mile north of SR 1007
10. Unnamed Tri. •'f 9 0.5 mile north of SR 1007
11. Unnamed Tri. 10 0.25 mile north of Old Concord
Road (SR 1002)
12. Unnamed Tr-i. 1:1 0.25 mile north of NC 52
13. Unnamed Tri. r 12 0.25 mile south of Bringle
Ferr y Roa d (SR 1002)
14. Unnamed Tri. ? 13 0.25 mile north of Bringle
Ferr y Roa d (SR 1002)
15. Unnamed Tri. ;r 14 0.7 rnile north of Bringle
Ferr y Road (SR 1002)
16. Unnamed Tri. #15 0.25 mile south of McCanless
Road (SR 2114)
17. Unnamed Tri. r 16 less than 0.1 m ile south of
McCa nless Road (SR 2114)
18. Unnamed Tri. r17 0.25 mile north of McCanless
Road (SR 2114)
19. Town Cr eek 1.0 mile north of old Union
Chur ch Road (SR 1915)
Town Crccl> supports amphibian and reptile species such
as the bull frog (Rana catesbei_ana) and snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentine) which feed in and around this creek.
Fish species such as longnose gar (Lenisosteus osseus),
gizzard shad (Dorosama cepE',dianum), common carp (Cyprinus
carpio), bluehead chub ('Li comis leptocephalus), suckermouth
redhorse (Moxostoma pappillosum), channel catfish (Ictalurus
tprnctatus), eastern mosauitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), green
sunfish (Lepomis cyaneIlus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
largemouth bass (Mi_croptgrus salmoides), and white crappie
(Pomoxis- -annularis) are also likely inhabitants of Town
Creek.
6
2.3 Sua?r??_iry of Anticipated Impacts
Destruction of terrestrial. communities along the project
alignment vdll result in the loss of foraging and breeding
habitats for many of the terrestrial species which utilize
this area. Approximately 330.5 acres of the
disturbed/roadside community will be impacted by construction
while n,,.,, iTlll be created along
new road shoulders Aid recs. Piedmont/lots
mountain alluvial .forest impact-.-I, Dotal approximately 133.2
acres while dry-masic oak-hickory forest and pine forest
communities loose ?_-0.'I acr :s and 27.5 acres
respecti•y,rely. Loss of tii?se habitats will result in a
reduction and displacement of species found in the subject
project stud,; :,one. IiG;:' .VOr opt)ortunistic species capable of
surviving in a vari.ty of ?lai)i tar.; jvi li thrive in disturbed
areas. Table 3 lists trio nt1.c'_ ',ated ii-npacts in acres to
blOt1C '_n til3 stibjec:t, project area.
Table 3 . i i !npacts to
Ei otic C,G!;ununities
Communities Acres
Disturbed/Roadside 330.5
Pine Forest 27.5
Dry-Mesic Oal:-t?ic,.orI ='Gr: st 56. ^-_
Piedmont./Low Mountain P_l._IVial Forest 1-33.2
Total 547.6
Note: Values sho-wm are based upon an average 500 feet of
right-of-fray. Actual impacts may be less.
The eros-Lon and sur-Face runoff associated with the
proposed action could have severe effects on the Town Creek
system. Incr,:ased seditie-nt loads can cause mortality among
less hardy - ,a isrls and th it progeny due to associated
factors such as to::ic run-off, increased turbidity, reduction
of dissolved oxygen content, smothering of fish eggs,
clogging of gills and filter feeding organs. Sedimentation
into Town Creek can be harmful to local populations of
invertebrates which are important parts of the aquatic food
chain. Strict enforcement of sedimentation control measures
and best management practices (I3HPs) are absolutely
essential.
3.0 ABIOTIC RESOURCES
The following two sections describe soils and water
resources that occur within the study area, or that relate in
one way or another to the study area.
7
3. 1 ,late , 'resources
The topic of water resources Is presented in two
sections. The first section describ;:s the physical aspects
of the resource and its relationship to major water systems.
The second section discusses ;-,ater quality and special use
resource categories.

Toti,rn Creek and its unn: ci; l tributaries are part of the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. `oo,,n Creek is approximately 30
feet wide, depth ranges fro,rn 1 to 4 feet and creek flow is
from west to east. Substrat-:? composed of silt, sand and
gravel. Eichteen t:ribtlt,t':it_., or this creek flow east to west
through tributaries range in
width frol,I 1 to :3 " usually less than 1 foot.
3 . 1 . ?. slat r Qual...'t1
To..n ;-afar _e:: have a best usage
classification of C. Anv str !ni which is not named in the
schedule of stream class ifictions carries the same
classification as that assigned to the stream segment to
which it is tributary. Cl ;s s .raters are suitable for
aquatic lif_- nro;-c-,cio fishing, wildlife,
secondary recrc?, __o . rc. a_i...lturc.
No iJaters. CIuS.lll ii _zs 11gi7 Quality Waters (HQW),
Outstanding Resource Waters (OPI) or waters designated as
WS-1 or WS-11 will be impact:ci by the proposed project, nor
are these resources located ?rithin 1 mile of the subject
area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
addresses long term trends in water quality at fixed
monitoring sites by the sar-ipli.ng for selected benthic
macroinvertebrates. These oryanisms are sensitive to very
subtle changes in brat r quality. Good water quality is
associated with high taxa richness (the number of different
types of organisms) and the presonce of many species
intolerant to pollutants ..=-aand low levels of dissolved oxygen.
Water quality degradation gra(Iu lly eliminates the more
sensitive species and leads to a community structure quite
different from that in an unstressed stream. BMAN
information is not available for the immediate project area.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) lists one discharger (To?,rn of Salisbury) for Town
Creek (a tributary of. Crane Creek). The Town Creek
discharger is located upstream of the study area.
3.1.3 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Potential impacts to Town Crook include increased
sedimentation from construction--related erosion. This impact
is viewed as temporary, however, poorly managed application
of sedimentation control pol c!es can result in serious
damage to the aquatic environment. Increased sediment loads
can cause mortality among less hardy organisms and their
progeny bun Lo as so„l a L ea _ Ac tors such as toxic run-off,
increased turbidity, e6uctiwn of Vissoived oxygen content,
smothering of fish eggs, clogging of gills and filter feeding
organs. Sedimentation And erDAion control measures should be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of this
project.
3.2 Soil..
A cur_ nt Rowan C _t.nL . _ i l_. Survey is in the process of
being completed. information will he made available as soon
as the Soil C on'7orv a_t i on Sn_ . _ _ : (Rowan County Office)
forward h- _ r 'j 'c.. ._.iLn sc lLs maps.
. 0 CinC'. ;' ;11_ ) G1C
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Surface wa,.er impacts fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the :;nit.. dafined in 33 CFR 328.3 in
accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C 1314).
4.1.1 Permits
All Creek or Stream Crossings are anticipated to be
Surface Water Impacts and fall under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and aro likely to be
authorized by provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14. This permit
authorizes fills for roads crossing waters of the United
States provided:
a. The width of the fill is limited to the minimum
necessar'y' for the actuol crossing;
b. The fill placed in waters of the United States is
limited to a filled area of no more than 1/3 acre.
Furthermore, no more than a total of 200 linear feet
of the fill for the roadway can occur in special
aquatic sites, including wetlands;
c. The crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise
designed to prevent the restriction of, and to
withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows, and
to prevent the restriction of low flows and the
movement of aquatic organisms;
J
d. The crossing, including 1-11 attending features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and
complete project.
Section 401 of the Clean Vater Act (CWA) requires that
the state issue or deny water quality certification for any
federally permitted or licensee! activity that may result in a
discharge to the ,,raters of ti1-? United States. A Section 401
water quali'.:y certification will be required from the NC
Department o= Environment, :iealth, and Natural Resources
along with the Federal section '.'.-O,t permit.
4.2 Mitigation
Projects authorized under General Nationwide Permits
usually do not require mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum of Aaree,nent betwe.:n the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the .'army. However, the Corps of
Engineers retains the authority :o r?:cjuire mitigation if
project cons'-ruction rL?sults in r,ore than minimal adverse
environment=
4.3 Protected Species
Federal law states that an,, action, which has the
potential to result in a negative impact to federally-
protected plants or animals, is subject to review by the
USFWS (and/or the i;ational -`-T'in-e Fisheries Service), under
one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended. The USFWc and other wildlife resource
agencies also exercise jurisdiction over protected species in
accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of
1979. Certain plants and animals, which are endemic to North
Carolina and/or whose populations are in severe decline, are
also protected by North Carolina law.
4.3.1 Federally-Protected species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists
one federally protected species, Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) for Rowan County as of October 5,
1992. --
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) (E)
This rhizomatous perennial herb grows 1 to 2 meters tall
from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous roots. The stems are
usually solitary, branching only at or above mid-stem, with
10
the branches held in candelabrum-styi. arches. The narrowly
lanceolate opposite leaves are scabrous above, resin-dotted
and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath and entire (or
occasionally with a few small teeth) . leaves are
approximately 18 cm long and 2.5 cm wide. `fellow flowers
approximately 5.5 cm in diameter can be ,itnessed from
September to October. Stems all;-, dee) red in color and
the fruit of this species is a srnoo ? I, , darl> gray-br_ o-;m _,chon _?
about 5 mm lonci.
This plant is endemic to tht piedmonl-l of the Carolinas,
occurring in clearings and edges of upland wood., on moist to
dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams that often have
a high gravel content and are moderatoly .odsoli?ed. Habitat
for this species exists in the study arer_i. Ver]_-:ication of
the presence of this species is po sihll Or:ly between
September and October when flowering takes lplace. However
surveys for Hel_lan_th_u_s species J- 'T gdi"legal. can be conducted
prior to September and October. A plant--i)y-plantsurvey was
conducted by IiCDOT biologist Ha] Hair: on S pt!-TRhe-r. 30 and
October 1, 1992, to detorminc ii: and u:1- species v ere
present along ti-.,e roadsides associated •;riLh the project ROW.
No Helianthus_ species were found along the project ROW,
therefore it can be concluded i.iiat: the subject project will
not impact Helianthus schwein.i.i.:;_i._i_.
The following Candidate -;pc:cies (Table 4) may occur in
Rowan County, but are not legally protect-d under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject 'Co any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Though
suitable habitat is present in the project area, no surveys
were conducted for these species.
Table 4. Federal Candidate Species Listed for
Rowan County
SCIENTIFIC NAME C0141.10N IIQALE S'T'ATUS HABITAT
Aster georgianus Georgia aster C2 Yes
Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil C2 Yes
11C2" candidate species presently under review for federal
listing for which information indicates that listing as
Endangered or 'T'hreatened is possibly appropriate, but
for which adequate data on biological vulnerability and
threat(s) are not currently known or on file to support
propose rules.

4.3.2 State-Protected species
Species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special
Concern are afford state protection under the State
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species of Special Concern
Act (1987) and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
The North Carolina it lt.ur,-, l
records were searched to d?_-termii e i:: any LLItt:-protected
species were located in the subject project vicinity.
There are no records of "state-pr,_,i_,cted species in the
project area.
4.3.3 Summary of A.nticipatecl Im_ :: c°Cs
No impacts to federally prct c.._ _:c c. c _ cre
anticipated from construction of
t?
5.0 i?iI'ER},1iC3-i5
American Ornithologists' Union. 19 ,3 . C;h_-cl _?-_ st o_.= North
American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence, Hansas, Allen
Press, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Cores of Engineer;
Wetlands Deline:It_or. Technical .-eporr. t-87-1
U. S. Army Lngi-neer: ?7aLC?i?t?._ty.? :;periritant Stat=ion,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of No z: t, la Carolina IMammal.s .
Raleigh, North Carolina tiuseum o Natural History.
Martof, B.S. , W. M. 1 m e r , i ..... ?ca a. :1 11 d ..' . Harr i son I I I .
1980. A_m?hihians '7,?
r,rl .. Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill , IJ.._
I t
:.Dr h C.:r.?lina
7,
Press.
Menhenick, E. F . 1991. 1'i: ','= - -=}: s ot= dortl:i
Carolina. N.C.WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water ?u lit r .:vi.e r 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological A,?sesm, ??nt of ,rater duality
in North Carolina. Str_`.m a_: ertabrate
Data Base and Long Tern Changes in yti'ater Quality, 1983-
1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. "Classifications anddater Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of The Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basin". Raleigh, Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species".
Raleigh, North Carolina -Depar;.ment of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carol _inas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
1 .''..
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. .?;eaklle:y. iD9O. Classification of
The Natural Communities of. North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHtlR.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Ciassificatio s of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.,
U.S. Government Printing Offic..:, Vlashington D.C.
Weakley, A. S. 1991. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species-of North Carolina". Itorth Carolina
Natural Heritage Program;
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and l.C. Biggs. 1.985. 1,lammals
of the Carolinas,_ Virginia ,:end 111?:r_yland.. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.