20191006 Ver 1_Environmental Assessment Comments_20100726

A T FRQG
? r
_. ;ttA
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
cvF??OS ? ZOp?
ryH,
Rg??
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
January 31, 2007
From: Polly Lespinasse, Division of Water Quality, Mooresville Regional Office
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment Related to the Proposed 1-40/1-77
Improvements, Iredell County, WBS Element 34192.1.2, Federal Aid Project No. IMS-40-2,
State Project No. 8.1823901, TIP 1-3819, DENR Project Number 07-0248, Due Date
02/12/2007
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated November 2006. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact
Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will result in
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the following comments
based on review of the aforementioned document:
Specific Comments:
A) Fourth Creek is a Class C, 303(d) waters of the State. Fourth Creek is on the 303(d) list for impaired
use for aquatic life due to turbidity, fecal coliform and biological impairment. DWQ is very concerned
with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that the most
protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to
Fourth Creek. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff
through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater
Best Management Practices.
General Comments:
B) The environmental document should continue to provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the
proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as
required by 15A NCAC 21-1.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation
plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C) Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NCDWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Internet: h2o.enr.state. nc.us Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone[phone]
Fax [phone]
Nor` hCarolina
'aturallil
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Page 2
D) Prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification. the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that
they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to
the maximum extent practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's
Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to
wetlands. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace
appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for
use as wetland mitigation.
E) In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. Ir
the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream
mitigation.
F) Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue to
include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping.
G) DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NCDOT
should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
H) An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required. The
type and detail of analysis should conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
1) NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation
and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final
impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise,
also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
J) Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in
areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When
applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
K) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
L) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
M) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods
for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to discharge
directly into streams or surface waters.
N) Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps of Engineers and
corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification
requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no
wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal
application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ.
Page 3
Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of
wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable
stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
O) Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
P) Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
Q) Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed across
the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes,
vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of
NCDWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
R) If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct contact
between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete should
not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and
fish kills.
S) If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area should
be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
T) Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20
percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow
passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including
temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-
equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the above
structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained if
requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting
features encountered during construction, please contact the DWQ for guidance on how to proceed and
to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
U) If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross section
as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where appropriate.
Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of
structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased
maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
V) If foundation test borings are necessary, it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
W) Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250. .
Page 4
X) All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP
measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual
such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used to prevent
excavation in flowing water.
Y) Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment
should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking
fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
Z) Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed,
sized and installed.
AA) Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the
growing season following completion of construction.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions
or require any additional information, please contact Polly Lespinasse at [phone].
cc: Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Sonia Gregory, DWQ Central Regional Office
File Copy
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: 07-0248 County: Iredell
Due Date: 02/12/2007
Date Received: 01/18/2007
Project Description: Proposed project is for the improvements to existing I-40/I-77 Interchange. TIP No. I-3819.
This Prnie.& iR heinQ reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville Water Coastal Management Water Resources
Mooresville Wildlife TJ Environmental Health
Groundwater
Raleigh Solid Waste Mgmt
Land Quality Engineer ? Wildlife - DOT
Washington Radiation Protection
TT Forest Resources
Wilmington Other
Winston-Salem Land Resources
Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
T Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
s 1U
?j
!^J

L

1
Proposed 1-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements
Iredell County
Federal Aid Project No. IMS-40-2
State Project No. 8.1823901
WBS Element No. 34192.1.2
TIP Project No. 1-3819
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
p??o?NOAIH f?q G
O
h
o*
R
a
'9?yFtii Or 1RAA.-SIV
Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
b Ate ?P--?Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
h I Z ct /C)(, ?. (?"' ..
Date *Ittvision hn F. Sullivan, III, PE
Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

1

k
r

Proposed 1-4011-77 Interchange Area Improvements
Iredell County
Federal Aid Project No. IMS-40-2
State Project No. 8.1823901
WBS Element No. 34192.1.2
TIP Project No. I-3819
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Documentation Prepared By:
URS CORPORATION - NORTH CAROLINA
November 2006
&1.? Lik- utroa.
Jeffrey . Ko tz, PE
Project nager
.••O?tH t"ARpI
;I
18
i
.••????N CAR
iq? ??9 3
Peter N. Trencansky, PE SEAL
Project Engineer 27618
QIN? P
For the: ,I''?fffff?RF??•,,`,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Undrea J. Major
Project Planning Engineer
4Z,n1',4- . &'n4tzL-
i4es F. Bridges, PE
Project Engineer
;ACAgp?''4
fEAL
022109 Q

0

D

J

L

i

Project Environmental Commitments
Proposed 1-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements
Iredell County
Federal Aid Project No. IMS-40-2
State Project No. 8.1823901
WBS Element No. 34192.1.2
TIP Project No. 1-3819
' In addition to the Section 404 Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency, North
Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) Guidance for Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions
' of Certification, State Stormwater Permit, NCDOT has agreed to the following special
commitments:
' ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT
Wetlands. Additional area of wetlands in the southwest quadrant of the I-40/I-77 interchange
will be bridged to minimize impacts. Fill slopes will not encroach into the jurisdictional wetland
' boundaries any more than practicable as shown in the preliminary design.
Structures over Fourth Creek will accommodate the existing Museum Greenway path.
t The new and widened structures at SR 1934 (Hillside Lane) extension, 1-40 and 1-77, and their
associated ramps shall be designed to span the existing greenway that follows Fourth Creek.
I

Retaining walls at Pressly Elementary School and Northview Elementary School. In order
to minimize the impact to the grounds of these schools, a retaining wall along the proposed
shoulder of 1-40 and 1-77 shall be constructed in accordance with NCDOT construction
standards.
Noise Mitigation. A final design noise report will be performed based on the results of the
planning noise study. Noise mitigation will be provided as required in accordance with the
NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy.
GEOTECHN/CAL UNIT / GEOENV/RONMENTAL SECTION
Hazardous Materials Assessment. The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit/GeoEnvironmental Section
will further assess the affected properties for hazardous materials and make right-of-way
acquisition recommendations accordingly. Should hazardous substance sites be discovered
during construction activities, measures to minimize and/or mitigate potential impacts would be
implemented.
Environmental Assessment
TIP No. 1-3819
November 2006
Page 1 of 1

' Table of Contents
' Chapter 1. Description of the Proposed Action .......................................................... .....1-1
1.1 Project Study Area ................................................................................................ .....1-1
' Chapter 2. Need for the Proposed Action .................................................................... .....2-1
2.1 Traffic Volumes and Analysis of Capacity Deficiencies ......................................... .....2-1
2.1.1 Existing Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis ................................................... .....2-2
2.1.2 Future Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis (No-Build Alternative) .................. .....2-3
' 2.2 Existing Safety Concerns ...................................................................................... .....2-5
2.3 Diminished Ability to Function as North Carolina Strategic Highway Corridors .... .....2-5
2.4
2.5 Diminished Ability to Function as Part of the United States Interstate System .....
Summary of Purpose and Need For the Project ................................................... .....2-6
.....2-6
' Chapter 3. Existing Roadway Inventory .......................................................................
3.1 Cross Sections ...................................................................................................... .....3-1
.....3-1
3.2 Right of Way and Access Control .......................................................................... .....3-1

' 3.3
3.4 Intersections and Type of Control .........................................................................
Railroad Crossings ................................................................................................ .....3-1
.....3-2
3.5 Structures .............................................................................................................. .....3-2
3.6 Speed Limits .......................................................................................................... .....3-2
' 3.7 Utilities ................................................................................................................... .....3-2
3.8 Sidewalks .............................................................................................................. .....3-2
3.9 Bicycle Provisions ................................................................................................. .....3-2
' 3.10
3.11 Greenways ............................................................................................................
School Buses ........................................................................................................ .....3-2
.....3-3
3.12 Other TIP Projects in the Area .............................................................................. .....3-3
Chapter 4. Alternatives for the Proposed Action ........................................................ .....4-1
4.1 Proposed Detailed Construction Alternatives ........................................................ .....4-1
' 4.1.1
4.1.2 Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative ..............................................................
Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative ........................................................... .....4-2
.....4-2
4.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration .............................................. .....4-2
4.2.1 No-Build Alternative .............................................................................................. .....4-2
' 4.2.2 Transportation System Management Alternative .................................................. .....4-3
4.2.3 Mass Transit Alternative ........................................................................................ .....4-3
4.2.4 Wetland Avoidance Alternatives ........................................................................... .....4-4
4.2.5 Preliminary Build Alternatives ............................................................................... .....4-5
' 4.3 Future Traffic Volumes and Traffic Operations Analysis (Detailed Construction
Alternatives) .......................................................................................................................... .....4-7
' 4.3.1
4.3.2 Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative ..............................................................
Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative ........................................................... .....4-7
.....4-9
4.4 Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................... ...4-11
' Chapter 5. Recommended Improvement ..................................................................... .....5-1
5.1 Detailed Description of Recommended Alternative ............................................... .....5-1
5.2
5.3 Cross Sections ......................................................................................................
Right of Way and Access Control .......................................................................... .....5-2
.....5-2
5.4 Design Speed ........................................................................................................ .....5-2
5.5 Intersecting Roadways .......................................................................................... .....5-2
' 5.6 Structures and Drainage Recommendations ........................................................ .....5-3

Environmental Assessment November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
5.7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Accomodations .................................................... .................5-3
Chapter 6. Social, Economic and Environmental Effects ...............................................6-1
6.1 Social Effects .......................................................... ................................... ................. 6-1
6.1.1 Geographic and Political Location ............................................................. .................6-1
6.1.2 Population, Race, Ethnicity and Age ....................................................... .. ................. 6-1
6.1.3 Income, Poverty Status, and Unemployment ............................................ .................6-2
6.1.4 Housing Characteristics ............................................................................ .................6-3
6.1.5 Public Facilities ......................................................................................... .................6-4
6.1.6 Public Services .......................................................................................... .................6-5
6.1.7 Utilities ....................................................................................................... .................6-6
6.1.8 Relocations ............................................................................................... .................6-7
6.1.9 Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion .................................... ...............6-10
6.1.10 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Environmental Justice ............ ...............6-10
6.1.11 Cultural Resources .................................................................................... ...............6-11
6.1.12 Section 4(f) ................................................................................................ ...............6-11
6.2 Economic Effects ....................................................................................... ...............6-12
6.2.1 Development and Employment ................................................................. ...............6-12
6.2.2 Regional Development Goals and Plans .................................................. ...............6-12
6.3 Land Use ................................................................................................... ...............6-13
6.3.1 Existing Land Uses ................................................................................... ...............6-13
6.3.2 Land Use Plans and Zoning ...................................................................... ...............6-13
6.3.3 Transportation Plans ................................................................................. ...............6-14
6.3.4 Farmland ................................................................................................... ...............6-14
6.3.5 Indirect/Cumulative Effects ....................................................................... ...............6-15
6.4 Environmental Effects ............................................................................... ...............6-16
6.4.1 Biotic Resources ....................................................................................... ...............6-17
6.4.2 Physical Resources ................................................................................... ...............6-21
6.4.3 Waters of the United States ...................................................................... ...............6-26
6.4.4 Permits ............................................... ....................................................... ............... 6-30
6.4.5 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation. ......................................................... ............... 6-30
6.4.6 Flood Hazard Evaluation ........................................................................... ...............6-31
6.4.7 Air Quality .................................................................................................. ...............6-35
6.4.8 Traffic Noise ............................................................................................. ................6-36
6.4.9 Geodetic Markers ...................................................................................... ...............6-40
6.4.10 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................. ...............6-40
6.4.11 Visual Effects ........................................................................................... ................6-41
6.5 Construction Effects .................................................................................. ...............6-42
6.5.1 Bridge Construction ................................................................................... ...............6-42
6.5.2 Water Quality and Drainage ............................................... ....................... ............... 6-43
6.5.3 Noise ........................................................................................................ ................6-43
6.5.4 Air 6-43
6.5.5 Biotic Communities ...................................................... ............................ ................ 6-44
6.5.6 Construction Waste .................................................................................. ................6-44
6.5.7 Utility Service ............................................................................................ ...............6-44
6.5.8 Detours and Accessibility .......................................................................... ...............6-44
6.5.9 Archaeology .............................................................................................. ...............6-45
Chapter 7. Comments and Coordination ..........................................................................7-1
7.1 Project Scoping and Initial Coordination ........................... ......................................... 7-1
7.1.1 Comments Received ..................................................................................................7-1
7.2 NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process .........................................................................7-11
7.3 Public Involvement ...................................................................................................7-12
Environmental Assessment November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

7.3.1 Mailing List ..................................................... ..........................................................7-12
7.3.2 Newsletter ...................................................... ..........................................................7-12
7.3.3 Local Officials Meeting ................................... ..........................................................7-12
7.3.4 Citizens Informational Workshop ................... ..........................................................7-13
7.3.5 Public Hearing ............................................... ..........................................................7-14
7.3.6 Toll-Free Telephone Line ............................... ........ .................................................. 7-14

C
r

u

C

J
Chapter 8. Distribution List ................................................................................................8-1
8.1 Federal Agencies .......................................................................................................8-1
8.2 Regional Offices .........................................................................................................8-1
8.3 State Agencies ...........................................................................................................8-1
8.4 Local Government Agencies ......................................................................................8-1
Chapter 9. References ........................................................................................................9-1
Chapter 10. List of Acronyms ............................................................................................10-1
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Level of Service (LOS) Definitions .............................................. .............................2-1
Table 2-2: Year 2005 Level of Service (LOS) Analysis ................................ .............................2-2
Table 2-3: Year 2030 Level of Service (LOS) Analysis (No-Build) .............. .............................2-4
Table 3-1: Other Local TIP Projects ............................................................. .............................3-4
Table 3-2: Existing Roadway Inventory ....................................................... .............................3-5
Table 4-1: Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative - Year 2030 Approxim ate Level of Service
(LOS) . ................................................................................................. ............................. 4-8
Table 4-2: Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative - Year 2030 Approxi mate Level of Service
(LOS) . ....... ........................................................................................... ........................... 4-10
Table 4-3: Cost Estimates ............................................................................ ...........................4-12
Table 6-1: Population Trends and Projections 1970 - 2010 ........................ .............................6-1
Table 6-2: Percentage of Change in Population Between 1970 and 2010 .. .............................6-2
Table 6-3: Age Distribution - Year 2000 Population .................................... .............................6-2
Table 6-4: Household Income - Year 2000 Population ............................... ...... ....................... 6-3
Table 6-5: Unemployment Rate Comparisons ........... ........................... ....... ............................. 6-3
Table 6-6: Housing Cost Characteristics - Year 2000 Population ............... .............................6-3
Table 6-7: Household Characteristics - Year 2000 Population ................... .............................6-4
Table 6-8: Relocation Impacts ..................................................................... .............................6-8
Table 6-9: Overview of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects .................. ...........................6-16
Table 6-10: Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ....................... ...........................6-19
Table 6-11: Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species ....... ...........................6-21
Table 6-12: Classifications of Streams Identified within the Natural Resources Study Area..6-22
Table 6-13: Impaired Sections of Fourth Creek ........................................... ...........................6-24
Table 6-14: Jurisdictional Wetlands in the Natural Resources Study Area ... ...........................6-26
Table 6-15: Jurisdictional Streams in the Natural Resources Study Area .... ...........................6-27
Table 6-16: Impacts to USACE Jurisdictional Wetlands ............................... ...........................6-28
Table 6-17: Impacts to Jurisdictional Streams .............................................. ...........................6-29
Table 6-18: Stream Impacts due to Stream Relocations .............................. ...........................6-29
Table 6-19: Total Stream Impacts ................................................................. ...........................6-29
Table 6-20: Noise Abatement Criteria .......................................................... ...........................6-37
Table 6-21: Criteria for Substantial Increase in Noise ................................. ...........................6-37
Table 6-22: Ambient Noise Levels (Leq) ...................................................... ...........................6-38
Table 6-23: Geodetic Monuments ................................................................ ...........................6-40
Table 7-1: Agency Comments Received on the Project ............................... .............................7-2
Environmental Assessment November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Regional Location
Figure 1-2: Project Study Area
Figure 2-1: 2005 Existing Conditions - Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Figure 2-2: 2005 Existing Conditions - Level of Service Summary
Figure 2-3: 2030 No-Build Scenario - Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Figure 2-4: 2030 No-Build Scenario - Level of Service Summary
Figure 3-1: 2006-2012 TIP Projects in the Vicinity of Proposed Project
Figure 4-1: System Interchange (Freeway to Freeway) Concepts
Figure 4-2: Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative
Figure 4-3: Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative
Figure 4-4: Feasibility Study Alternative C Concept
Figure 4-5: Four-level Stacked Interchange Alternative Concept
Figure 4-6: 2030 Build Alternatives - Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Figure 4-7: 2030 Build - Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative - Level of Service Summary
Figure 4-8: 2030 Build - Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative - Level of Service Summary
Figure 5-1a: Typical Sections
Figure 5-1 b: Typical Sections
Figure 6-1: Demographic Region of Comparison
Figure 6-2: Public Facilities and Services
Figure 6-3: Utilities
Figure 6-4: Existing Land Use
Figure 6-5: Generalized Zoning - City of Statesville and Iredell County
Figure 6-6: Terrestrial Communities
Figure 6-7: Impacts to Terrestrial Communities - Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative
Figure 6-8: Impacts to Terrestrial Communities - Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative
Figure 6-9: Jurisdictional Streams
Figure 6-10: Jurisdictional Wetlands
Figure 6-11: Impacts to Waters of the United States - Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative
Figure 6-12: Impacts to Waters of the United States - Four-level Turbine Interchange
Alternative
Figure 6-13: Flood Hazard Evaluation - Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative
Figure 6-14: Flood Hazard Evaluation - Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative
Figure 6-15: Noise Barrier Study Locations
Appendices
Appendix A: Figures
Appendix B: Project Scoping Letter
Appendix C: Agency Correspondence
Appendix D: Agency Coordination
Appendix E: Public Involvement
Appendix F: Relocation Report
Appendix G: Farmland Conversion Rating
Environmental Assessment November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

SUMMARY
S.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is designated in the latest approved North Carolina Department of
Transportation's (NCDOT's) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as TIP project number
1-3819 and is described as "Statesville, modification of 1-40/1-77 interchange area."' The goal of
this study is to identify solutions to improve the operation of the existing Interstate 40/Interstate
77 (1-40/1-77) interchange and to analyze other transportation system improvements in the
project study area while considering the local human, physical, and natural environments.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements
set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. This EA is an
informational document intended for use by both the decision-makers and the public. As such, it
represents a disclosure of relevant information concerning the proposed action.
The content of this EA conforms with the guidelines set by the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) to provide direction regarding implementation of the procedural provisions of NEPA. In
addition to CEQ, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) set forth specific procedures
addressing transportation projects in Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and
Section 4(0 documents, 1987.' The NCDOT and FHWA are the lead agencies for the
proposed action and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is a cooperating
agency.
The primary needs for the proposed action include the following:
• Traffic capacity deficiencies;
• Existing safety concerns;
• Diminished ability to function as a North Carolina Strategic Highway Corridor; and,
• Diminished ability to function as a part of the United States Interstate System.
The primary purposes for the proposed action include the following:
• Improve traffic flow along the 1-40 and 1-77 corridors within the study area; and,
• Improve regional connectivity between Iredell County and points, east, west, north and
south within North Carolina and across the Interstate System.
S.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A range of alternatives for the proposed action were evaluated including the No-Build
Alternative, Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative, Mass Transit Alternative,
wetland avoidance alternatives, and several build alternatives. Based on an evaluation of the
alternatives and the purpose and need for the project all but two build alternatives were
eliminated from further study. The two build alternatives that were carried forward were
designated as detailed construction alternatives and referred to as the Four-level Offset
Interchange Alternative and the Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative. A description of the
detailed construction alternatives is given in the following section.
Environmental Assessment S-1 November 2006
TlP No. 1-3819
FOUR-LEVEL OFFSET INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE
The Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative allows for directional movements while allowing a
lower overall elevation than a Four-level Stacked Interchange as the fourth level ramp is offset
from the intersection of 1-40/1-77 allowing for it to cross under both 1-40 and 1-77 creating a more
compact footprint (see Figure S-1). The compact footprint allows for adequate traffic operations
between the US 21 and 1-77 interchanges along 1-40. The forecast traffic volumes for the loop
in the southwest quadrant were low enough to allow the loop to remain in place with only slight
modifications in order to tie into the wider freeway cross section.
FOUR-LEVEL TURBINE INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE
The Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative allows for directional movements while allowing
a lower overall elevation than the Four-level Stacked and Four-level Offset Interchanges
because the ramps do not cross the freeways at the intersection of the freeways but rather are
offset from the intersection (see Figure S-2). An advantage to the interchange is that it can be
stage constructed with low interruption to existing traffic patterns. A disadvantage of this
alternative is that the interchange has tighter ramp radii that have a lower design speed than the
Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative.
S.3 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT
Based on data gathered and presented in this EA, on April 26, 2006 the NCDOT selected the
Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative as their Recommended Alternative. The overall effects
for both detailed construction alternatives are very similar. The primary reasons for the selection
of the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative were lower wetland impacts and a more
desirable geometry with flatter curve radii for the directional ramp movements.
SA SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project was evaluated for impacts to the human, natural and physical environments. The
potential impacts for the two detailed construction alternatives are summarized in Table S-1.
Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts
Impact Four-Level
Offset
Alternative Four-Level
Turbine
Alternative
Length (miles) 6.8 6.8
Estimated Cost
Construction Costs $170,000,000 $162,000,000
Right-of-Way Costs $15,715,000 $15,785,000
Total Costs $185,715,000 $177,785,000
Relocation Impact Summary
Residences (total) 5 5
Owner Occupied 3 3
Tenant Occupied 2 2
Minority 1 1
Businesses 3 3
Farms 1 1
Environmental Assessment S-2 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819 1

r

Table S-1: Summa of Environmental Impacts continued
Impact Four-Level
Offset
Alternative Four-Level
Turbine
Alternative
Section 4(f) Resources Impact Summary
Section 4(f) resources 0 0
Community Services and Facilities Impact Summary
Schools 3' 3'
Parks and Recreation Facilities 12 12
Churches 23 23
Cemeteries 0 0
Utilities
Electrical Easement Crossings 1 1
Major Gas Mains 0 0
Railroad Crossings 0 0
Cultural Resources Impact Summary
No. of Archaeological sites 0 0
No. of Historic Resources 0 0
Farmland Impact Summary (acres)
Prime and Unique Farmland 27 27
Statewide and Local Important Farmland 16 16
Major Drainage Structure Summary
No. of Bridges over Streams 17 17
Number of Crossing with Major Culverts (>72") 3 3
Floodway and Floodplain Impact Summary
No. of Flood plain/Floodway crossings 11 11
No. of Crossing requiring Floodway Modification 5 5
Biotic Community Impact Summary (acres)
Pied monUMountain Semipermenant Impoundment 0.9 1.2
Low Elevation Seep 1.6 1.9
Pied monUMountain Bottomland Forest 12.1 13.0
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 12.2 12.7
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 6.1 6.1
Pied monUMountain Levee Forest 0.1 0.1
Pastoral/Agricultural Land 49.5 51.5
Urban/Disturbed Areas 207.8 203.6
Jurisdictional Impact Summary
Acres of Wetlands Impacted 3.19 3.65
Number of Wetland crossings 9 9
Total Linear Feet of Jurisdictional Streams Impacted 2,428 2,262
Total Linear Feet of Jurisdictional Streams Relocated 1,476 1,476
Number of Jurisdictional Stream Crossings 20 20
Protected Species Impact Summary
bog turtle (Clemmys muh/enbergii) No Effect No Effect
Allegheny woodrat (Neotoma magister) No Effect No Effect
Prairie birdsfoot-trefoil (Lotus unifoliolatus var. hellen) No Effect No Effect
Environmental Assessment S-3 November 2006
' T/P No. 1-3819
Impact Four-Level
Offset
Alternative Four-Level
Turbine
Alternative
Air Quality Impacts
No. of Intersections exceeding Carbon Monoxide
NAAQS 0 0
Noise Impacts
Number of Impacted Receptors 120 120
Hazardous Materials Impact Summary
No. of Impacted Hazardous Materials Sites undetermined' undetermined'
Source: URS, 2006
Impacts calculated based on 10 feet beyond the slope limits of the preliminary engineering design to allow for mechanized clearing
and grubbing and placement of fill materials.
Right-of-Way acquisition only. No impact to school usage
z No new Greenway crossings. Existing crossings to remain.
3 Right-of-Way acquisition from church property only. No impact to use or facilities.
" 63 potential sites identified within the study area. Additional studies will be required to determine the number within the proposed
right-of-way limits.
S.5 ANTICIPATED PERMITS
The proposed action will likely result in several activities requiring environmental regulatory
permits from State and Federal agencies. The NCDOT will obtain the following necessary
permits prior to construction:
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 permit (Dredging or filling in Waters of the US)
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources
Erosion and Sedimentation Permi
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Forest
Resources
Open Burning Permit:
S.6 COORDINATION
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were consulted regarding this
project:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Highway Administration
• NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
- N.C. Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
- N.C. Division of Environmental Health
- N.C. Division of Forest Resources
- N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Environmental Assessment S-4 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

n

n

C

r
n
n

N.C. State Clearinghouse Department of Administration
• N.C. Division of Archives and History/Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
• Centralina Council of Governments
• Mayor of Statesville
Iredell County Commissioners Chair
City of Statesville Planning
Iredell County Planning
Iredell County Schools - Facilities
Iredell County Memorial Hospital
City of Statesville City Manager
Greater Statesville Development Corporation
Iredell Memorial Hospital
Davis Regional Medical Center - Facilities
City of Statesville Fire Department
City of Statesville Emergency Medical Services
Iredell County Rescue Services
• Statesville- Iredell School System
Statesville Parks and Recreation Department
S.7 CONTACTS
The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning the project:
Federal Hiahwav Administration
Mr. John F. Sullivan III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone: [phone]
Environmental Assessment S-5 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819

r
C

r

= = = = = m m = = m = m = = m = m m =

-1
I
i T
1
z
(D n
N n
= O
C-) C
O
N
N
(D
cn
N
W /
m
a)
a
W
a ?

IX,
Olq b
U)
X
N_
00
J
fD
d
v
CD
CL
CL
U)
;7
_N
OD
O
CL
K
0
x
N
N
O
d
a
cn
A
X
0
TQ J
AN L
W 7
a m
F
m
00
a
??o g
Z
om
y O
p G
I
1:.

i
V

V
°3
o o No
C uNi f? O [V O

ID .?.
CD N 'T1 epi

:r
p

°
3 o

Z

+

bi <
CD

p

00
c CL

n
0
0) =r
° 0)

f ? ? ?

a CD

?
m s

tD

C

O Q 4)
a (D
D
o
:-A
m

?o
N
CD
(D 53
C
D a
a. IV
`.d
m CD cl)
' ? ? 9

d
3
a < ,
<<
N J ?

Proposed 1-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements
Iredell County
Federal Aid Project No. IMS-40-2
State Project No. 8.1823901
WBS Element No. 34192.1.2
TIP Project No. 1-3819
CHAPTER 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is designated in the latest approved North Carolina Department of
Transportation's (NCDOT's) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as TIP project number
1-3819 and is described as "Statesville, modification of 1-40/1-77 interchange area."3 The goal of
this study is to identify solutions to improve the operation of the existing Interstate 40/Interstate
77 (1-40/1-77) interchange and to analyze other transportation system improvements in the
project study area while considering the local human, physical, and natural environments.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements
set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. This EA is an
informational document intended for use by both the decision-makers and the public. As such, it
represents a disclosure of relevant information concerning the proposed action.
' The content of this EA conforms with the guidelines set by the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) to provide direction regarding implementation of the procedural provisions of NEPA. In
addition to CEQ, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) set forth specific procedures
' addressing transportation projects in Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and
Section 4(0 documents, 1987.4 The NCDOT and FHWA are the lead agencies for the proposed
action and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is a cooperating agency.
' 1.1 PROJECT STUDY AREA

The project is located in the City of Statesville in Iredell County, North Carolina. In general, the
area surrounding the existing 1-40/1-77 interchange is characterized by interstate freeways,
major thoroughfares, and a substantial amount of existing commercial/industrial development,
all of which contribute to high traffic volumes. There are also undeveloped areas in the vicinity of
the project.
Interstate 40 runs east/west, while 1-77 runs north/south through Iredell County. Interstate 40
begins in Wilmington and provides access westward through Raleigh, Greensboro, High Point,
and Winston-Salem to the interchange with 1-77 in Statesville. Beyond Statesville, 1-40
continues westward through Hickory and Asheville, providing central access to western North
Carolina before extending to the Smoky Mountains and into Tennessee. Interstate 77 serves
central and western North Carolina as the primary north-south route for trucks and regional
travel between Virginia and South Carolina. It is one of the major routes accessing Charlotte
and the surrounding metropolitan areas. The regional location of the proposed project is shown
in Figure 1-1.
The 1-40/1-77 interchange is surrounded by four interchanges with access to the local network of
roads and services. The adjacent interchanges are: (1) I-40/US 64 to the east, (2) 1-40/SR 2158
(Old Mocksville Road) to the east, (3) 1-77/SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) to the south, and
(4) 1-40/US 21 to the west.
Environmental Assessment 1-1 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 1

The limits of the project begin on 1-40, to the west of the 1-40/1-77 interchange, approximately '
1,650 feet west of SR 2003 (Radio Road) and end on 1-40 to the east of the 1-40/1-77
interchange, at SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road). The northern extent on 1-77 is approximately
2,400 feet south of SR 2171 (Jane Sowers Road) and the southern extent is approximately ,
1,680 feet north of the SR 2735 (Salisbury Road) interchange. The study area also includes
US 21 from south of Free Nancy Drive to SR 2187 (Glenway Drive) and extends to a location
approximately 5,000 feet north of 1-40 between 1-77 and SR 2174 (Crawford Road) to ,
encompass a service road. The study area is approximately 7.5 square miles in size and is
shown in Figure 1-2.
The City of Statesville encompasses the study area south of 1-40 and extends northward to '
include the businesses along US 21 on the western side of the study area and northward along
SR 2174 (Crawford Road) to include the light industrial area along the eastern boundary. The
northern portion of the study area lies within an unincorporated area of Iredell County. '
The study area is served by the Lake Norman Rural Planning Organization (RPO) and contains
a mix of land uses. The western and southeastern parts are comprised primarily of commercial '
and retail businesses. The southwestern and northeastern areas are primarily residential. Much
of the land adjacent to 1-77and north of 1-40 is undeveloped. Land uses in this area include
agricultural fields, pasture land, and forests. The eastern portion of the study area is primarily '
comprised of light industrial facilities.

Environmental Assessment 1-2 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

CHAPTER 2. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES
The following sections are based on the 1-4011-77 Interchange Modification Traffic Capacity
Analysis Memorandum (Traffic Memorandum ).5 This traffic memorandum presents existing
(year 2005) traffic volumes and projected (year 2030) traffic volumes for the study area roadway
network. The procedures used to define the operational qualities of the roadways are based on
the concepts of capacity and level of service (LOS) as set forth in the 2000 edition of the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).6 The LOS is defined with letter designations from A to F as
shown in Table 2-1. LOS A represents the best operating conditions along a road or at an
intersection, while LOS F represents the worst conditions. The acceptable LOS for this project
was determined to be LOS D for the design year 2030. The recommended LOS for urban
freeways is LOS C based on the American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) guidelines, however, the guidance allows for some flexibility as follows:
"...in heavily developed sections of metropolitan areas, conditions may make the use of LOS D
appropriate for freeways and arterials; however, this level should be used sparingly and at least
LOS C should be sought."'
Table 2-1: Level of Service (LOS) Definitions
Level of Signalized Road Segment/Ramps
Service Intersections
Very low delay (<10.0 Free flow. Individuals are unaffected by other vehicles and
A seconds per vehicle). operations are constrained only by roadway geometry and
Most vehicles do not driver preferences. Maneuverability within traffic stream is
have to stop at all. good. Comfort level and convenience are excellent.
10.0-20.0 sec delay. Free flow, but the presence of other vehicles begins to be
B Good progression and noticeable. Average travel speeds are the same as in LOS A,
short cycle length. but there is a slight decline in freedom to maneuver and level
of comfort.
Influence of traffic density on operations becomes marked.
20.1 to 35.0 second The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is clearly
delay. Fair progression affected by other vehicles. Multi-lane highways with a free
C and/or longer cycles. flow speed (FFS) above 50 miles per hour (mph), the speeds
The number of vehicles reduce somewhat. Minor disruptions can cause serious local
stopping is significant. deteriorations and queues will form behind any significant
traffic disruption.
35.1 to 55.0 second The ability to maneuver is severely restricted due to traffic
D delay. Many vehicles congestion. Travel speed is reduced by the increasing
stop. Individual cycle volume. Only minor disruptions can be absorbed without
failures are noticeable. extensive queues forming and the service deteriorating.
55.1 to 80.0 second Operating conditions at or near the capacity level, usually
delay. Individual cycle unstable. The densities vary, depending on the FFS. Vehicles
failures are frequent are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining
E uniform flow. Disruptions cannot be dissipated readily. Most
multilane highways with FFS between 45 and 60 mph vehicle
mean speeds at capacity range from 42 to 55 mph, but are
highly variable and unpredictable.
Delay in excess of 80.0 Breakdown flow. Traffic is over capacity at points. Queues
F seconds. Considered form behind such locations, which are characterized by
unacceptable to most extremely unstable stop-and-go waves. Travel speed within
drivers. queues are generally less than 30 mph.
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000.
Environmental Assessment 2-1 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819

The traffic forecasts used for the capacity analyses are a combination of two separate forecasts '
provided by the NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch. The first forecast, dated March 2,
2004, includes the study area. The second forecast, dated January 31, 2005, included adjacent
interchanges required for completion of the FHWA Interchange Modification Report (IMR). '
2.1.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The existing 2005 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes within the study area are shown in Figure '
2-1. The traffic operations within the study area are broken into three categories for freeways;
basic freeway segments, ramp junctions (merge/diverge), and freeway weaving segments. The
operations for intersections are broken into two categories; signalized and unsignalized. 1
Results of the analysis of existing conditions included two of eight basic freeway segments, four
of 22 ramp junctions, and two of four freeway weaving segments operating at LOS E or worse.
Additionally, three of the four unsignalized intersections and four of the six signalized
intersections within the study area are operating LOS E or worse. A summary of the existing
condition analysis is included in Table 2-2 and Figure 2-2.
Table 2-2: Year 2005 Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
Freeway Segments ADT Peak Hour LOS
1-40 - NC 115 to US 21 60,400 E
1-40 - US 21 to 1-77 64,000 E
1-40 - 1-77 to US 64 49,800 D
1-40 - US 64 to SR 2158 38,700 C
1-40 - East of SR 2158 33,600 C
1-77 - SR 2735 to SR 2321 64,200 D
1-77 - SR 2321 to 1-40 63,600 D
1-77 -1-40 to US 21 40,600 C
Ramps and Ramp Junctions 2005 AM Peak
LOS 2005 PM Peak
LOS
US 21 at WBa 1-40 Exit Ram - Diverge C F
US 21 at WB 1-40 Entrance Ram - Mere D E
US 21 at EB 1-40 Exit Ram - Diverge F D
US 21 at EB 1-40 Entrance Ram - Mere D C
1-40 WB Exit Ram to NB 1-77 - Diverge C D
1-40 WB Entrance Ram from SB 1-77 - Mere D D
1-40 EB Exit Ram to SB 1-77 - Diverge F D
1-40 EB Entrance Ram from NB 1-77 - Mere D B
1-77 NB Entrance Ram from WB 1-40 - Mere C C
1-77 SB Exit Ram to WB 1-40 - Diverge C C
1-77 SB Entrance Ram from EB 1-40 - Mere C D
1-77 NB Exit Ram to EB 1-40 - Diverge D C
US 64 at EB 1-40 Exit Ram - Diverge D B
US 64 Entrance Flyover Ram to WB 1-40 - Mere C D
SR 2158 at WB 1-40 Exit Ram - Diverge B B
SR 2158 at WB 1-40 Entrance Ram - Mere B B
SR 2158 at EB 1-40 Exit Ram - Diverge C B
SR 2158 at EB 1-40 Entrance Ram - Mere B B
SR 2321 at SB 1-77 Exit Ram - Diverge D D
SR 2321 at SB 1-77 Entrance Loo - Mere C D
n

Environmental Assessment 2-2 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819 1
Chapter 2

C

Table 2-2- Year 2005 Level of Service (LOS1 Analvsis (continued)
Ramps and Ramp Junctions 2005 AM Peak
LOS 2005 PM Peak
LOS
SR 2321 at NB 1-77 Exit Ram -Diverge D C
SR 2321 at NB 1-77 Entrance Loo - Mere D C
Freeway Weaving Sections 2005 AM Peak
LOS 2005 PM Peak
LOS
1-40 WB Loops at 1-77 F F
1-40 EB Loops at 1-77 C B
1-77 NB Loops at 1-40 E D
1-77 SB Loops at 1-40 C C
Unsignalized Intersections 2005 AM Peak
LOS 2005 PM Peak
LOS
worst movement LOS shown
Access Road and US 21 at WB 1-40 Entrance Ram E E
US 64 at EB 1-40 Exit Ram and US 64 C A
SR 2158 at EB 1-40 Exit/Entrance Ram and SR 2158 F F
SR 2158 at WB 1-40 Entrance/Exit Ram and SR 2158 F D
Signalized Intersections 2005 AM Peak
LOS 2005 PM Peak
LOS
US 21 at WB 1-40 Ram Terminals and US 21 F F
US 21 at EB 1-40 Ram Terminals and US 21 F F
SR 2158 and US 64 D C
SR 2158 and Wilson Park Road D F
SR 2321 at SB 1-77 Ramp/Loop Terminals and SR 2321 C D
SR 2321 at NB 1-77 Ramp/Loop Terminals and SR 2321 E D
Source: Traffic Capacity Analysis Memorandum, 2006.
a - WB means westbound, EB means eastbound, NB means northbound and SIB means southbound.
2.1.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS (NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE)
The projected traffic volumes within the study area for the No-Build Alternative in the year 2030
' are shown in Figure 2-3. From 2005 to 2030, traffic volumes on 1-77 are predicted to increase
an average of 71 percent. On 1-40, traffic volumes are predicted to increase an average of 67
percent for the same time period. Projected deficiencies will increase the potential for accidents,
' create traffic delays, and contribute to the inefficient operation of motor vehicles in the local
area.
Under the No-Build Alternative, the analysis of the projected 2030 traffic volumes resulted in
' seven out of eight basic freeway segments, 20 out of 22 ramp junctions and all four freeway
weaving segments operating at LOS E or worse. Additionally, all four unsignalized intersections
and seven of the nine signalized intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or worse. A
I summary of the future No-Build Alternative traffic capacity analysis is included in Table 2-3 and
shown in Figure 2-4.

Environmental Assessment 2-3 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
r2
Table 2-3: Year 2030 Level of Service (LOS) Analvsis (No-Buildl
Freeway Segments Average Daily
Traffic ADT Peak Hour LOS
1-40 - NC 115 to US 21 95,400 F
1-40 - US 21 to 1-77 99,400 F
1-40 - 1-77 to US 64 85,600 F
1-40 - US 64 to SR 2158 67,100 F
1-40 - East of SR 2158 58,800 D
1-77 - SR 2735 to SR 2321 108,800 F
1-77 - SR 2321 to 1-40 107,600 F
1-77 - 1-40 to US 21 71,000 F
Ramps and Ramp Junctions 2030 AM Peak
LOS 2030 PM Peak
LOS
US 21 at WB 1-40 Exit Ram - Diverge F F
US 21 at WB 1-40 Entrance Ram - Mere F F
US 21 at EB 1-40 Exit Ram - Diverge F F
US 21 at EB 1-40 Entrance Ram - Mere F F
1-40 WB Exit Ram to NB 1-77 - Diverge E F
1-40 WB Entrance Ram from SB 1-77 - Mere F F
1-40 EB Exit Ram to SB 1-77 - Diverge F F
1-40 EB Entrance Ram from NB 1-77 - Mere F D
1-77 NB Entrance Ram from WB 1-40 - Mere E F
1-77 SB Exit Ram to WB 1-40 - Diverge F F
1-77 SB Entrance Ram from EB 1-40 - Mere F F
1-77 NB Exit Ram to EB 1-40 - Diverge F F
US 64 at EB 1-40 Exit Ram - Diverge F D
US 64 Entrance Flyover Ram to WB 1-40 - Mere E F
SR 2158 at WB 1-40 Exit Ram - Diverge D D
SR 2158 at WB 1-40 Entrance Ram - Mere D F
SR 2158 at EB 1-40 Exit Ram - Diverge F D
SR 2158 at EB 1-40 Entrance Ram - Mere C D
SR 2321 at SB 1-77 Exit Ram - Diverge F F
SR 2321 at SB 1-77 Entrance Loo - Mere F F
SR 2321 at NB 1-77 Exit Ram -Diverge F F
SR 2321 at NB 1-77 Entrance Loo - Mere F F
Freeway Weaving Sections 2030 AM Peak
LOS 2030 PM Peak
LOS
1-40 WB Loops at 1-77 F F
1-40 EB Loops at 1-77 F E
1-77 NB Loops at 1-40 F F
1-77 SB Loops at 1-40 F F
Unsignalized Intersections 2030 AM Peak
LOS 2030 PM Peak
LOS
worst movement LOS shown
Access Road and US 21 at WB 1-40 Entrance Ram F F
US 64 at EB 1-40 Exit Ram and US 64 F C
SR 2158 at EB 1-40 Exit/Entrance Ram and SR 2158 F F
SR 2158 at WB 1-40 Entrance/Exit Ram and SR 2158 F F
Environmental Assessment 2-4 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

l

Table 2-3: Year 2030 Level of Service (LOS) Analysis (No-Build) (continued)
Signalized Intersections 2030 AM Peak
LOS 2030 PM Peak
LOS
US 21 at EB 1-40 Ram Terminals and US 21 F F
US 21 at WB 1-40 Ram Terminals and US 21 F F
SR 2158 at WB 1-40 Ram Terminals and SR 2158a F B
SR 2158 at EB 1-40 Ram Terminals and SR 2158' B C
SR 2158 and US 64 D C
SR 2158 and Wilson Park Road F F
US 64 at EB 1-40 Ram and US 64' F B
SR 2321 at SB 1-77 Ramp/Loop Terminals and SR 2321 F F
SR 2321 at NB 1-77 Ramp/Loop Terminals and SR 2321 F F
Source: Traffic Capacity Analysis Memorandum, 2006.
a - Denotes intersections that are currently unsignalized that will likely be signalized in the design year 2030
2.2 EXISTING SAFETY CONCERNS
' Existing 1-40 and 1-77 have a number of roadway configurations that create driving conditions
that can be unsafe, particularly when traffic volumes are at their peak. The 1-40 ramps at US 21
are shorter in length than desirable standards. The westbound exit ramp has limited stopping
' sight distance that is particularly dangerous when cars queue on the ramp and back onto the
freeway auxiliary lane. The westbound entrance ramp has an intersection along the ramp and is
designed to carry two-way traffic between SR 1965 (Gaither Road) and US 21. The lack of
access control beyond the interchange ramp terminals permits vehicles to turn left on a four-
lane road without a dedicated turn lane, stopping through traffic, and increasing the chance of a
collision.

Weaving problems inherent to the four back-to-back loops of a cloverleaf interchange are a
safety concern at the 1-40/1-77 interchange. The distance for vehicles to accelerate onto the
interstate while vehicles are decelerating to exit the interstate is 520 feet on 1-40 and 600 feet on
1-77. At the 1-77 interchange with SR 2321 (E. Broad Street), the southbound entrance loop has
a design speed of 20 mph for vehicles needing to accelerate to 55 mph to merge with interstate
traffic.
2.3 DIMINISHED ABILITY TO FUNCTION AS NORTH CAROLINA STRATEGIC
HIGHWAY CORRIDORS
In 2004, the NCDOT, in collaboration with the Department of Commerce and Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), created the Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC)
initiative as a renewed effort to enhance and preserve the backbone of the highway system in
North Carolina. The primary purpose of the initiative is to provide a network of high-speed, safe,
reliable highways throughout the State.e According to the NCDOT's Strategic Highway Corridor
Concept Development Report, "The SHC concept represents a timely initiative to protect and
maximize the mobility and connectivity on a core set of highway corridors throughout North
Carolina, while promoting environmental stewardship through maximizing the use of existing
facilities to the extent possible, and fostering economic prosperity through the quick and efficient
movement of people and goods."9
Interstate 40 provides a connection between many of the largest cities in North Carolina,
following the midline of the state from east to west and continuing through seven states to end
in California. Interstate 77 provides a connection north to south, from Virginia to South Carolina
Environmental Assessment 2-5 November 2006
t T/P No. 1-3819

and through several large cities including Charlotte. As interstate routes, 1-40 (Corridor 6) and I- I
77 (Corridor 21) are identified as designated corridors and freeways on the adopted SHC plan.
The proposed project will improve the existing interchange between two designated North
Carolina Strategic Highway Corridors. The existing and projected traffic volumes along 1-40 and
1-77, diminish the interchange's ability to serve as a high-speed interchange between the
designated Strategic Highway Corridors. ,
2.4 DIMINISHED ABILITY TO FUNCTION AS PART OF THE UNITED STATES
INTERSTATE SYSTEM
Interstate 40 and 1-77 are both designated as part of the Eisenhower National System of ,
Interstate and Defense Highways. According to the FHWA, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1944 called for designation of a National System of Interstate Highways, to include up to 40,000

miles "... so located, as to connect by routes, direct as practical, the principal metropolitan '
areas, cities, and industrial centers, to serve the National Defense, and to connect at suitable
points, routes of continental importance in the Dominion of Canada and the Republic of

Mexico."10 ,
The proposed project will improve the existing interchange between two important interstate
routes where they intersect just north of Statesville, North Carolina. The existing and projected '
traffic volumes, as well as the nature of land use along 1-77 diminish the interchange's ability to
serve as a vital connector between these two interstate routes.
NEED FOR THE PROJECT
2.5 SUMMARY OF PURPOSE AND
The primary purposes of the proposed action are described in this section.
'
Improve traffic flow along the 1-40 and 1-77 corridors within the study area.
Needs Addressed: The 1-40/1-77 interchange is at the center of a transportation system that
includes four additional interchanges serving Iredell County. The four adjacent interchanges
serve Statesville and Iredell County by providing access points to 1-40 and 1-77, as well as
access to the City of Statesville. Existing and projected operational deficiencies in the 1-40/1-77
interchange contributes to operational deficiencies in the other interchanges within the system,
thus impeding the efficiency of the overall transportation system in the immediate area.
. Improve regional connectivity between Iredell County and points east, west, north '
and south within North Carolina and across the Interstate System.
Needs Addressed: The existing and projected traffic volumes and land use conditions within the ,
study area diminish the interchange's ability to function as a regional exchange point, as a
connector between two designated North Carolina Strategic Highway Corridors, and as a high-
speed interstate freeway serving the southeastern United States. ,

Environmental Assessment 2-6 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

CHAPTER 3. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
The existing roadway conditions present within the project study area are detailed in the
following sections, in Table 3-2, and on Figure 1-2.
3.1 CROSS SECTIONS
Both 1-40 and 1-77 are four-lane interstates with 30- to 36-foot grass medians and 10- to 12-foot
outside paved shoulders and 8-foot inside shoulders. US 21 and SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) are
four- to five-lane facilities with curb and gutter. SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road) is a four-lane
divided road between the interchange and US 64. Just north of the interchange, the road
transitions to two lanes.
3.2 RIGHT OF WAY AND ACCESS CONTROL
Both 1-40 and 1-77 are fully controlled access facilities with access allowed only at the
interchanges. The right of way width varies between 180 to 340 feet. Other roadways do not
have access control and have right of way widths varying between 40 and 180 feet.
The lack of access management at US 21 and SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) contributes to the
failing LOS at these interchanges. There are locations with no dedicated turn lane and delays
are regularly created by vehicles waiting to turn left.
At the 1-40/SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road) interchange, the control of access between the
eastbound ramp terminal and US 64 was established under a previous project and adequate
right of way exists for future widening. North of the control of access limits at this interchange,
unrestricted left turns from the medical facilities at Davis Regional Hospital are permitted.
The westbound entrance ramp at the 1-40/US 21 interchange is currently a two-lane, two-way
ramp providing access between SR 1965 (Gaither Road) and US 21.
3.3 INTERSECTIONS AND TYPE OF CONTROL
' As interstates, 1-40 and 1-77 have no intersections with the exception of the intersections at the
interchange ramp terminals. The US 21/1-40 interchange has signalized intersections at each of
the ramp terminals. Additionally, the westbound ramp terminal includes the intersection of a two-
lane, two-way ramp. The westbound entrance ramp includes an at-grade unsignalized
intersection with stop controlled movements from SR 1965 (Gaither Road). In addition to the
signals at the ramp terminal, signalized intersections are located along the US 21 corridor at
' North Carolina Avenue to the south and SR 2187 (Glenway Drive) and SR 1935 (Sunset Hill
Road) to the north. South of the interchange, the intersection with Free Nancy Road is stop
controlled as it intersects US 21.
' The SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road)/1-40 interchange has unsignalized intersections at the ramp
terminals. Along the SR 2158 corridor, signalized intersections are present at SR 2437 (Wilson
Park Road)/Davis Regional Medical Center entrance to the north of the interchange and at
' US 64 south of the interchange. An unsignalized intersection is present at Sherlock Drive, which
is stop controlled as it intersects SR 2158.
' The SR 2321 (East Broad Street)/1-77 interchange has signalized intersections at each of the
ramp terminals. The SR 2321 corridor also has a signalized intersection at the mall driveway
and Station Street intersection to the east of 1-77 as well as an unsignalized intersection with
' Knox Street to the west of 1-77.
Environmental Assessment 3-1 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
3
The US 64 corridor has two intersections within the study area. The intersection of US 64 and
SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road) is signalized. The partial interchange of US 64 and the 1-40
ramp is not signalized. In this location, westbound US 64 traffic has a stop controlled crossing
of the eastbound exit ramp from 1-40.
3.4 RAILROAD CROSSINGS
There are no railroads within the study area.
3.5 STRUCTURES
Existing structures on 1-40 and 1-77 are mostly steel girder bridges with shoulder piers. Several
bridges are signed for sub-standard vertical clearance. The 1-40 corridor has the following
bridges traveling from west to east; SR 2000 (Radio Road) over 1-40, 1-40 over US 21, 1-40 over
Fourth Creek, 1-77 over 1-40, 1-40 over US 64 entrance ramp, and 1-40 over SR 2158 (Old
Mocksville Road). The 1-77 corridor has the following bridges traveling from north to south; 1-77
over 1-40, 1-77 over Fourth Creek, US 64 (Davie Avenue) over 1-77, and SR 2321 (E. Broad
Street) over 1-77. Additionally, bridges are located along SR 1933 (Pump Station Road) and
US 21, both over Fourth Creek.
3.6 SPEED LIMITS
Within the project limits, the posted speed for 1-40 is 60 mph and the posted speed limit for 1-77
is 55 mph. The more urban roadways, such as US 21 and SR 2321 (E. Broad Street), have
posted speeds of 35 mph and other, more rural, roads have posted speeds of 45 mph. The
1-40/1-77 interchange ramps and loops have warning signs for 45 mph and 25 mph, respectively.
The interchange ramps for US 21/1-40, US 64/1-40, SR 2158/1-40, and SR 2321/1-77 have
warning signs for 45 mph. The interchange loops for SR 2321/1-77 have warning signs for 25
mph for northbound lanes and 20 mph for southbound lanes.
3.7 UTILITIES
Water and sewer lines are located within the rights of way of US 21 and SR 2321 (E. Broad
Street) in addition to above ground private utilities such as power and telephone on poles.
Public waterlines are also located on SR 2000 (Radio Road), SR 1965 (Gaither Road), SR 2167
(Glenway Drive), and the two-lane section of US 64 (Davie Avenue). Power poles carrying
above ground utilities are also located on these roads.
A main electric transmission line crosses the project numerous times as it follows the general
path of Fourth Creek through the project. In several other locations minor electric transmission
lines also cross the project area with support poles.
3.8 SIDEWALKS
The section of SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) west of 1-77 includes a sidewalk on both sides. On the
east side of the 1-77 interchange, intermittent sections of sidewalk have been constructed on the
north side of SR 2321 (E. Broad Street).
3.9 BICYCLE PROVISIONS
There are no roadways that provide dedicated facilities for bicycles within the project limits.
3.10 GREENWAYS

C

The City of Statesville has one greenway nearly completed and one greenway proposed within '
the study area. The nearly completed Museum Greenway will connect local neighborhoods to
Environmental Assessment 3-2 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
' Chapter 3
' the Albert B. McClure Park, in the northwestern quadrant of the 1-40/US 21 interchange. It
extends southeastward to the 1-40/1-77 interchange, crosses under both interstates at the
existing bridges along Fourth Creek and eventually connects to Statesville Park, ending at
Greenbriar Road. Easements have been acquired for the completed length with the exception of
Encroachment Agreements from NCDOT for crossing the right of way at US 21, 1-40 and 1-77."
Another proposed greenway would begin in the northwest quadrant of the SR 2321 (E. Broad
Street)/1-77 interchange and would follow an unnamed tributary to Fourth Creek northeastward
until it would connect with the Museum Greenway near SR 2322 (Simonton Road). The
proposed location is on private land and is only a concept that is not funded for construction.
' 3.11 SCHOOL BUSES
The Statesville-Iredell school board has a policy that no buses carrying children can travel on
' interstate routes. School buses that access Pressly Elementary (222 Knox Street) utilize Knox
Street and Cynthia Street as a loop system for dropping off and picking up students.
' 3.12 OTHER TIP PROJECTS IN THE AREA
Figure 3-1 shows other proposed TIP projects planned within and surrounding the study area.
Table 3-1 lists the location and timing of the TIP projects.

L

l
Environmental Assessment 3-3 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 3
Table 3-1: Other Local TIP Projects Schedule
TIP No Description
(Fiscal Years
Planning: in progress
1-3819 1 Statesville, modification of 1-40/77 interchange area. Design: in progress
Right-of-way: FY 08
Construction: FY 08
Right-of-way: Post Years
1-2514 2 Convert 1-77 and SR 2171 (Jane Sowers Road) grade Construction: Post Years
separation to an interchange.
Unfunded Project
Right-of-way: Post Years
1-4750 3 1-77; NC 73 to 1-40. Widen and reconstruct roadway. Construction: Post Years
Unfunded Project
1-77; SR 2171 (South of Exit 54) to North of SR 1891. Construction: Post Years
1-3309 4 Pavement and bridge rehabilitation. Part Complete-Part
Unfunded
Design: in progress
US 70 from SR 2318 in Statesville to US 601 in Right-of-way: part in
R-2911 5 Salisbury. Widen to multi-lanes, part on new location. acquisition
Construction: FY 06 08
SR 2333 (East Side Drive) from SR 2352 (Barkley Right-of-way: Post Years
U-2568 6 Road) to SR 2321 (E. Broad Street). Widen to multi- Construction: Post Years
lanes, part on new location. Unfunded Project
US 21 from SR 1933 to 1-77. Widen to multi-lanes Right-of-way: Post Years
U-2731 7 and realign offset intersections of SR 1922 and SR Construction: Post Years
2171. Unfunded Project
Right-of-way: Post Years
U-2930 8 US 21 from US 64 to SR 1933. Widen to multi-lanes. Construction: Post Years
Unfunded Project
Right-of-way: Post Years
U-4749 9 US 64-70 (Garner Bagnel Road), 1-40 to 1-77. Widen Construction: Post Years
to four lane divided facility.
Unfunded Project
Alexander Railroad - Replace Bridge No. 513. Right-of-way: FY 06
B-2576 10 Southern Railroad - Replace Bridge No. 514. Construction: FY 08
E-4722 11 Museum Greenway: Free Nancy Road to Broad Street Construction: FY 07
including Statesville Park.
Source: NCDOT 2006-2012 TIP, Division 12.
Environmental Assessment 3-4 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

u

n

c
O
U
O
O
N
N
rn
m
m
Cl)
•U
U
N
O
a
a?
r
c
s
3
U
O
U
(0
(0
L
U
(v
m
O
L
O
E
cn
m
cn
(D
O
Q
N
C)
_N
(o
F-
H
d

u >- >- Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

2
co
c E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
o?
C
CO
O
?
?
LO
rf
N
co
O
W
N
O
It
co
co
r
CO
LO
-
y U') N - N O M 00 I- N U7 co O N v
J M M 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O o o O
E ^
J a O LO Lo LO Ln LO LO LO U") U7 U') LO LO O O
Cfl lf) M M M Cl) co M M M co Cl)
N

d `-'
a
CO
r
.? o 0
Ch CM O O O io
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
3 6 6 (D Lo ti (D co (D c0 v LO co
O co LO
N

>
Co >
Co
Z3
U
C?
U
7
D
C7
>
>
>
C7
C7

O

p o o

°6 F- 06 06 06 ? F- 06 ? F- F- 06 06
U U U U ? ? U b b v U U
v
m t
N N N o o o o
U)
To
V

C>L% N
C
CO c
O c
F- M T M T
3 m 3 O N N V L N N M N N N I- LO
o ?r E E
Z
C
O C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
.e .e .0 -0 .0
O D D :D D D D
J
E >_
I
I N
`
m 0 n m L r
N N N
c
LL -

O

m LL

v>

m

W U

O Q-

N
_0
O 0 Y O E C = (0 U) (n
.D ; M N =- J d -D
O ED
W Q a

?
_

U

s

3

3
0

C7

?J

? 0

or-

o=

LLJ
0 0
co
m 0 o c c
ED
co
m
V- (p

o O O
CO C O N
0-1 N o Y

O
?
N

Q'
U'
C7 U
(.D U
`-
N
(n •?
1
2-
-?
Lu
Lu c
O
N
C M M `
M m
J 0
LL 2' U) E l!i ti r` 0
&i "-' V = of
m (n Q'
d O
O C)
O (f) U
e C

D D ] CO
m 00
r- d 00
.-- O U) M
a M .r C
0 N O N
M L N
M O
N N ?p N N N •L -ffi a) N N D m E N C N
C1
d O I-
? ? ? p O U) (n p O Q' Q' L Of = O p 2 O w 7 m 2> af r- O
In -L (n (n F- Z U U) F- (n (n (n co U) F- (n a (n (n (n (n U U) ! F-
Z
a
d
c
>
3
ca
a
0
w
k
W
N
M
07
H
0
0
N
L
O
N
0
Z
Cl)
C
N
N
Q
0)
N ?
o Z°
LU a

d

Z Z Z Z

L

= C C ? C C C
C O O CO ? O co
CO 00 ?T M N
J O O O O O

J t
d U-) LO
d Lo
It U')
'-zt N
E
E
d
CL
N
r
0
3 o o C o

0

_0 >
M
O p> H H n N
t
a
co
?o
d (/? ? N

C: c:
>
F? C
J q co
-o N co
_ N N
O d' E Lo E
2 v N
C
O c c c c c
*+ co co m co co
m a
p :D :D
J

C
C
co
C
a)
> 0
C Y
m m N O p rn
Q Q co O ro co
>
N N 0 U) _0 U >
co > U) 6
C (n N O oo C_ r?-:

Z
( c04 t- `r O v
(
D C
O N I- N N
d (n > (n O ? ? ? 2
D O D co (n co (n co (n
N
M
d
F-
CO
0
0
N
0)
.Q

0)
J

M

0
N
C
m
L
m

N
>

U rz

O ?
co
a) Q)
CO

O Q> Q
O
O
D
N O>
- co
co 0
c
M m Q)
.
Z)
v U C O
?Z
U
CL
cn 1
m _0 C
W I-

' CHAPTER 4. ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
' Descriptions of the No-Build Alternative, Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative,
Mass Transit Alternative, wetland avoidance alternatives, and several build alternatives are
presented in this section. A range of alternatives for the proposed action were evaluated. Two
build alternatives were carried forward for further study and are described in Section 4.1. All
' other alternatives were eliminated. The eliminated alternatives and process of elimination are
described in Section 4.2.
' In order to meet the purpose and need for the project and to allow for the safe operation of the
1-40/1-77 interchange, the limits of the project may be increased to develop a solution that also
meets the needs of the adjacent transportation system as a whole. The 1-40/1-77 interchange
' has several adjacent interchanges in close proximity that may require modification in order to
meet the geometric standards set forth in the AASHTO guidelines presented in, A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 12
' The development of conceptual build alternatives began with the preparation of land suitability
mapping (LSM) to determine the constraints in the project study area. The objective of the LSM
was to identify constraints based on both the natural and human environments. Based on the
' identified constraints, build alternatives were developed to incorporate avoidance and
minimization efforts to the greatest extent possible. A range of build alternatives were studied to
determine which alternatives should be carried forward for further study.
4.1 PROPOSED DETAILED CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES
' The development of detailed construction alternatives, or those alternatives carried forward for
further study, was determined to meet the traffic operation demands of the study area. During
the development of these alternatives a range of interchange options were considered, from the
existing two-level interchange (full-cloverleaf) to a fully directional four-level interchange. The
' number of levels that make up an interchange is based on the number of semi-direct (typically
loops) movements that are replaced with directional movements (typically flyover ramps). The
first two levels of a system (freeway-to-freeway) interchange are made up of the freeways
' themselves, or 1-40 and 1-77 for this project. The third level of an interchange is created when
one or two of the semi-direct movements is replaced with directional ramps. The fourth level of
an interchange is created when any two adjacent semi-direct movements (typically back-to-back
' loop) are replaced with directional ramps. The reason a fourth level is required is that the path
of the directional ramps for adjacent movements cross each other, thus requiring the movement
to an additional level. Therefore, a four-level interchange will include the replacement of at least
two semi-direct connections for adjacent movements, and as many as all four semi-direct
movements. In an effort to minimize the footprint of the interchanges, offsetting the ramps away
from the crossing of the freeways may allow for a lower elevation of the interchange; potentially
' reducing the impacts on the human and natural environments. Examples of some of the
interchange types for two, three, and four level interchanges are shown on Figure 4-1.
Four-level interchanges can best be divided into three classifications based on their
' characteristics and are identified as offset, stacked and turbine.
Two of the four-level interchange types have been carried forward for additional review and
' consideration. These alternatives are referred to as the "Four-level Offset Interchange" and the
"Four-level Turbine Interchange". The concept of each of these alternatives is analyzed in the
following sections.
1
Environmental Assessment 4-1 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 4
Following the analysis of the impacts to the natural and human environments and the operation
of the detailed construction alternatives, the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative was
selected by NCDOT as the Recommended Alternative. The Recommended Alternative and the
reasons for its selection are detailed in Chapter 5.
4.1.1 FOUR-LEVEL OFFSET INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE
The Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative allows for directional movements while allowing a
lower overall elevation compared to the Four-level Stacked Interchange as the fourth level ramp
is offset from the intersection of 1-40/1-77 allowing for it to cross under both 1-40 and 1-77
creating a more compact footprint (see Figure 4-2). The compact footprint allows for adequate
traffic operations between the US 21 and 1-77 interchanges along 1-40. The forecast traffic
volumes for the loop in the southwest quadrant were low enough to allow the loop to remain in
place with only slight modifications in order to tie into the wider freeway cross section. The
Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative also had several disadvantages, such as potential
encroachments upon floodplains and wetlands, including a high quality wetland system in the
southwest quadrant of the interchange.
This alternative allowed the interchange to operate acceptably under the forecast traffic volumes
and meets the purpose and need for the proposed project; therefore it was carried forward and
studied as a detailed construction alternative.
4.1.2 FOUR-LEVEL TURBINE INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE
The Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative allows for directional movements while allowing
a lower overall elevation compared to the Four-level Stacked and Four-level Offset Interchanges
because the ramps do not cross the freeways at the intersection of the freeways but rather are
offset from the intersection (see Figure 4-3). An advantage to the interchange is that it can be
stage constructed with low interruption to existing traffic patterns. The Four-level Turbine
Interchange Alternative also had several of the same disadvantages as the Four-level Offset
Interchange Alternative, such as potential encroachments upon floodplains and wetlands,
including a high quality wetland system in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. One
additional disadvantage is that the interchange has tighter ramp radii that have a lower design
speed than the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative.
This alternative allowed the interchange to operate acceptably under the forecast traffic volumes
and meets the purpose and need for the proposed project; therefore, it was carried forward and
studied as a detailed construction alternative.
4.2 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION
The following alternatives were evaluated and determined not feasible. They were eliminated
from further consideration.
4.2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build Alternative assumes that traffic traveling in proximity to the 1-40/1-77 Interchange
in Iredell County would continue to utilize existing routes for travel within and through the local
area. Under the No-Build Alternative, traveling conditions at the interchanges along existing 1-40
and 1-77 are expected to worsen in future years. Seven of the eight freeway segments, 20 of the
22 ramp junctions and all four of the weave sections within the study area would operate at LOS
F in the design year during the AM or PM peak hours, or both under the No-Build Alternative.
As it would not accommodate the projected traffic demands adequately, the No-Build Alternative
does not meet the purpose and need for this project and was eliminated from further study.

Environmental Assessment 4-2 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819 1

4
4.2.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
The TSM Alternative is an integrated program to optimize the performance of existing
infrastructure through the implementation of multi- and inter-modal, cross-jurisdictional systems,
' services, and projects designed to preserve capacity and improve security, safety, and reliability
of Federal-aid highways. Generally speaking, TSM consists of adding low-cost transportation
improvements to an existing facility in place of large-scale modifications and is designed to
' maximize the use and energy efficiency of a facility and to enhance the operations, while
minimizing capital outlay.
' Two categories of TSM were examined; operational and physical improvements.
Operational changes are largely administrative in nature. Examples include:
1 . Traffic law enforcement
Turn prohibition
• Speed restrictions
Signal coordination
Flexible work hours to stagger traffic
Access control
Signal phasing or timing changes
Physical changes are usually more capital intensive. Examples include:
' Turn lanes
• Striping
. Congested medians
I . New lanes
• Ramp metering
New segments paralleling or bypassing
components
New signals or stop signs
. Warning devices
Improved warning and information signs
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes
Intersection realignment
TSM alternatives are generally found to be beneficial for major projects proposed in urban areas
with populations over 200,000.13 The population of Statesville was 23,320 in 2000 and the
projected population for Iredell County as a whole is estimated to be 223,818 by the 2030
' design year. 14
The City of Statesville does not have a population large enough to warrant TSM alternatives
and, as a result, this alternative was eliminated from further study.
4.2.3 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
' Mass transit, or multi-modal, options include expanding bus or passenger rail services. Mass
transit services are typically oriented to serving a downtown area. In addition FHWA
Environmental Assessment 4-3 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
4
recommends that mass transit should be considered on all proposed major highway projects in
urbanized areas with populations over 200,000.15 The population of Statesville was 23,320 in
2000 and the projected population Iredell County as a whole is estimated to be 223,818 by the
2030 design year. 16
The City of Statesville does not have a population large enough to support mass transit
alternatives and, as a result, this alternative was eliminated from further study.
4.2.4 WETLAND AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES
Executive Order (EO) 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." Based on previous studies, the
alternatives that were identified as reasonable alternatives caused adverse impacts to existing
wetland systems, especially with regard to the high-quality wetlands in the southeast quadrant
of the existing 1-40/1-77 interchange. Therefore, consideration of an avoidance alternative was
investigated to determine if an avoidance alternative would meet the purpose and need for the
project and provide a practicable alternative. Three potential wetland avoidance alternatives
were evaluated.
4.2.4.1 Wetlands Avoidance Alternative 1
The first avoidance alternative considered adding a second interchange that would remove
enough traffic demand from the 1-40/1-77 interchange such that it would operate at an
acceptable LOS with only minor modifications. This type of alternative is very effective if it can
allow the impacts associated with a highly constrained area to be diminished by providing an
alternate route for the forecast traffic volumes. The use of providing a second interchange to
relieve traffic from an existing interchange is very effective for interchanges that are either an
origin or a destination. Because the 1-40/1-77 interchange serves as a transfer point between
interstates and not an origin or destination, this method is not usually effective. Additionally, the
existing 1-40/1-77 interchange is constrained to the west, south and east by existing
interchanges so that the only potential location for a new interchange would be to the north. A
new interchange located on Jane Sowers Road (SR 2171) is proposed as TIP project 1-2514
and was evaluated during the early stages of analysis for this project. The results of the
evaluation found that the inclusion of an interchange at Jane Sowers Road would have a
negligible effect on the projected traffic volumes at the 1-40/1-77 interchange.
Due to the inability to divert a substantial amount of traffic from the 1-40/1-77 interchange the
inclusion of a new interchange would not allow the existing interchange to meet the purpose and
need for the project, thus Wetlands Avoidance Alternative 1 was eliminated from further study.
4.2.4.2 Wetlands Avoidance Alternative 2
The second avoidance alternative would be to create a bypass alternative that would remove
enough traffic demand from existing 1-40/1-77 interchange such that it would operate at an
acceptable LOS with only minor modifications. This type of alternative is very effective if it can
allow the impacts associated with a highly constrained area to be diminished by providing an
alternate route for the forecast traffic volumes. The optimal scenario for this type of alternative
is an urban loop that can divert a substantial amount of traffic from the interchange being
studied. The City of Statesville is not currently included on the list of urban areas with a
proposed urban loop based on the latest North Carolina Trust Fund listing. Without an urban
loop the diversion of traffic would require that a new location freeway be constructed to bypass
the 1-40/1-77 interchange. In order to avoid or minimize the impacts to the high quality wetlands
in the southwest quadrant a bypass would need to be constructed from south of the 1-40/1-77
Environmental Assessment 4-4 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

r4
' interchange on 1-77 to east of the 1-40/1-77 interchange on 1-40. The impacts associated with
bypassing the 1-40/1-77 interchange as a freeway on new location would likely have greater
impacts to the human and natural environments due to existing development and an additional
' crossing of Fourth Creek. Additionally, the interchange spacing between the 1-40/1-77
interchange and the SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) interchange along 1-77 would not allow for
adequate spacing for a new interchange to connect the bypass freeway to 1-77.
' Due to the geometric constraints and the likely increase in impacts to the human and natural
environments Wetlands Avoidance Alternative 2 was determined not to be practicable and was
' eliminated from further study.
4.2.4.3 Wetlands Avoidance Alternative 3

The third avoidance alternative would be to relocate a portion of the interstate to allow for the
reconfiguration of the 1-40/1-77 interchange to avoid the wetlands identified within the project
study area. The highest quality and largest quantity of wetland impacts occurs in the southwest
quadrant of the 1-40/1-77 interchange. In order to avoid or minimize the impacts to this system
as well as the other wetland systems within the project study area, relocating 1-77 to the east
was considered. The land to the east of existing 1-77 is open in general and would allow the
impacts to the wetland system in the southwest quadrant to be reduced or eliminated. Moving
the interchange to the east would also allow for improved interchange spacing between the
US 21 and 1-77 interchanges along 1-40. Relocation of the interstate to the east does involve
introducing new impacts to wetland systems located east of the interchange as well as a much
larger impact to the Tributary 3 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodway and
a new crossing of Fourth Creek. Additionally, the cost associated with relocating the interstate
would be much higher than the other proposed build alternatives and the ability to construct the
project while maintaining existing traffic patterns would be considerably more difficult.
Due to the construction cost, difficulty in maintaining traffic, and inability to completely avoid
wetland and floodplain impacts Wetlands Avoidance Alternative 3 was determined not to be
reasonable and was eliminated from further study.
4.2.5 PRELIMINARY BUILD ALTERNATIVES
The preliminary build alternatives described in this section were evaluated to determine the
design feasibility and ability to meet the purpose and need for the proposed project.
4.2.5.1 Feasibility Study Alternatives
The NCDOT Feasibility Study Unit prepared a feasibility study for the proposed project that was
completed in March 2001.18 The study included the analysis of short-term solutions, long-term
solutions and the feasibility of an interchange at SR 2171 (Jane Sowers Road). Three
alternatives were considered for the long-term solution; Feasibility Study Alternative A,
Feasibility Study Alternative B, and Feasibility Study Alternative C. Feasibility Study Alternative
C was determined to be the recommended alternative. Feasibility Study Alternative A was
eliminated due to concerns with weaving movements remaining on 1-40, while Feasibility Study
Alternative B was eliminated due to concerns with unconventional left exits. Feasibility Study
Alternative C, shown in Figure 4-4, was recommended because it provided the best traffic
service and safety benefits and eliminated the weaving movements within the 1-40/1-77
interchange. Feasibility Study Alternative C included the removal of the loops in the northeast
and southwest quadrants of the 1-40/1-77 interchange. The loops were replaced by directional
flyovers to eliminate weaving movements and the curve radii and lengths of the ramps were
increased to meet present design standards.
Environmental Assessment 4-5 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
4
Feasibility Study Alternative C was carried forward as a conceptual build alternative. As a result
of the project entering the NEPA phase of development, an updated traffic forecast was
completed in January 2004 with a design year of 2030. Based on the updated forecast and
extending the design year from 2025 to 2030, the projected volumes for the project increased
for a majority of the roadways within the project study area.
Feasibility Study Alternative C included directional ramps replacing two loops in diagonal
quadrants, creating a three-level interchange between 1-40 and 1-77. The three-level
interchange eliminates unfavorable weaving sections within the interchange, however, two
movements remain as low speed loops.
A freeway loop operating with a design speed of 30 mph has a maximum capacity of 1,900
passenger cars per hour based on HCM.19 The updated traffic forecast for the project includes
projected volumes greater than 1,900 passenger cars per hour for the loop in the northeast
quadrant during the AM peak hour and for the loop in the northwest quadrant during the PM
peak hour. Based on the maximum capacity of a freeway loop, neither the loop in the northwest
nor northeast quadrant will operate at an acceptable LOS in the design year and should be
removed as a part of any build alternative in order to meet the purpose and need of the
proposed project.
Feasibility Study Alternative C included maintaining the existing loop in the northwest quadrant;
therefore, the alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the project and was
eliminated from further consideration.
4.2.5.2 Three-level Interchange Alternatives
As stated, the only method of meeting the forecasted traffic demand on the 1-40/1-77
interchange is to eliminate both the loops in the northwest and northeast quadrants and replace
them with directional flyover ramps. Because these directional ramps serve adjacent quadrants
(back-to-back loops) they must be constructed on separate levels, as the ramp geometries
intersect each other. The need for separating the movements onto their own levels requires the
interchange be constructed as a four-level interchange with 1-40 and 1-77 making up the first two
levels and the directional ramps that replace the loops in the northwest and northeast quadrants
making up the additional two levels. Additionally, it is recommended that the loop in the
southeast quadrant be replaced with a directional flyover ramp to eliminate the weave section
between it and the loop in the southwest quadrant. The replacement of the loop with a
directional flyover ramp will not add any additional height to the interchange as it can be
accommodated on the same level as the directional ramp replacing the northwest quadrant.
It can be concluded based on the geometry required to serve the forecast traffic volumes that
the interchange must be constructed as a four-level interchange. Based on this determination
the conclusion was made that any interchange alternative that was a two or three level
interchange should be eliminated from further study because it would not meet the purpose and
need for the proposed project.
4.2.5.3 Four-level Stacked Interchange Alternative
The four-level stacked interchange allows for fully directional movements within the interchange,
has the highest operating speeds, and is the most efficient interchange with regard to traffic
operations (See Figure 4-5). However, the interchange is more difficult to stage construct while
maintaining traffic, has a higher overall cost, and requires longer ramps to accommodate the
stacked ramps. The existing 1-40/1-77 interchange is located at the vertical crest of both
roadways in rolling terrain, which further exacerbates the need for longer ramps for this type of
design. The stacked interchange was evaluated in comparison to the offset interchange with
Environmental Assessment 4-6 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
' Chapter 4
' the location of the outer ramps of the offset interchange being held constant. In order to
achieve the necessary vertical separation between the four levels of the interchange the ramp
grades greatly exceeded the design criteria established for the project. As a result, for the
stacked ramps to meet the design criteria the footprint of the interchange would need to be
expanded outward, reducing the critical weave length between the US 21 and 1-77 interchanges
on 1-40, and negatively affecting the traffic operations of the interchange.
' Due to the larger footprint of this interchange, the impacts to the human and natural
environments would be increased over those of the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative or
Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative. The potential for higher impacts combined with the
' negative effects on the traffic operations, this alternative was eliminated from further study.
4.3 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
(DETAILED CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES)
The following sections are based on the Traffic Memorandum and the traffic forecasts provided
by the NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch dated March 2, 2004 and January 31, 2005.20
' The projected traffic volumes within the study area for the detailed construction alternatives for
the design year 2030 are shown in Figure 4-6. The traffic forecast is the same for both the
Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative and Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative, as the
' only difference between the alternatives is the configuration of the ramps.
A detailed study of the traffic operations of the interchange was developed, however, due to the
' complexity of the interchange configuration, several of the methodologies for determining LOS
contained within the HCM were not completely applicable. For instances where the HCM
methodology is not applicable it provides the following recommendation:
' Simulation Models should be considered when the desired study of the
performance in a traffic situation is not explicitly covered by HCM methodologies
' presented in Part III of this manual or when the traffic situation is very difficult to
analyze using empirical and analytical model S.21
Therefore the analyses of the freeway portion of the project for the design year were conducted
' using a microscopic traffic simulation model. The output parameters generated by a
microscopic simulation model (density, speed) and by the HCM (LOS) are not identical. A
method was developed that would allow for a general comparison of the results of each of the
' detailed construction alternatives with those of the existing conditions and under the No-Build
Scenario. Because of familiarity with LOS, a conversion of the microscopic outputs to the
corresponding LOS was developed for comparison purposes. It should be noted that because
' the microscopic model does not directly generate LOS, the results presented are "reasonable
approximations" of the HCM LOS methodologies.
' 4.3.1 FOUR-LEVEL OFFSET INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE
The results of the detailed analysis of the traffic operations for the Four-level Offset Interchange
Alternative are shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-7. The traffic operations within the study area
' for the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative resulted in the 12 basic freeway segments, 28
ramp junctions, and two freeway weaving segments operating at an acceptable LOS with all
segments operating at LOS C or better.
Environmental Assessment 4-7 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
r4
r
Table 4-1: Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative - Year 2030 Approximate Level of I
Service LOS
Freeway Segments 2030 AM
Peak LOS 2030 PM
Peak LOS
1-40 - NC 115 to US 21 EB C C
1-40-NC 115 to US 21 WB C C
1-40 - Within C/D EB A B
1-40 - Within C/D WB B A
1-40 - East of SR 2158 EB C B
1-40 - East of SR 2158 WB B C
1-77 - SR 2735 to SR 2321 NB C C
1-77 - SR 2735 to SR 2321 SB C C
1-77 - SR 2321 to 1-40 NB C C
1-77 - SR 2321 to 1-40 SB B C
1-77 -1-40 to US 21 NB B B
1-77 -1-40 to US 21 SB B B
Ramps and Ramp Junctions 2030 AM
Peak LOS 2030 PM
Peak LOS
1-40/1-40 C/D
1-40 EB C/D at 1-40 - Diverge B B
1-40 WB C/D at 1-40 - Mere B B
1-40 WB C/D at 1-40 WB - Diverge A B
1-40 EB C/D at 1-40 - Mere B B
US 21 /1-40 Interchange
US 21 at 1-40 EB C/D Exit Ram - Diverge C B
US 21 at 1-40 WB C/D Entrance Ram - Mere C C
1-40/1-77 Interchange
1-40 EB to 1-77 SB Exit Ram at 1-40 EB to 1-77 NB Ram - Diverge C C
1-40 EB to 1-77 SB Entrance Ram at 1-40 WB to 1-77 SB Ram - Mere C C
1-77 SB to 1-40 EB Entrance Loo at 1-40 EB C/D - Mere A A
1-77 NB to 1-40 EB Entrance Ram at 1-40 EB C/D - Mere B B
1-40 WB to 1-77 NB Exit Ram - Diverge B B
1-40 WB to 1-77 SB Ram at 1-40 WB to 1-77 NB Exit Ram - Diverge B B
1-40 WB to 1-77 NB Ram at 1-40 EB to 1-77 NB Ram - Mere B B
1-40 EB/WB ram to 1-77 SB Entrance Ram - Mere B B
1-77 NB to 1-40 EB/WB Exit Ram - Diverge B B
1-77 NB to split of 1-40 EB Exit Ram and 1-40 WB Ram - Diverge C C
1-77 SB to 1-40 EB Exit Loo - Diverge B B
1-77 SB to 1-40 WB ram at 1-77 SB to 1-40 WB Entrance Ram - Mere C C
1-77 SB Ram to WB 1-40 Exit Ram - Diverge B B
1-40 to I-77 NB Entrance Ram at I-77 NB Ram - Mere B B
SR 2158 11-40 Interchange
SR 2158 Ram C at I-40 EB - Diverge C B
SR 2158 Ram B at 1-40 WB - Mere B B
SR 2158 Ram A at 1-40 EB - Diverge A B
SR 2158 Ram D at 1-40 EB - Mere B B
Environmental Assessment 4-8 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819 1

C

r

r
C

Chapter 4
Table 4-1: Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative - Year 2030 Approximate Level of
Service (LOS) (continued)
Ramps and Ramp Junctions 2030 AM
Peak LOS 2030 PM
Peak LOS
SR 2321 /1-77 Interchange
SR 2321 Ram D at 1-77 NB - Diverge B B
SR 2321 Loo D at 1-77 NB - Mere B B
SR 2321 Loo B at 1-77 SB - Mere B C
SR 2321 Ram B at 1-77 SB - Diverge B C
Freeway Weaving Sections 2030 AM
Peak LOS 2030 PM
Peak LOS
1-40 EB C/D - Between US 21 Entrance Ramp and 1-77 NB/SB Exit
Ram
C
B
1-40 WB C/D - Between 1-77 SB to 1-40 WB Entrance Ramp and US
21 Exit Ram
B
B
Unsignalized Intersections 2030 AM
Peak LOS 2030 PM
Peak LOS
worst movement LOS shown
SR 2321 at Knox Street B B
Signalized Intersections 2030 AM
Peak LOS 2030 PM
Peak LOS
US 21 at Free Nancy Road A A
US 21 at North Carolina Avenue D C
US 21 at 1-40 EB Ramps and US 21 D D
US 21 at 1-40 WB Ramps and US 21 E E
US 21 at SR2187-Glenwa Dr. and SR 1935-Sunset Hill Road. F F
SR 1935-Sunset Hill Road at SR 1930-Pump Station Road C D
SR 1930-Pump Station Road at SR 1965 Gaither Road C D
SR 2158 and Wilson Park Road D F
SR 2158 at 1-40 WB Ramps and SR 2158 E F
SR 2158 at 1-40 EB Ramps and SR 2158 F D
SR 2158 and US 64 E E
SR 2321 at 1-77 SB Ram / Loo and SR 2321 D D
SR 2321 at 1-77 NB Ramp/Loop and SR 2321 F F
SR 2321 at Station Street and Mall Driveway F F
Source: Traffic Capacity Analysis Memorandum, 2006-
4.3.2 FOUR-LEVEL TURBINE INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE
The results of the detailed analysis of the traffic operations for the Four-level Turbine
Interchange Alternative are shown in Table 4-2 and on Figure 4-8. The traffic operations within
the study area for the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative resulted in 12 basic freeway
segments, 28 ramp junctions, and two freeway weaving segments all operating at an acceptable
LOS with all segments operating at LOS C or better.
Environmental Assessment 4-9 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
4

Table 4-2: Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative - Year 2030 Approximate Level of I
Service (LOS)
Freeway Segments 2030 AM
Peak LOS 2030 PM
Peak LOS
1-40 - NC 115 to US 21 EB C C
1-40-NC 115 to US 21 WB C C
1-40 - Within C/D EB A B
1-40 - Within C/D WB B A
1-40 - East of SR 2158 EB C B
1-40 - East of SR 2158 WB B C
1-77 - SR 2735 to SR 2321 NB C C
1-77 - SR 2735 to SR 2321 SB C C
1-77 - SR 2321 to 1-40 NB C C
1-77 - SR 2321 to 1-40 SB B C
1-77 - 1-40 to US 21 NB B B
1-77 - 1-40 to US 21 SB B B
Ramps and Ramp Junctions 2030 AM
Peak LOS 2030 PM
Peak LOS
1-4011-40 C/D
1-40 EB C/D at 1-40 - Diverge B B
1-40 WB C/D at 1-40 - Mere B B
1-40 WB C/D at 1-40 WB - Diverge A B
1-40 EB C/D at 1-40 - Mere B B
US 21 /1-40 Interchange
US 21 at 1-40 EB C/D Exit Ram - Diverge C B
US 21 at 1-40 WB C/D Entrance Ram - Mere C C
1-40/1-77 Interchange
1-40 EB to 1-77 SB Exit Ram at 1-40 EB to 1-77 NB Ram - Diverge C C
1-40 EB to 1-77 SB Entrance Ram at 1-77 SB - Mere B B
1-77 SB to 1-40 EB Entrance Loo at 1-40 EB C/D - Mere A A
1-77 NB to 1-40 EB Entrance Ram at 1-40 EB C/D - Mere B B
1-40 WB to 1-77 NB Exit Ram - Diverge B B
1-40 WB to 1-77 SB Ram at 1-40 WB to 1-77 NB Exit Ram - Diverge B B
1-40 WB to 1-77 NB Ram at 1-40 EB to 1-77 NB Ram - Mere B B
1-40 EB ram to 1-77 SB Entrance Ram - Mere B B
1-77 NB to 1-40 EB/WB Exit Ram - Diverge B B
1-77 NB to split of 1-40 EB Exit Ram and 1-40 WB Ram - Diverge C C
1-77 SB to 1-40 EB Exit Loo - Diverge B B
1-77 SB to 1-40 WB ram at I-77 SB to 1-40 WB Entrance Ram - Mere C C
1-77 SB Ram to WB 1-40 Exit Ram - Diverge B B
1-40 to 1-77 NB Entrance Ram at 1-77 NB Ram - Mere B B
SR 2158 /1-40 Interchange
SR 2158 Ram C at 1-40 EB - Diverge C B
SR 2158 Ram B at 1-40 WB - Mere B B
SR 2158 Ram A at 1-40 EB - Diverge A B
SR 2158 Ram D at I-40 EB - Mere B B
Environmental Assessment 4-10 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
I Chapter 4
Table 4-2: Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative - Year 2030 Approximate Level of
Service (LOS) (continued)

J

I

r
Ramps and Ramp Junctions 2030 AM
Peak LOS 2030 PM
Peak LOS
SR 2321 /1-77 Interchange
SR 2321 Ram D at 1-77 NB - Diverge B B
SR 2321 Loo D at 1-77 NB - Mere B B
SR 2321 Loo B at 1-77 SB - Mere B C
SR 2321 Ram B at 1-77 SB - Diverge B C
Freeway Weaving Sections 2030 AM
Peak LOS 2030 PM
Peak LOS
1-40 EB C/D - Between US 21 Entrance Ram and 1-77 NB/SB Exit Ram C B
1-40 WB C/D - Between 1-77 SB to 1-40 WB Entr Ramp and US 21 Exit
Ram B B
Unsignalized Intersections 2030 AM
Peak LOS 2030 PM
Peak LOS
worst movement LOS shown
SR 2321 at Knox Street B B
Signalized Intersections 2030 AM
Peak LOS 2030 PM
Peak LOS
US 21 at Free Nancy Road A A
US 21 at North Carolina Avenue D C
US 21 at 1-40 EB Ramps and US 21 D D
US 21 at 1-40 WB Ramps and US 21 E E
US 21 at SR2187-Glenwa Dr. and SR 1935-Sunset Hill Rd. F F
SR 1935-Sunset Hill Road at SR 1930-Pump Station Road C D
SR 1930-Pump Station Road at SR 1965 Gaither Road C D
SR 2158 and Wilson Park Road D F
SR 2158 at 1-40 EB Ramps and SR 2158 E F
SR 2158 at 1-40 WB Ramps and SR 2158 F D
SR 2158 and US 64 E E
SR 2321 at 1-77 SB Ram / Loo and SR 2321 D D
SR 2321 at 1-77 NB Ramp/Loop and SR 2321 F F
SR 2321 at Station Street and Mall Driveway F F
Source: Traffic Capacity Analysis Memorandum, 2006.
4.4 COST ESTIMATES
Estimated project costs for the two proposed alternatives are included in Table 4-3. As shown in
the table, the estimated cost of the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative is $170,000,000 for
construction and $15,715,000 for right of way. The estimated cost of the Four-level Turbine
Interchange Alternative is $162,000,000 for construction and $15,785,000 million for right of
way. The cost estimates are preliminary and more detailed cost information will be provided
during the final design.
The construction and right of way costs estimated in the 2006-2012 TIP include $76,000,000 for
construction and $9,500,000 for right of way. It is likely that the selected alternative will be
constructed in phases. Any phased construction will be within the footprint of the recommended
alternative and will minimize the amount of throw-away construction that is not part of the
ultimate build project, thus reducing unnecessary costs.
Environmental Assessment 4-11 November 2006
' T/P No. 1-3819
4
Table 4-3: Cost Estimates
Description Four-level Offset Interchange
Alternative Four-level Turbine Interchange
Alternative
Construction $170,000,000 $162,000,000
Right-of-Way $15,715,000 $15,785,000
Total $185,715,000 $177,785,000
Environmental Assessment 4-12 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

t CHAPTER 5. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT
Based on data gathered and presented in this EA, on April 26, 2006 the NCDOT selected the
' Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative as their Recommended Alternative. The overall effects
for both detailed construction alternatives are very similar. The primary reasons for the selection
of the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative were lower wetland impacts and a more
' desirable geometry with flatter curve radii for the directional ramp movements. Avoidance and
minimization efforts will be coordinated amongst NCDOT and other federal and state resource
agencies. Any avoidance and minimization measures developed will be included in the Finding
' of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
5.1 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
' The Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative begins on 1-40 approximately 1,650 feet west of
the SR 2003 (Radio Road) overpass and heads east to the existing interchange with US 21. It
continues to the existing interchange with 1-77 and ends at the existing interchange with
' SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road), for a total length of 3.59 miles. 1-77 begins 1,680 feet north of
SR 2157 (Salisbury Road) and heads north to the existing interchange with SR 2321 (E. Broad
Street). It continues under US 64 to the 1-40 interchange and ends approximately 2,400 feet
south of SR 2171 (Jane Sowers Road) for a total length of 3.24 miles. New collector-distributor
' (C-D) roadways will be constructed along 1-40 to provide access to and from both the US 21 and
1-77 interchanges. The westbound C-D roadway will exit slightly west of where 1-40 crosses
under 1-77, then merge back onto westbound 1-40 approximately 3,460 feet west of US 21. The
' eastbound C-D roadway will begin approximately 2,950 feet west of US 21 and continue
through both the US 21 and 1-77 interchanges and merge back into eastbound 1-40
approximately 4,590 feet east of 1-77.

I

r
The two-level full cloverleaf interchange at 1-40/1-77 will be revised to a four-level offset
interchange replacing three of the four loops with directional ramps, as shown in Figure 4-2. The
four existing one-lane ramps will be shifted outward to accommodate the new two-lane
directional ramps. New bridges on 1-40 and 1-77 will be constructed to accommodate the two-
lane directional ramp for northbound 1-77 to westbound 1-40 that is proposed to cross under both
interstates. The ramp for eastbound 1-40 to northbound 1-77 as well as westbound 1-40 ramps to
southbound 1-77 will be constructed above the interstate levels. One loop will remain for
southbound 1-77 to eastbound 1-40.
The interchange at 1-40/US 21 will be maintained as a diamond interchange, but revised to
provide for longer, wider and safer ramps in each quadrant. US 21 will be widened from south of
Free Nancy Drive to the existing bridge over Fourth Creek. The 1-40 bridge over US 21 will be
constructed to allow for future widening of two additional US 21 lanes under the bridge (TIP
Project U-2930). SR 1934 (Hillside Lane) will be extended to SR 1965 (Gaither Road) to
maintain access to US 21. This road will include a new stream crossing at Fourth Creek
approximately 400 feet downstream of the existing crossing at SR 1933 (Pump Station Road).
The section of SR 2187 (Glenway Drive) that runs parallel to 1-40 will be maintained in place.
The section of SR 2187 to the east of the shopping center will be realigned to the west to
accommodate the expansion of the 1-40/1-77 interchange. The US 64/1-40 partial interchange
will be removed, including ramp pavement and structures on 1-40. The eastbound ramp terminal
at US 64 (Davie Avenue) will be reconfigured to eliminate the intersection and transition the
four-lane divided section into the existing two lanes. At the 1-40 interchange with SR 2158 (Old
Mocksville Road), the westbound entrance ramp and eastbound exit ramp will be realigned to
tie to the interstate widening. SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road) will be widened one lane between
the eastbound exit interchange ramp terminal and US 64. The interchange with 1-77 and SR
2321 (E. Broad Street) will maintain the current loop and ramp configuration but be realigned to
Environmental Assessment 5-1 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
tie to the interstate widening. SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) will be widened from Cynthia Street to
Middleton Street. Approximately 1,950 feet of US 64 (Davie Avenue) will be realigned 150 feet
to the south of the current structure with a longer bridge that will span the additional interstate
lanes. Approximately 1,900 feet of SR 2322 (Simonton Road) will be realigned to the east due
to the widening of 1-77, tying into the realigned US 64 (Davie Avenue).
A service road will begin at SR 2174 (Crawford Road) and run approximately 2,850 feet to the
west, ending in a cul-de-sac that will provide access to the adjacent property owners.
5.2 CROSS SECTIONS
As shown in Figures 5-1a and 5.1b, the typical section for both 1-40 and 1-77 will be widened
from a four-lane roadway with a 30- to 36-foot median to an eight-lane interstate with a 23-foot
median. Outside shoulders will be 12 feet and inside shoulders will be 10 feet paved with a
median barrier. The C-D roadways will be two lanes with the same width shoulders as the
interstate. Both US 21 and SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) will be widened from the existing four to
five lane curb and gutter cross-section to a five to seven lane cross-section with curb and gutter.
The bridge over 1-77 will be lengthened and widened to accommodate seven lanes of traffic for
the interchange.
5.3 RIGHT OF WAY AND ACCESS CONTROL
Both 1-40 and 1-77 will remain fully controlled access facilities with access allowed only at the
interchanges. The US 64/140 partial interchange will be removed, eliminating access to 1-40 at
this location.
Access along US 21, SR 2321 (E. Broad Street), and SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road) within the
interchange area will be modified by installing concrete median islands limiting traffic in this area
to right-in/right-out movements. On US 21 the island will begin 360 feet south of Free Nancy
Drive and end approximately 780 feet north of 1-40. On SR 2321 (E. Broad Street), the island
will begin 50 feet east of Cynthia Street and end at Middleton Street. Knox Street at E. Broad
Street will be channelized for right turns only; however, the existing network of neighborhood
roads provides access to Cynthia Street for traffic to turn left onto E. Broad Street. On SR 2158
(Old Mocksville Road) a concrete median island will be added between Sherlock Drive and SR
2437 (Wilson Park Road) to prohibit left turns out of Sherlock Drive. To travel south on Old
Mocksville Road, traffic will be required to U-turn at the existing signal at Wilson Park Drive, 0.1
mile to the north.
Access between SR 1965 (Gaither Road) and US 21 will be revised to eliminate the two-way
ramp and new access will be provided by the extension of SR 1934 (Hillside Lane) between SR
1935 (Sunset Hill Road) and Gaither Road.
5.4 DESIGN SPEED
The design speed for both 1-40 and 1-77 are 60 mph. Existing terrain limited increasing the
design speed without increasing impacts from construction and issues with traffic maintenance.
The other roadways will maintain their existing speed limits and are designed for five mph over
the posted speeds.
5.5 INTERSECTING ROADWAYS
The intersection of SR 1935 (Sunset Hill Road) and SR 2187 (Gaither Road) will be realigned to
eliminate the offset intersection and create a four-way signalized intersection with multiple turn
lanes. Eliminating the partial interchange at US 64 and 1-40 will remove the intersection at the
eastbound exit ramp terminal with US 64. Access to US 64 will be provided at the SR 2158 (Old
Environmental Assessment 5-2 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

' Mocksville Road) interchange 0.6 mile to the east. No new intersections will be created on SR
2321 (E. Broad Street); however, the intersection at Knox Street will be modified as discussed
previously. Two new intersections will be created by the project. One with the service road at
' SR 2174 (Crawford Road) and one with the extension of SR 1934 (Hillside Lane) to SR 1965
Gaither Road.

r

d

J

r

5.6 STRUCTURES AND DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS
New and replacement structures will be constructed throughout the project. The existing
structures are not wide enough to accommodate the interstate widening or have substandard
vertical clearance. There will be sixteen bridge locations meeting current NCDOT standards
constructed under this project. Shoulder piers on the interstate bridges will be eliminated and
appropriate vertical clearance will be met. A detailed analysis of the proposed structures is
included in the Hydraulics Technical Memorandum. 2z
The 1-40 corridor will have the following new structures traveling from west to east; SR 2000
(Radio Road) over 1-40, 1-40 over US 21, 1-40 over Fourth Creek, 1-77 over 1-40, 1-40 over the
directional ramp for 1-77 northbound to 1-40 westbound, and 1-40 over the tributary to Fourth
Creek. The 1-77 corridor will have the following new structures traveling from north to south; 1-77
over the directional ramp for 1-77 northbound to 1-40 westbound, 1-77 over 1-40, 1-77 over Fourth
Creek, US 64 (Davie Avenue) over 1-77, and SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) over 1-77. A new
structure over Fourth Creek will be constructed for the extension of SR 1934 (Hillside Lane) to
SR 1965 (Gaither Road). The new structures on 1-40 over the tributary to Fourth Creek will
replace a box culvert and span the floodway. Two new structures will also be constructed at this
location for interchange ramps on each side of 1-40; 1-77 northbound to 1-40 eastbound and 1-40
eastbound to 1-77 north or southbound.
With the elimination of the US 64/1-40 partial interchange, the existing 1-40 dual structures over
the US 64 westbound ramp will be removed and the bridges be replaced by roadway
embankment. Temporary widening for one structure as part of a median cross-over detour that
will be required to maintain 1-40 traffic while the other structure is being removed and roadway
embankment brought up to grade.
The longest structures on the project will be for the directional ramps at the 1-40/1-77
interchange. Spans approaching 250 feet will be required to cross the interstates. The 1-40
median is being widened to accommodate the skewed median piers for both of these structures.
Existing drainage patterns will be maintained throughout the project. Fourth Creek will be
bridged at all locations throughout the project and two box culverts will be extended for the
interstate widening. New bridges will be designed to span the floodways associated with
streams.
5.7 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCOMODATIONS
The widening of US 21 and SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) will include a sidewalk on both sides to
accommodate pedestrian traffic from one side of the interstate to the other. The outside lanes of
US 21 will be widened to 14 feet to allow for bicycle traffic. The new structures over Fourth
Creek at 1-40 and 1-77 will accommodate the proposed section of the Museum Greenway.
Environmental Assessment 5-3 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819

j

0

11

E
CHAPTER 6. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
' The social, economic, and natural environments within the study area are described in this
chapter of the EA. Following a description of the existing conditions, an evaluation of effects is
presented for both the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative and the Four-level Turbine
' Interchange Alternative. Where appropriate, mitigation measures for adverse effects are
described.
' 6.1 SOCIAL EFFECTS
Existing social conditions and potential effects of the two detailed construction alternatives on
the social environment are addressed in this section.
' 6.1.1 GEOGRAPHIC AND POLITICAL LOCATION
The study area is located within the western portion of the piedmont ecoregion of North
' Carolina. The study area is contained entirely within Iredell County. The City of Statesville is the
county seat and was incorporated in 1789. The majority of the study area is contained within the
jurisdictional city limits of Statesville.
6.1.2 POPULATION, RACE, ETHNICITY AND AGE

6.1.2.1 Existing Conditions
U.S. Census data was used to characterize the existing social conditions in the study area. The
study area boundary includes sections of several Census block groups. To ensure that the
entire population within the study area was included in the analysis of social conditions, year
2000 Census block groups were superimposed on the study area map. All Census block groups
lying completely or partially inside the study area boundary were included in the analysis. This
area is referred to as the Demographic Region of Comparison (ROC), and the population
residing in the ROC is known as the reference population. Figure 6-1 depicts the study area
overlain with year 2000 Census block groups to form the ROC. The U.S. Census Bureau's
2000 U.S. Census provided the most comprehensive and accurate demographic data available
for the ROC.
Current and Projected Population
Current trends and projected population for the City of Statesville and Iredell County are
compared to the State of North Carolina in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1: Pooulation Trends and Proiections 1970 - 2010
1970 1980 1990 2000 Projected 2010
Statesville 19,996 18,622 17,567 23,320 26,981
Iredell County 72,197 82,538 92,931 122,660 132,409
North Carolina 5,084,411 5,880,095 6,632,448 8,049,313 9,441,440
Source: US Census Bureau, American Fact Finder (2004).
The percentage of change in population between the years 1970 and 2010 for the City of
Statesville and Iredell County are compared to the State of North Carolina in Table 6-2.
Environmental Assessment 6-1 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
ter 6
Table 6-2: Percentage of Chan a in Population Between 1970 and 2010
1970 -1980 1980 -1990 1990- 2000 2000 - 2010
Statesville -6.9% -5.7% 32.7% 15.7%
Iredell County 14.3% 12.6% 32.0% 7.9%
North Carolina 15.6% 12.8% 21.4% 17.3%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Fact Finder (2004).
Race and Ethnicity
The minority population in the ROC (31 percent) is lower than the City of Statesville (43
percent), higher than Iredell County (19 percent) and consistent with the State of North Carolina
(30 percent). About 22 percent of the residents in the ROC are black, compared to about 32
percent in Statesville and 14 percent in Iredell County. About 5 percent of the residents in the
ROC are Hispanic, compared to 7 percent in Statesville and 3 percent in Iredell County.
Age
The age distribution of the ROC and comparison areas is shown in Table 6-3. The age
distribution of the population in the ROC is fairly consistent with that of Statesville and Iredell
County. The portion of the population over age 65 is higher in the ROC (16 percent) than in the
State of North Carolina (9 percent), but this elevation is consistent with the city and county
populations.
Table 6-3: Aqe Distribution - Year 2000 Population
Under 18 18 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65+ Total
ROC 24.1% 8.1% 29.0% 22.8% 15.9% 21,546
Statesville 26.6% 6.6% 28% 21.4% 17.4% 23,320
Iredell County 25.5% 7.5% 31.3% 23.3% 12.4% 122,660
North Carolina 27.2% 7.2% 31% 26% 8.6% 8,049,313
Source: US Census Bureau, American Fact Finder (2004).
6.1.2.2 Anticipated Effects
As described in the indirect and cumulative effects assessment (ICE Assessment) performed for
this project and summarized in Section 6.3.5, the project is not anticipated to induce growth in
the study area.23 The project does not provide new access to undeveloped land and is
therefore unlikely to affect the composition of the population in the ROC. Specific effects to
minority and other protected populations are addressed in Section 6.1.10. The project will not
have disproportionate effects on minority or elderly populations.
6.1.3 INCOME, POVERTY STATUS, AND UNEMPLOYMENT
6.1.3.1 Existing Conditions

L

L

!I

As shown in Table 6-4, the median household and per capita incomes for residents of
Statesville are lower than those for Iredell County and the state as a whole. Similarly, there are ,
more families and individuals living below poverty level in Statesville than in Iredell County and
North Carolina as a whole.

Environmental Assessment 6-2 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

r
C

ter 6
Table 6-4- I-Inusehold Income - Year 2000 Ponulation
Median Household Median Per Families Below Individuals
Below Poverty
Income Capita Income Poverty Level Level
Statesville $31,925 $19,328 12.7% 16.1%
Iredell County $41,920 $21,148 6.2% 8.2%
North Carolina $39,184 $20,307 9.0% 12.3%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Fact Finder (2004).
Unemployment rates, shown in Table 6-5, are similar across the City of Statesville, Iredell
County and North Carolina as a whole.
Table 6-5- Llnemnlovment Rate Comnarisons
1990 2000 2002 2003 2004
City of Statesville 3.9 3.4 6.8 6.5 5.4
Iredell County 3.9 3.4 6.7 6.5 5.4
North Carolina 4.2 3.8 6.7 6.5 5.5
Source: North Carolina Employment Securities Commission, Labor Force Estimates (2005).
6.1.3.2 Anticipated Effects
As described in the ICE Assessment performed for this project and summarized in Section
' 6.3.5, the project is not anticipated to induce growth in the study area.24 The project does not
provide new access to undeveloped land and is therefore unlikely to affect the composition of
the population in the ROC. As described in the ICE Assessment, the project is anticipated to
have a positive effect on interstate commerce. This may result in a positive effect on
employment in the study area, but will likely be negligible. Anticipated effects to low-income and
other protected populations are addressed in Section 6.1.10.
6.1.4 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

6.1.4.1 Existing Conditions
Housing costs for owner-occupied and renter-occupied units in the city, county and state are
shown in Table 6-6. The median home value in Statesville is lower than Iredell County and
North Carolina as a whole. Statesville has a higher percentage of renter-occupied housing units
than both comparison geographies.
Table 6-6- Hnusino Cost Characteristics - Year 2000 Ponulation
Owner
Median Median of Monthly
Renter Occupied
Average
Occupied Value Costs with Housing Units Rent
Housing Units Mortgage
Statesville 51% $94,800 $899 42.0% $533
Iredell County 51% $116,100 $986 24.6% $540
North Carolina 46% $108,300 $985 30.6% $548
Source: US Census Bureau, American Fact Finder (2004).
Household characteristics for Statesville, Iredell County and North Carolina are shown in Table
6-7. Statesville has a higher percentage of non-family households than Iredell County and
North Carolina as a whole.
Environmental Assessment 6-3 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
r6
Table 6-7: Household Characteristics - Year 2000 Population
Family Households Non-Family
Households Total Households
Statesville 63.8% 36.2% 9,338
Iredell County 86.6% 13.4% 122,660
North Carolina 82.2% 17.8% 8,049,313
Source: US Census Bureau, American Fact Finder (2004).
6.1.4.2 Anticipated Effects
As with characteristics of the population, the project is not anticipated to have an effect on the
make-up of housing and household characteristics in the study area. Since the project consists
of an improvement to an existing interchange, it will not provide new access to an undeveloped
area and is therefore unlikely to have a substantial effect on demographic characteristics.
6.1.5 PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public facilities located within the study area are shown on Figure 6-2. A description of the local
public facilities and an analysis of project effects to these facilities are included in the following
sections for both of the detailed construction alternatives.
6.1.5.1 Schools and Educational Facilities
Two public schools are contained within the study area, Northview Elementary (625 Carolina
Avenue) and Pressly Elementary (222 Knox Street). Northview Elementary serves grades K-2
and is paired with a second school, Ebenezer Elementary School, serving grades 3-5. Pressly
Elementary serves K-1 and is also paired with a second school, East Elementary School,
serving grades 2-5. Approximately 75 percent of the students attending these elementary
schools ride school buses. Northview Elementary is served by seven buses daily and Pressly is
served by eleven buses. The Statesville-Iredell school board has a policy that no buses carrying
children can travel on interstate routes.
Two private schools are located within the study area. Statesville Montessori School is located
at 1012 Harmony Drive and Statesville Christian School is located at 1210 Museum Road.
Statesville Montessori serves grades preschool-8 at their private campus while Statesville
Christian serves grades preschool-12. Both of these educational facilities utilize private
transportation to transport children to and from their schools.
Right of way acquisition from both Northview Elementary and Pressly Elementary will be
required under both detailed construction alternatives. The acquisition of property is considered
minor and will not affect the school building, playgrounds, open spaces used for recreation, or
other school facilities. Access to these facilities will be coordinated and maintained throughout
construction activities.
For both detailed construction alternatives, the bus route to Pressly Elementary would be
impacted by the change in access at Knox Street to a right-in/right-out intersection with SR 2321
(E. Broad Street). Left turns from SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) to Knox Street would no longer be
allowed; however, this turn could be made one block to the west at Cynthia Street. The existing
network of neighborhood roads would provide direct access to the school. Westbound vehicles
on SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) could still turn right onto Knox Street, but could only continue west
on SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) after turning right from Knox Street once returning from the
school.
Environmental Assessment 6-4 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

J
6.1.5.2 Churches and Cemeteries
Six churches are within the study area: (1) Davidson Baptist Church and cemetery on US 21,
(2) Fairview Church on US 21, (3) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on SR 2174
(Jane Sowers Road), (4) Saint Phillip the Apostle Catholic Church on Harmony Drive, (5) Holy
Trinity Lutheran Church on Hartness Road, and (6) Western Avenue Baptist Church on Museum
Road. The cemetery at Davidson Baptist Church is the only cemetery identified within the study
area. Neither of the detailed construction alternatives would directly displace any churches or
cemeteries, however, right of way acquisition from Saint Phillip the Apostle Catholic Church and
Western Avenue Baptist Church will be required. Access to these facilities will be coordinated
and maintained throughout construction activities.
6.1.5.3 Parks and Recreational Facilities
' The Albert B. McClure Park, located on Museum Road is
recreational facilities located within the study area. The
lighted baseball/softball fields and two concession stands.

the only municipal, state, or federal
park includes a picnic shelter, three
The City of Statesville has several greenway trails either completed or near completion within
the study area. A trail connects local neighborhoods to the Albert B. McClure Park in the
northwestern quadrant of the 1-40/US 21 interchange, extends southeastward along Fourth
Creek within the study area under 1-40 and 1-77, and eventually connects to Statesville Park and
ends at Greenbriar Road. The greenway is located along dedicated easements traversing
private property.
Neither of the detailed construction alternatives would have a direct impact to parks or
recreational facilities. However, portions of the greenway trail will have altered or additional
crossings, including a wider 1-40 and 1-77 roadway and a new crossing created by the
directional ramps in the southwest quadrant of the 1-40/1-77 interchange. Access to the
greenway will be coordinated and maintained throughout construction activities. Use of the
greenway will not be affected by the project.
6.1.6 PUBLIC SERVICES
' Public services located within the study area are shown on Figure 6-2. A description of the local
public services and an analysis of effects to these services are included in the following sections
for both of the detailed construction alternatives.
' 6.1.6.1 Police
No police facilities are located within the study area. Police service is not likely to be adversely
' affected by either of the build alternatives. The proposed capacity and traffic flow improvements
are likely to benefit emergency response times.
' 6.1.6.2 Fire, Hospital and EMS
The City of Statesville provides fire prevention, firefighting, and emergency medical services
(EMS) within the municipal limits of the City and to some areas outside the limits pursuant to
' mutual agreements with Iredell County. The fire department has three stations, one of which is
in close proximity to the study area. Fire Station #3 located at 779 Eastside Drive is on the
southeastern edge of the study area. The service area for the station is generally contained
' within the quadrant defined by E. Broad Street at East End Avenue to the west, E. Broad Street
and Mocksville Highway to the east, Crawford Road at Brookview Road to the north, and US 70
at Intercraft Drive to the south.
1
Environmental Assessment 6-5 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
ter 6
Iredell County Rescue Squad, Inc. is the primary provider for rescue service in the study area. '
However the squad base is located at 1902 Wilkesboro Highway, which is not within the study
area.
Iredell County EMS has no base facilities located within the study area. However, the two '
primary destination hospitals for EMS are the Davis Regional Medical Center and the Iredell
Memorial Hospital. The Davis Regional Medical Center is approximately 1,500 feet north of the '
1-40/SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road) interchange and is located within the study area. The
Iredell Memorial Hospital is located directly southwest of the study area along Brookdale Drive
and is near downtown Statesville. The hospital is a public hospital and is the most frequented '
hospital for the EMS.
The county EMS responds to approximately 1,000 calls per month with the Statesville base as
the busiest. According to EMS representatives response times are hindered by existing '
congestion on US 21 and the 1-40/US 21 interchange.25
The proposed improvements under either of the detailed construction alternatives would not '
directly displace any hospitals or fire stations or interfere with emergency services. The
proposed improvement will improve traffic flow and is likely to reduce emergency response
times in the project area. During the construction phase of the project, access to emergency

services and facilities will be coordinated and maintained. Although several local roads may be '
re-aligned, none of these are expected to increase response time for emergency vehicles.
Under the No-Build scenario, however, increases in traffic volumes over time and subsequent
overflow onto side streets could further negatively impact emergency response times '
.
6.1.7 UTILITIES
'
A description of the utilities serving the study area are shown on Figure 6-3 and an analysis of
project effects are included in the following sections.
6.1.7.1 Electric '
Electric power within the study area is provided by Duke Energy, Energy United, and the City of
Statesville. No power plants or substations are located within the study area. Main and '
secondary electric transmission lines cross the study area in several locations, including
crossings of US 21, 1-40 and 1-77. Both of the detailed construction alternatives will require the
relocation or modification of transmission towers. It is likely that under both alternatives a

transmission tower in the vicinity of Pump Station Road will require modification. A transmission '
tower in the southwest quadrant of the 1-40/1-77 interchange will require relocation for the Four-
level Offset Interchange Alternative and modification for the Four-level Turbine Interchange

Alternative. NCDOT will coordinate with the City of Statesville, Duke Energy, and Energy '
United for any necessary disruption of service or relocation of distribution lines during
construction in addition to typical relocations or modifications to secondary or minor

transmission lines affected by both alternatives at several locations throughout the project area. '
6.1.7.2 Water
The Fourth Creek Water Treatment Plant is located within the study area on Pump Station '
Road. Neither of the detailed construction alternatives would directly impact this facility.
Coordination will occur during construction to ensure continued access to the facility for

employees. NCDOT will also coordinate with the city for any necessary disruption of service or '
relocation of water lines during construction.
1
Environmental Assessment 6-6 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
' Chapter 6
' Water service for the study area is provided by several different affiliates including municipal
sources and private wells. Municipal water sources will not be impacted by either proposed
alternative. Both of the detailed construction alternatives will likely require the relocation of
' minor water lines within the study area, especially in the vicinity of the 1-40/1-77 interchange due
to the increased footprint. Private wells located within the proposed right of way will be
surveyed prior to construction. NCDOT will purchase these wells and cap and abandon them in
accordance with North Carolina well construction standards. Wells located adjacent to the
Chapter 6
Table 6-8: Relocation Impacts
Dis placements
Alternative
i
l
B
i
h
Ch
F
T
l Minority Owned
Resident
a us
ness urc arm ota Residential Business
Four-level
Offset 5 3 0 1 6 1 0
Four-level
Turbine 5 3 0 1 6 1 0
Source: 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvements Relocation Reports (2005).
6.1.8.1 Residential Relocations

r
E
r,

As indicated in Table 6-8, it is anticipated that five residences would be relocated or displaced
as a result of the either of the two detailed construction alternatives. One of the five residential '
relocations is minority owned. Efforts to avoid and minimize the number of relocations will
continue through the final design phase of the project. Residential relocation impacts will be
mitigated through implementation of the relocation assistance programs described in Section
6.1.8.3.
6.1.8.2 Business Relocations
The relocation report included in Appendix F lists the three businesses and one farm which are
anticipated to be displaced. Temporary disruption in the services provided by the businesses
and farm during relocation is not anticipated to create any severe hardships to patrons in the
area. Business relocation impacts will be mitigated through implementation of the relocation
assistance programs described in Section 6.1.8.3.
6.1.8.3 Relocation Assistance
The NCDOT has determined that there are comparable replacement housing and business sites
available within the study area for displaced homeowners, tenants, and businesses. The
availability of residential and non-residential units for sale and rent was determined based on
information obtained from realtors, newspapers, and real estate multiple listing services.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing for residents and
suitable locations for displaced businesses would be available prior to construction of projects.
The NCDOT has three programs available to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
Relocation Assistance, Relocation Moving Payments, and Relocation Replacement Housing
Payments or Rent Supplements.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available to provide
displaced residents and businesses with information pertaining to financing and housing
programs and the availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale and/or
rent.
The Relocation Moving Payments Program generally provides payment of actual moving
expenses encountered during relocation.
Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or
to lose favorable financing arrangements (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement
Environmental Assessment 6-8 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

J

Chapter 6
Housing Payments and Rent Supplement Program would compensate up to $22,500 to owners
who are eligible and qualify, and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
' The relocation program established for the project 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 determines the need of displaced families, individuals, businesses,
nonprofit organizations, and farm operations for advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, gender 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. Those who are displaced are given at least a 90-day written notice
after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons and businesses will be
' offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities.
Rent and sale prices of replacement property offered 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 assist owners of displaced residences, businesses,
nonprofit organizations and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement
property.
' All residential tenants and owner-occupants who may be displaced will receive an explanation
regarding 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 feasible). The relocation officer will also supply information concerning other
state and federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
' The Moving Expenses Payments Program is designed to compensate for the costs of moving
personal property from homes, businesses, nonprofit organizations and farm operations
' acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will
participate in a reasonable incident purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as
attorneys fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs. If applicable, the NCDOT also
' makes a payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement housing payments,
increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses. Reimbursement to owner-
occupants for replacement housing payments, increase interest payments, and incidental
expenses may not exceed a combined total of $22,500, except under the Last Resort Housing
Provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment to rent a replacement dwelling or to
' make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement
dwelling. This payment will not exceed $5,250. The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
' It is the state's policy that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's federally-assisted
construction projects unless and until comparable or adequate replacement housing has been
' offered or provided for each person displaced within a reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of
1 eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Environmental Assessment 6-9 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
6
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 and state legal limitations. This program allows broad latitude in methods of
implementation by the state so that safe, decent and sanitary replacement housing can be
provided. Since opportunities for replacement housing appear adequate within the study area, it
is not likely that the Last Resort Housing Program will be necessary. However, this program will
still be considered as mandated by state law.
6.1.9 COMMUNITY STABILITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD COHESION
A community can be defined in many ways, but is typically identified based on its geography.
Behavior patterns expressed through daily social interactions, participation in local activities,
shared perceptions or attitudes, or common interests are examples of community
characteristics. Common interests vary from community to community and can be used as an
aid to characterize the different communities within the study area. Identification of local
communities can also help to determine specific project-related concerns.
Within the study area, there are small communities concentrated around local community
resources such as schools and places of worship. Within the City of Statesville, the
neighborhoods tend to be older and well-established. Neighborhoods generally tend towards
upper middle class or citizens who are living at or below the poverty level rather than a mix of
the two. Iredell County demographic statistics suggest a more balanced population with fewer
disparities in education and income.
While there would be residential and business relocations associated with each build
alternative, these relocations would not affect community or neighborhood supporting
resources. The majority of the proposed improvements would occur within existing
transportation right of way. Neither of the detailed construction alternatives is anticipated to
adversely affect community stability or neighborhood cohesion within the project study area.
6.1.10 TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Executive Orders 12898 and 13045 require federal agencies to identify and address, as
appropriate, the potential for disproportionately adverse human health or environmental effects
of federal programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations and
children. These requirements were met by initially analyzing environmental justice data in
accordance with regulatory guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the
United Stated Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), USDOT guidelines for assessing
environmental justice impacts, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment (NCHRP Report 532)
published in 2004.26 The analysis contained in this assessment utilized the most recent methods
outlined in NCHRP Report 532 and is consistent with CEQ and FHWA guidance documents.
Environmental justice is defined by the USDOT in the Final Order to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations as "...the fair treatment of people
of all races, cultures, incomes, and educational levels with respect to the development and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment implies that no
population should be forced to shoulder a disproportionate share of exposure to the negative
effects of pollution due to lack of political or economic strength." 27
For the purposes of this assessment, low-income and/or minority populations were identified as
protected. According to NCHRP Report 532, "Evaluation units with protected population levels
greater than the established threshold values are considered to have substantial protected
populations and higher potential for distributive effects than other evaluation units." Low-income

r

I I

r

5
Environmental Assessment 6-10 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819 1

J

l

r
C

Chapter 6
and/or minority populations in the ROC were identified at the block group level. Low-income and
minority populations in the City of Statesville, Iredell County, and the State of North Carolina
were used as threshold values.
The minority and low-income populations for the ROC were compared to the threshold values.
As described in Section 6.1.2, the ROC has a higher concentration of minority individuals than
Iredell County, but a lower concentration than the City of Statesville. The minority population of
the ROC is similar to the state as a whole.
The average median household income across the block groups that make up the ROC is
$39,803. The average per capita income across the block groups that make up the ROC is
$19,214. In the ROC, 9.8 percent of individuals and 8.1 percent of families live below poverty
level, compared to 16.1 percent and 12.7 percent, respectively, in Statesville; 8.2 percent and
6.2 percent, respectively, in Iredell County; and 12.3 percent and 9.0 percent, respectively, in
North Carolina. While the low-income population in the ROC is slightly elevated compared to
Iredell County, it is lower than Statesville and consistent with North Carolina as a whole.
Based on the comparison of the minority and low-income populations of the ROC with the
threshold areas, it was determined there is not a substantial protected population in the study
area. In addition, no minority or low-income communities will lose any support facilities or
experience a loss of cohesion between neighborhoods and support facilities. Thus, the project
impacts of either build alternative are equitable among all populations within the study area and
further detailed analysis is not required.
6.1.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES
In a letter dated March 5, 2004, the NC Department of Cultural Resources State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO) stated that, after review of the proposed project, they are "...aware of
no historic resources which would be affected by the action." HPO indicated that, as such, no
comment on the undertaking as proposed will be forthcoming. These statements are pursuant
to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800." See
Appendix D for copy of HPO concurrence letter.
6.1.12 SECTION 4(F)
Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, codified in federal law at 49 U.S.C. §303, declares that
"[i]t is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve
the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and
waterfowl refuges, and historic sites."
Section 4(f) specifies that the USDOT "may approve a transportation program or project .. .
requiring publicly-owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge
of national, state or local significance, or land of a historic site of national, state or local
significance (as determined by the Federal, state or local officials having jurisdiction over the
park, area, refuge, or site) only if [1] there is no prudent or feasible alternative to using that land
and [2] the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park,
recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use" (49 U.S.C.
303, Section 3.10).
Three potential Section 4(f) resources were identified in the project study area and were
subsequently evaluated for Section 4(f) applicability. These resources include Pressly
Elementary School, Northview Elementary School, and a greenway that traverses the project
area. Each of these resources and project effects are described in Sections 6.1.5.1 and Section
Environmental Assessment 6-11 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
ter 6
6.1.5.3, respectively. It was concluded that Section 4(f) did not apply to the elementary schools
and that the project had no effects on the use of the greenway. Thus, the proposed project will
have no effect to Section 4(f) resources.
6.2 ECONOMIC EFFECTS
6.2.1 DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT
The City of Statesville and Iredell County as a whole are experiencing positive development
trends in the arenas of business/industry, employment, and residential growth. The percent
population growth for the city and county together averaged 32 percent between 1990 and
2000, while the number of jobs increased in a similar manner. Iredell County is closely linked to
the Charlotte Region, which contains Anson, Cabarrus, Cleveland, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln,
Mecklenburg, Rowan, Stanly, and Union counties in North Carolina, as well as Lancaster and
York counties in South Carolina. Economic growth and development assistance is provided to
local governments by several non-profit organizations, the Charlotte Regional Partnership on a
regional level and the Greater Statesville Development Corporation (GSDC) on a local level.
Neither of the detailed construction alternatives are likely to have a substantial effect on the
region's economy or employment. However, it is estimated that the three businesses and one
farm anticipated to be relocated under either of the detailed construction alternatives employ an
estimated total of 71 persons. Of these, approximately 38 are employed in the food service
industry, 25 are in manufacturing and eight are employed at the farm. 28 These isolated
employment impacts are not anticipated to have a substantial impact to the region's economy.
Iredell County and Statesville are experiencing positive growth trends and other employment
opportunities exist in the area. It is also likely that construction of the proposed interchange and
highway improvements will generally benefit the local economy by providing highway
construction jobs.
6.2.2 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND PLANS
Charlotte Regional Partnership is a non-profit, public/private organization dedicated to economic
growth and prosperity in the Charlotte region. The organization brings together government and
local businesses to market and promote the region.29 One of the top selling points the
partnership stresses for the City of Statesville and Iredell County is accessibility and a strong
transportation network, noting that approximately 60 percent of the United States is within one
day's trucking of the City of Statesville.
The GSDC is a non-profit, public/private partnership of local governments and business leaders
gathered for the purpose of promoting the industrial and commercial development of the City of
Statesville, Town of Troutman, and the surrounding area of upper Iredell County by providing
services and assistance to encourage and facilitate new and existing businesses in the greater
Statesville area. Some of the services offered by the GSDC to existing businesses are
expansion services and acting as liaison between local government and the business
community, while examples of services offered to new businesses include relocation assistance
and information on available sites and building information.30
Regional development goals and plans focus on economic growth and development by
facilitating new and existing business in the greater Statesville area. Access to transportation is
a critical element in industrial and commercial development. Both of the detailed construction
alternatives would facilitate transportation within the study area and are therefore consistent
with the regional development goals and plans for economic growth.
Environmental Assessment 6-12 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

r

6
6.3 LAND USE
6.3.1 EXISTING LAND USES
Data on existing land use within the project study area was compiled from multiple sources
including the City of Statesville Land Development Plan, Iredell County Land Use Plan, city and
county zoning, and field reviews. Existing land use in the study area is made up of clustered
industrial/commercial centers intermingled with pockets of residential development, agricultural
land, forested areas, and open space. Figure 6-4 depicts the general location of these uses by
category.
Impacts to existing land uses will be minimal. Since the project consists of improvements to
existing infrastructure, mostly within existing right of way limits; direct conversion of large
amounts of land will not occur under either detailed construction alternative.
6.3.2 LAND USE PLANS AND ZONING
Land use plans present a projected land use scheme, which can be used by local officials in
making future recommendations and decisions. Zoning is a legal device used to implement land
use plans.
The City of Statesville is currently updating their Land Development Plan (the Plan). The Plan
encompasses land both within the City of Statesville and their extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ).
In the most recent draft, dated June 2004, the Plan is described as "the City of Statesville's
vision for its future and a guide to achieve that vision through the year 2020."31 One of the
driving forces behind the update was the rapid growth increases experienced throughout the city
and throughout Iredell County as a whole.
The future land use map and corresponding zoning developed for the Plan are shown on Figure
6-5 in a generalized form along with the Iredell County zoning. Three goals specifically outlined
in the Plan concern transportation issues, including: (1) coordinating development and street
improvements to maintain acceptable traffic flows and to minimize delays to traffic congestion;
(2) develop a street system that safely and effectively serves all users, including drivers,
pedestrians, bicyclists, and adjacent property owners; and (3) increase the capacity of the local
airport to serve as an economic and transportation center through continued economic
development partnerships and protection of approach zones from incompatible residential
encroachment.
Iredell County adopted their first Land Development Plan in 1987, established a countywide
subdivision ordinance in 1989, and implemented zoning in 1990. The current land use plan
covers the period 1997 through 2007. Four general land use classifications are included in the
current plan; Residential and Agricultural Uses, Commercial Uses, Industrial Uses, and
Transitional Uses. Special usage areas were singled out for more detailed recommendations
due to the likelihood of being where increased land use pressure would occur.
The county has four principal ordinances that deal with land use regulation; zoning ordinance,
' subdivision ordinance, airport hazard ordinance, and watershed protection ordinance. The
Zoning Ordinance provides for the division of Iredell County's land use jurisdiction into 16
zoning districts, seven of which are found within the study area. Each zoning district has its own
' list of permitted and conditional uses. Figure 6-5 shows a generalized form of the Iredell County
Zoning Map along with the areas contained within the City of Statesville zoning..
' With respect to the compatibility of the proposed project to local planning goals, both the City of
Statesville and Iredell County consider transportation planning a major component for the
Environmental Assessment 6-13 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
ter 6

successful implementation of land use planning. Discussions with the City of Statesville officials '
indicate the project "does not conflict with local planning goals" and "will improve traffic
movements, travel times and overall safety throughout the study area.,, 32 Discussions with
Iredell County officials indicate "transportation and accessibility play the key role in successful '
local residential, commercial and industrial development" and the project will "provide less
congestion, less travel time and fewer accidents.'.33
6.3.3 TRANSPORTATION PLANS '
1 Chapter 6
6.4.1 BIOTIC RESOURCES
6.4.1.1 Biotic Communities
Community composition is reflective of the physiography, topography, and current and prior land
uses of the area. Community types observed during field investigations have had some degree
of past or continued human disturbance. Anthropogenic disturbances such as logging, farming,
' selective cutting, natural succession after farming, utility easements, and road construction have
contributed to the present landscape. Plant communities were classified according to the
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina.36 Where applicable, plant
' community designations have been modified to reflect variations within the natural resource
study area.
Existing Conditions
Terrestrial Communities
' Eight distinctive terrestrial communities were identified within the natural resource study area:
(1) Piedmont/Mountain Semipermanent Impoundment, (2) Low Elevation Seep,
(3) Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest, (4) Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, (5) Dry-Mesic
Oak-Hickory Forest, (6) Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest, (7) Pastoral/Agricultural Land, and
(8) Urban/Disturbed Areas. The terrestrial communities are shown in Figure 6-6.
Piedmont/Mountain Semipermenant Impoundment
This community type was identified in two locations; beaver ponds were found in the southwest
and northeast quadrants of the natural resource study area. This area was flooded and covered
with mucky sediment during the time of the site investigation. Dominant canopy species
included box elder (Acer negundo), red maple (Acer rubrum), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and black willow
(Salix nigra). Herbaceous species included cattails (Typha latifolia) and soft rush (Juncus
effusus). This community makes up approximately 12 acres of the natural resource study area.
1 Low Elevation Seep
This plant community was located in seepages and springs at bases of slopes or edges of
floodplains and was found in several locations of the natural resource study area along streams.
Wetland species found in these communities included red maple, willow oak, sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), American sycamore, American elm (Ulmus americana), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), and river birch (Betula nigra). Shrubs included elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis) and tag alder (Alnus serrulata). These communities are important breeding and
foraging sites for amphibians. This community makes up approximately three acres of the
natural resource study area.
' Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
This community was located on floodplain ridges and terraces other than active levees adjacent
to the river channel. The canopy was dominated by various bottomland trees such as tulip
poplar, sweet gum, American elm, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and red maple. Vines
such as poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and roundleaf greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia)
t were frequently prominent. Many places were heavily invaded by Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). This community makes up
approximately 129 acres of the natural resource study area.
Environmental Assessment 6-17 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
This community was found on lower slopes, steep north-facing slopes, ravines, and occasionally
well-drained small stream bottoms. The canopy was dominated by mesophytic trees such as
green ash, tulip poplar, and red maple. Several of these areas were disturbed from development
and as a result have increased the amounts of pines and weedy hardwoods such as tulip poplar
and sweet gum. Several populations of Virginia pines (Pinus virginiana) occurred in this plant
community. This community makes up approximately 124 acres of the natural resource study
area.
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
This community was found on mid-slopes, low ridges, upland flats, and other dry-mesic upland
areas on acidic soils. Dominant canopy species included a mixture of oaks and hickories such
as white oak (Quercus alba), black oak (Quercus velutina), southern red oak (Quercus falcata),
pignut hickory (Carya glabra), and mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa). Other tree species
included green ash, tulip poplar, and black walnut. Many places were heavily invaded by
Japanese honeysuckle and Chinese privet. This community makes up approximately 74 acres
of the natural resource study area.
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest
This community was found on natural levees and point bar deposits on large floodplains. The
canopy was dominated by a mixture of bottomland trees such as American sycamore, river
birch, box elder, sweet gum, tulip poplar, green ash, and American elm. Many places were
heavily invaded by Japanese honeysuckle and Chinese privet. This community makes up
approximately nine acres of the natural resource study area.
Pastoral/Agricultural Land
Pastoral land included fields that were regularly grazed by cattle. Occasionally, the areas
included small forest blocks. Open fields allowed for proliferation of both annual and perennial
grasses and herbs. Agriculture was not a dominant land use in the natural resource study area.
Only a few areas were identified as producing corn. This community makes up approximately
417 acres of the natural resource study area.
Urban/Disturbed Areas
The Urban/Disturbed community included areas of lawn and horticultural plants, housing
developments, farm buildings, industrial and commercial sites, maintained road margins and
interchanges, and utility rights-of-way. Vegetation within these areas varied with the frequency
of maintenance, ranging between developed areas completely denuded of vegetation to
domination of perennial herbs, vines, or invasive weedy species in utility rights-of-way. This
community makes up approximately 633 acres of the natural resource study area.
Aquatic Communities
Aquatic habitats within the natural resource study area include habitats ranging from intermittent
tributaries and channelized first order streams to perennial riverine habitat within Fourth Creek
and Morrison Creek to impounded beaver ponds. Non-riverine aquatic habitats identified include
an agricultural pond. Community composition of these aquatic communities is reflective of
physical characteristics of the water body and the condition of the water resource. The North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) Geographic Information System (GIS)
coverage of proposed critical habitats for aquatic species was reviewed and no waterways in
the natural resource study area supporting critical habitats were identified.37
Environmental Assessment 6-18 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 6
' Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Terrestrial Impacts
' The study area is highly developed. Many of the plant communities within the area have already
been fragmented by previous development. Most of the proposed construction will occur within
the existing right of way limits. Project impacts will be limited to the plant communities directly
' adjacent to the existing roadway within the proposed right of way. Vegetation may be cleared to
allow for construction. A service road will be located on an undeveloped piece of land; therefore,
impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in this area.
' Portions of the biotic community types occurring in the study area will be cleared or altered as a
result of construction. Figure 6-7 and Figure 6-8 present the impacts to the natural communities
' for the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative and Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative,
respectively. The natural resource study area consists of approximately 1,550 acres.
Estimations of the acreage and the percent of the impacted natural plant community area in the
' natural resource study area for each community type are given in Table 6-10. Impacts to natural
communities were based on the proposed construction limits.

Table 6-10: Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Four-level Offset Interchange Four-level Turbine
Alternative Interchange Alternative
Natural Plant Community Percent of Percent of
Acre of Community Type in Acre of Community Type in
Impact Natural Resources Impact Natural Resources
Stud Area Stud Area
Piedmont/Mountain Semipermenant 0.9 8 1.2 10
Impoundment
Low Elevation Seep 1.6 53 1.9 63
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland 12.1 9 13.0 10
Forest
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 12.2 10 12.7 10
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 6.1 8 6.1 8
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest 0.1 1 0.1 1
Pastoral/Agricultural Land 49.5 12 51.5 12
Urban/Disturbed Areas 207.8 33 203.6 32
Aquatic Impacts
' Aquatic communities found in the study area may be directly impacted due to sedimentation and
reduced water quality resulting from project construction. Disturbance and sedimentation are
anticipated to be temporary impacts during the construction phase of the project.
' Benthic non-mobile organisms, such as filter and deposit feeders, and macro and micro algae,
are particularly sensitive to construction activities such as dredging, filling, and slope
' stabilization. These construction activities physically disturb substrate, resulting in the loss of
sessile benthic organisms. Populations of photosynthetic species, the primary producers in the
food chain, can also be greatly affected by siltation. The increased amount of suspended
particles in the water column reduces the photosynthetic ability by absorbing available light.
' Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some of the effects of siltation, however, gills of fish,
crustaceans and larval amphibian and insect forms can become clogged and dysfunctional as a
result of sedimentation. Spawning habitats for these species may become filled with sediment,
' diminishing reproductive success and eventually reducing populations.
Environmental Assessment 6-19 November 2006
' T/P No. 1-3819
Chapter 6
Because of the already degraded water quality and habitat, anticipated permanent impacts to
aquatic resources as a result of the proposed project are not likely to be significant. The majority
of impacts will be construction related and temporary. Measures to maximize sediment and
erosion control during construction will be implemented.
6.4.1.2 Rare and Protected Species
Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal status of endangered (E), threatened (T), proposed endangered (PE),
and proposed threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973 as amended (16 USC 1531 et. seq.). Any action likely to adversely effect a
species classified as federally protected will be subject to review by the USFWS. The USFWS
and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) online databases identified one
federally listed T or E species potentially occurring in Iredell County: the bog turtle (Clemmys
muhlenbergii).38,39 The bog turtle is listed by the USFWS as T due to Similarity of Appearance
(T/SA), and is also listed as Historic. The Historic status indicates that the species was last
observed in the county more than 50 years ago. Species designated as T/SA are listed as
threatened due to their similarity of appearance with other rare species, and are listed to provide
protection to these other rare species. According to the USFWS, T/SA species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. In addition,
biological conclusions are not required for T/SA species. The bog turtle was listed by the
NCNHP as T, without the Similarity of Appearance designation. The NCNHP lists the species
occurrence as current. NCNHP coverages were reviewed as well as physical files at the
NCNHP office and no known documented occurrences of federally listed T or E species were
identified within one mile of the study area.40 No occurrences or available habitat for the bog
turtle was located in the natural resource study area during field reviews.
Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the ESA and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as T or E.
Table 6-11 includes FSC species listed for Iredell County and their state classifications. Plant
species with the North Carolina state status of E, T, and Special Concern (SC) are protected by
the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.), which is enforced by
the North Carolina Department of Agriculture (NCDA). Animal species with the state of North
Carolina status of E, T, and SC are protected by the North Carolina Endangered Species Act
(G.S. 113-331 et seq.), enforced by the NCWRC. Candidate (C) and Significantly Rare (SR)
designations indicate rarity and the need for population monitoring and conservation action, but
are not protected by state law.
NCNHP coverages were reviewed as well as physical files at the NCNHP office and no known
documented occurrences of FSC were identified within one mile of the study area .41 No
occurrences or available habitat for any of the listed species was located in the natural resource
study area during field reviews.

Environmental Assessment 6-20 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 6
L
r
C

Table 6-11: Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species
Common Name Scientific Name Iredell County Iredell County Habitat in
Study
Federal Status State Status Area
Allegheny woodrat Neotoma magister FSC SC No
Prairie birdsfoot- Lotus unifoliolatus FSCb SR-T No
trefoil var. helleri (SR-Throughout)a
Source: United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Lists of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate
Species for the Southeast Region. Accessed 18 August 2006.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. Accessed 18 August 2006.
NCNHP Historic record: the element is either extirpated from the county or quad, or there have not been any recent
surveys to verify its continued existence.
b USFWS Historic record: The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
6.4.2 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
6.4.2.1 Topography and Soils
The study area is located in both the Northern Inner Piedmont and the Southern Outer
Piedmont ecoregions of the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina.42 The
topography of the study area is characterized as gently rolling with some steep areas. Gently
rolling areas are found within interstream areas, with steeper slopes found along the edges of
some stream floodplains. Elevations range from approximately 780 feet above mean sea level
(MSL) to approximately 900 feet above MSL.41,44
Nineteen soil series are mapped within the natural resource study area. The soil series most
prevalent in the natural resource study area are the Cecil Series and the Lloyd Series. The Cecil
Series consists of deep, nearly level to steep, well-drained soils of the uplands. These soils are
extensive and they occur in all parts of the county. The Lloyd Series consists of deep, gently
sloping to moderately steep, well-drained soils of the uplands. Areas of the Lloyd Series soils
are generally large and are also in all parts of the county. Other dominate soils in the natural
resource study area include: the Altavista Series, which consists of deep, gently sloping,
moderately well drained to well-drained soils on low stream terraces; the Chewacla Series,
which consists of deep, nearly level to gently sloping soils that are somewhat poorly drained;
Made Land, which is a miscellaneous land type consisting of areas that have been altered by
man so that the original profile and topography of the soils cannot be recognized; and the Starr
Series, which consists of deep, gently sloping well-drained soils along drainageways, on toe
slopes, and in depressions of the upland S.45 Several other soils, which encompass small areas,
are also located within the natural resource study area. A complete inventory of the specific soil
types within the natural resource study area can be found in the NRTR.46
6.4.2.2 Geology
The Piedmont is considered the nonmountainous portion of the old Appalachians Highland. It is
an erosional terrain of moderately dissected irregular plains with some hills, with a complex
mosaic of Precambrian and Paleozoic metamorphic and igneous rocks. Most rocks of the
Piedmont are covered by a thick mantle of saprolite, except along some major stream valley
bluffs and on a few scattered granitic domes and flatrocks. The rolling to hilly Northern Inner
Piedmont has higher elevations, more rugged topography, and more monadnocks or mountain
outliers than other areas of the Piedmont. It has colder temperatures, more snowfall, and a
shorter growing season and it has mostly mesic soils rather than the thermic soils that cover
Environmental Assessment 6-21 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 6
other regions of the North Carolina Piedmont. Landform of the Southern Outer Piedmont has
mostly irregular plains. Gneiss, schist, and granite are typical rock types, and the rocks are
more intensely deformed and metamorphosed than the geologic materials in other regions of
the Piedmont. The rocks in this region are covered with deep saprolite and mostly red, clayey
subsoils.47
6.4.2.3 Water Resources
The study area is located within the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin and includes the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) eight-digit hydrologic unit 03040102 for the South Yadkin watershed,
and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-07-06. The Yadkin
Pee-Dee River Basin is the second largest river basin in North Carolina. The North Carolina
portion of the basin covers 7,213 square miles within 21 counties and drains 5,862 miles of
freshwater streams. From its headwaters in northwestern North Carolina and southern Virginia,
the Yadkin River flows southeast across North Carolina's densely populated midsection. The
Pee-Dee River is formed by the confluence of the Yadkin River and the Uwharrie River and
flows southeasterly through South Carolina to its outlet into the Atlantic Ocean near
Georgetown, South Carolina.
Existina Conditions
Streams Identified in the Natural Resources Study Area
Streams identified in the natural resource study area include Fourth Creek, 23 unnamed
tributaries (UTs) to Fourth Creek, Morrison Creek (tributary to Fourth Creek), one UT to
Morrison Creek, and one UT to Beaver Creek (Figure 6-9). Streams identified in the natural
resource study area were evaluated and classified using the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet and the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form.48 Field evaluations of the
streams were performed prior to the release of the 2005 Stream Identification Form meant to
replace the 1999 Stream Classification Form. The classifications of the streams within the
natural resources study area are provided in Table 6-12. Stream classifications have been
approved by NCDWQ.
Table 6-12: Classifications of Streams Identified within the Natural Resources Study
Area
Stream Label Stream as Indicated on USGS
Quad NCDWQ Stream
Form Ratin e Stream Classification
S1 Fourth Creek 41.5 Perennial
S2 UT to Fourth Creek 40.0 Perennial
S3 UT to Fourth Creek 41.0 Perennial
S4 UT to Fourth Creek 33.0 Perennial
S5 UT to Fourth Creek 25.5 Intermittent
S6 UT to Fourth Creek 32.5 Perennial
S7 UT to Fourth Creek 21.0 Intermittent
S8 UT to Fourth Creek 21.0 Intermittent
S9 UT to Fourth Creek 27.5 Intermittent
S10A UT to Fourth Creek - lower reach 31.5 Perennial
S1013 UT to Fourth Creek - upper reach 45.0 Perennial
S11 UT to Fourth Creek 32.5 Perennial
S12 UT to Fourth Creek 33.0 Perennial
S13 UT to Fourth Creek 25.5 Intermittent
S14 UT to Fourth Creek 32.5 Perennial

Environmental Assessment 6-22 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 6

C

L

r

Table 6-12: Classifications of Streams Identified within the Natural Resources Study
Area (continued)
Stream Label Stream as Indicated on USGS
Quad NCDWQ Stream
Form Rating' Stream Classification
S15 UT to Fourth Creek 32.0 Perennial
S16 UT to Fourth Creek 28.0 Intermittent
S17 UT to Fourth Creek 19.5 Perennial
S18 UT to Fourth Creek 34.0 Perennial
S19 UT to Fourth Creek 28.5 Perennial
S20 UT to Fourth Creek 31.5 Perennial
S21 UT to Fourth Creek 29.0 Perennial
S22 UT to Fourth Creek 28.5 Intermittent
S23 UT to Fourth Creek 28.5 Intermittent
S24 UT to Fourth Creek 30.0 Perennial
S25 Morrison Creek 35.0 Perennial
S26 UT to Morrison Creek 33.0 Perennial
S27 UT to Beaver Creek 27.0 Intermittent
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Stream Classification Method: NCDWQ Stream Classification Form. 1999.
Best Usage Classifications
Surface waters in the study area are classified C, which are fresh waters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife. All
freshwaters are classified as Class C to protect these uses at a minimum. No water supplies,
Outstanding Water Resources (OWR), High Quality Waters (HQW), or Critical Areas (CA) were
identified within the study area.49
Water Quality
The NCDWQ monitors the quality of surface waters through programs including benthic
macroinvertebrate community sampling, which assesses invertebrate communities including
three pollution-sensitive insect orders, fish community monitoring, and the Ambient Monitoring
System (AMS) that analyzes water chemistry. Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are
organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of rivers and streams. Four benthic
macroinvertebrate community monitoring stations were set up on Fourth Creek within the
project vicinity between June and July 2003. The four stations reported a rating of good-fair.50
The condition of the fish community is one of the most meaningful indicators of ecological
integrity. Four fish community stations were set up with the benthic macroinvertebrate
community stations on Fourth Creek within the project vicinity between June and July 2003. The
results from these stations ranged from poor to good-fair .51 AMS is a network of stream, lake
and estuarine sample stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical
water quality data. One ambient monitoring system was set up along Fourth Creek at SR 2308
(Pinnix Road), downstream of the study area, between 1998 and 2001. Turbidity, fecal coliform,
and nutrient loading were identified in the stream.52 Overall, since the project vicinity is highly
developed, water quality in the project study area is low.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify waters not meeting
standards set by the USEPA. A list of waters not meeting these standards is submitted to the
USEPA every two years, and the USEPA approves the listed waters. In North Carolina,
NCDWQ prepares the list for approval by USEPA. According to the NCDWQ's draft 2006
303(d) list, the majority of Fourth Creek is classified as "Impaired" due to fecal coliform, turbidity,
Environmental Assessment 6-23 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 6
and biological impairment.53 The section of Fourth Creek that flows through the study area is
identified as impaired. Table 6-13 presents the impaired sections of Fourth Creek.
Under Category 4a a water body is impaired or threatened from one or more designated uses
but does not require the development of a total maximum daily load (TMDL); however, a TMDL
has already been developed by NCDWQ and approved by the USEPA. Under Category 5 a
water body is impaired for one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s), and requires a TMDL.
Under Category 6 a water body is impaired based on biological data - monitoring for cause of
impairment will place waters in either Category 4c or 5. Under Category 4c, impairment is not
caused by a pollutant and TMDLs are not appropriate.
Table 6-13: Im aired Sections of Fourth Creek
Category Location Assessment Unit Impairment Cause Potential Source
4a From source to SR 1972 12-108-20a Fecal Coliform Urban Runoff /
Storm Sewers
5 From source to SR 1972 12-108-20a Turbidity None listed
6 From source to SR 1972 12-108-20a Impaired biological
integrity Agriculture
6 From SR-1985 to South
Yadkin River 12-108-20c Impaired biological
integrity None listed
Source: North Carolina Division of Water Quality. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters
List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). 2006.
Stormwater Discharges
Point source is defined in the Clean Water Act as "...any discernible, confined and discrete
conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure,
container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from
which pollutants are or may be discharged" (33 U.S.C. 1251). This usually refers to discharges
associated with wastewater treatment plant facilities. Point source discharges located in North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. The NCDWQ Basinwide Plan for
the Yadkin - Pee Dee River Basin identified the City of Statesville Fourth Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant as a major permitted discharger on Fourth Creek. The facility is located
downstream of the project study area, west of the Iredell/Rowan county line. The wastewater
treatment plant discharges approximately 4.0 million gallons per day (MGD) into Fourth Creek.
A minor discharger, Southern States Cooperative, is also located on Fourth Creek, three-
quarters of a mile downstream from the wastewater treatment plant. This facility discharges
approximately 0.1 MGD. Both permitted discharges are in compliance with permit limits.54
Non-point source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater or
snowmelt. Agricultural runoff may serve as a source for various forms of nonpoint source
pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturb soils to a degree where they are susceptible to
erosion and can lead to sedimentation in streams. Pesticides, fertilizers and land applications of
animal waste can be transported via runoff to receiving streams. Much of the Fourth Creek
watershed is currently used for agricultural purposes, but is densely developed within the areas
adjacent to the project. Sources of impairment in the Fourth Creek watershed also include
urban sources, such as fertilizers and lawn care chemical S.55

Environmental Assessment 6-24 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

I?
d
7
J

7

L
L

Groundwater
The geoenvironmental analysis performed for the study area indicates groundwater depths of
25-30 feet at most of the 10 Standard Penetration Test borings taken within the study area. The
groundwater was shallower within the floodplain of Fourth Creek.56
The aquifers in Iredell County are crystalline bedrock aquifers. These are created by two
contrasting types, (1) sandy and clayey soil and weathered material which underlies the surface
to depths generally ranging from 2-30 feet, and (2) the underlying bedrock. 57 From the recharge
areas to the discharge areas, the groundwater generally moves through interconnecting
fractures in the bedrock.
None of the aquifers in the study area have been designated by the USEPA as a "sole or
principal drinking water source" under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended.58 Drilled wells in Statesville area yield an average of 24 gallons per minute.59
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
An impact to the best usage classification as a result of either detailed construction alternative is
not anticipated. Surface waters in the study area are classified C, which is the minimum
classification.
Impacts to water quality as a result of either detailed construction alternative are not anticipated
to be significant. Because the area surrounding the project is highly developed, water quality
within the study area is low and the segment of Fourth Creek that flows through the study area
is identified as impaired. Potential impacts to water resources include stormwater runoff,
disruption of the substrate, increased sedimentation and siltation, and temporary decreases of
dissolved oxygen during construction. Clearing and grubbing activities, as well as bridge and
culvert construction activities will impact water resources. Most impacts will be temporary in
nature during project construction and will likely be limited to the immediate area of construction.
Stormwater runoff rates will increase slightly due to the increase in impervious roadway surface
area as a result of both detailed construction alternatives. Sedimentation may also cause an
impact to water systems that will be crossed. Sedimentation of the stream channel causes
changes in flow rate and stream course, which may lead to increased stream bank scour and
erosion. Sedimentation also leads to increased turbidity of the water column. Removal of the
riparian vegetation could result in decreases in dissolved oxygen and temperature instability of
the stream. Stormwater runoff, as well as temporary construction impacts due to erosion and
sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule
and use of best management practices.
The NCDOT will incorporate measures to control non-point source water quality impacts as
described in NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters". The
goal of these BMPs is "to prevent degradation of the state's waters through the location,
construction, or operation of the highway system".60 These measures will be incorporated into
the final engineering design of the project and will be detailed in an erosion and sedimentation
control plan. This plan will be prepared in accordance with the guidelines and requirements of
the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (15A NCAC 4B.0101-0130).
Other impacts may include alternation of water levels and flow due to interruptions and additions
' to surface and groundwater flow from construction, increased nutrient loading during
construction via runoff from exposed areas and increased concentration of toxic compounds
from highway runoff, construction toxic spills and increased vehicular use. Additionally,
' modifications to local water flows as a result of bridges and culverts may change the floodplain
hydrological characteristics, particularly downstream from any proposed structure.
Environmental Assessment 6-25 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

Groundwater could be an issue in cut areas greater than 25 feet. The only
occurs is approximately 1,100 feet along a ramp in the southeast quadrant
interchange. This design is common to both the Four-level Offset Interchange
Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative.
area where that '
of the 1-40/1-77
Alternative and
Potential short-term groundwater impacts associated with the proposed interchange appear to
be limited to the periodic dewatering of surficial deposits; the spillage of paint, fuel, oil, and/or
grease; and the removal of potential wells located within the proposed right of way during
project construction. NCDOT contract specifications will require that the contractor implement a
plan to minimize and control spillage of construction-related contaminants.
Construction of either detailed construction alternative would contribute to the cumulative loss of
groundwater recharge area due to an increase in impervious surfaces, however, it is not
expected to substantially impact aquifer recharge volumes.
Overall, the effect on water quality for either of the detailed study alternatives is not likely to be
significant.
6.4.3 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
6.4.3.1 Existing Conditions
Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands in the natural resource study area are primarily palustrinea in natures'
Some wetland systems are defined as palustrine but are hydrologically influenced by surface
waters. Wetlands that are located adjacent to streams and receive the majority of hydrology
from the adjacent waterway were identified as riverine. Wetland systems vary in vegetative
composition depending on hydrological regime and site specific disturbances. Two wetland
types were identified, palustrine forested (PFO) and palustrine emergent (PEM). Twenty-four
jurisdictional wetlands were identified in the natural resource study area (Figure 6-10). The
wetland boundaries were approved by the USACE and a Jurisdictional Determination was
obtained on November 21, 2005 (Appendix D). Table 6-14 lists the jurisdictional wetlands
identified in the natural resource study area.
Table 6-14: Jurisdictional Wetlands in the Natural Resources Study Area
Wetland Riverine/
Non-Riverine Wetland
Classification' NCDWQ
Wetland Ratingb Wetland Area
(acres)
W1 Riverine PEM1 56 0.28
W21W3 Riverine PF01 47 1.00
W4 Riverine PF01 10 0.02
W5 Riverine PF01 41 0.11
W6 Non-Riverine PF01 23 0.60

I H

a According to Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater '
Habitat of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1979.
Palustrine means: All nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or
lichens, and all such tidal wetlands where ocean-derived salinities are below.5 ppt. This category also includes
wetlands lacking such vegetation but with all of the following characteristics: (1) area less than 8 ha; (2) lacking an '
active wave-formed or bedrock boundary; (3) water depth in the deepest part of the basin less than 2 m (6.6 ft) at low
water; and (4) ocean-derived salinities less than .5 pt.
Environmental Assessment 6-26 November 2006
T/P No. 1-3819
Chapter 6

Tahle 6-14- Jurisdictional Wetlands in the Natural Resources Studv Area (continued)
Wetland Riverine/
Non-Riverine Wetland
Classifications NCDWQ
Wetland Ratingb Wetland Area
(acres)
W7 Riverine PF01 40 0.87
W8 Riverine PF01 56 3.87
W9 Non-Riverine PF01 23 0.08
W10 Riverine PF01 32 0.25
W11 Riverine PF01 48 0.71
W12 Riverine PF01 38 3.74
W13 Riverine PF01 48 0.28
W14 Non-Riverine PF01 21 1.44
W15 Riverine PEM1/PF01 92 14.72
W16 Non-Riverine PF01 19 0.17
W17 Non-Riverine PEM1 16 0.29
W18 Non-Riverine PF01 16 0.19
W20 Non-Riverine PF01 16 0.09
W21 Riverine PF01 13 0.06
W22 Riverine PF01 15 0.14
W23 Non-Riverine PF01 15 0.03
W24 Riverine PF01 46 0.52
W25 Riverine PF01 69 0.22
WSL Riverine PF01 15 0.21
a Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat of the
United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1979.
b North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Guidance for Rating
the Values and Functions of Wetlands in North Carolina. Fourth Version. 1995.
Streams
Table 6-15 and Figure 6-9 present the jurisdictional streams identified in the natural resource
study area.
Table 6-15: Jurisdictional Streams in the Natural Resources Studv Area
Stream Label Stream Classification
S1 Perennial
S2 Perennial
S3 Perennial
S4 Perennial
S5 Intermittent
S6 Perennial
S7 Intermittent
S8 Intermittent
S9 Intermittent
S10A Perennial
S10B Perennial
S11 Perennial
S12 Perennial
S13 Intermittent
S14 Perennial
Environmental Assessment 6-27 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
r6
Table 6-15: Jurisdictional Streams in the Natural Resources Stud Area continued
Stream Label Stream Classification
S15 Perennial
S16 Intermittent
S17 Perennial
S18 Perennial
S19 Perennial
S20 Perennial
S21 Perennial
S22 Intermittent
S23 Intermittent
S24 Perennial
S25 Perennial
S26 Perennial
S27 Intermittent
6.4.3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to Wetlands
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will be unavoidable for either of the detailed construction
alternatives. Direct impacts to wetlands as well as the proposed alignment and construction
limits are shown in Figure 6-11 for the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative and Figure 6-12
for the Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative. Table 6-16 presents a summary of wetland
impacts for both of the detailed construction alternatives. These tables include the wetland
classification area of each jurisdictional wetland and the fill impacts for each alternative. The
area impacted includes the placement of fill within wetland boundaries and 10 feet beyond the
slope limits to allow for mechanized clearing and grubbing and placement of fill material.
Mitigation for impacts to wetlands is addressed in Section 6.4.5.
Temporary work bridges may be considered when constructing permanent bridges over wetland
systems and may temporarily impact wetlands at these locations. Construction methods over
wetlands and streams are presented in Section 6.5. Temporary foundation installation for the
work bridges would reduce substrate habitat and result in the temporary loss of habitat for
aquatic populations that utilize these areas. Removal of the piles after construction should allow
the area to return to pre-construction conditions.
Table 6-16: Impacts to USACE Jurisdictional Wetlands

Wetland
Wetland Area (acres) Four-level Offset
Alternative Impacted Area
(acres) Four-level Turbine
Alternative Impacted Area
(acres)
W7 0.87 0.51 0.31
W8 3.87 0.10 0.10
W15 14.72 1.818 2.51
W16 0.17 0.17 0.14
W17 0.29 0.04 0.04
W20 0.09 0.09 0.09
W24 0.52 0.14 0.14
W25 0.22 0.02 0.02
WSL 0.21 0.21 0.20
Total Impacts to Palustrine Wetlands 3.19 3.65
Environmental Assessment 6-28 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

Chapter 6
a Impact to W15 includes 0.02 acres of filled wetland due to relocated power transmission line. This impact pertains
only to the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative.
Imnacts to Streams
Impacts to streams as a result of either detailed construction alternative are unavoidable and
are shown in Figure 6-11 for the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative and Figure 6-12 for
the Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative. Table 6-17 presents a summary of the stream
impacts and number of crossings for streams that will require conveyance in a drainage
structure such as a pipe or culvert. Table 6-18 presents a summary of the stream impacts for
streams that will require relocation. Table 6-19 presents the total impacts to streams. Mitigation
for impacts to streams is addressed in Section 6.4.5.
Table 6-17: Imnacts to Jurisdictional Streams
Stream Four-level Offset
Alternative Four-level Turbine
Alternative
Stream
Label Stream
Classification
Stream Name Linear
Feet Number of
Crossings Linear
Feet Number of
Crossings
S1 Perennial Fourth Creek 0 6a 0 6'
S2 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 0 3 0 3
S3 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 145 2 145 2
S6 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 500 1 529 1
S12 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 590 1 395 1
S15 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 0 1 0 1
S16 Intermittent UT to Fourth Creek 601 1 601 1
S18 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 89 1 89 1
S19 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 80 1 80 1
S20 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 69 1 69 1
S22 Intermittent UT to Fourth Creek 237 1 237 1
S24 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 117 1 117 1
Total 2,428 20 2,262 20
a Includes one temporary bridge.
Table 6-18: Stream Imnacts due to Stream Relocations

Stream
Stream
St
N Four-level Offset
Alternative Four-level Turbine
Alternative
Label Classification ream
ame Length of Stream
Impact Linear Feet Length of Stream
Impact Linear Feet
S11 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 269 269
S17 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 565 565
S20 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 616 616
S23 Intermittent UT to Fourth Creek 26 26
TOTAL 1,476 1,476
Table 6-19: Total Stream Imnacts
Type Four-level Offset Alternative Four-level Turbine Alternative
Stream Crossing 2,428 2,262
Stream Relocation 1,476 1,476
TOTAL 3,904 3,738
Environmental Assessment 6-29 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 6
6.4.4 PERMITS
Construction of the project will result in activities requiring environmental regulatory permits from
federal and state agencies. A list of these permits, organized by issuing agency, is provided
below. The NCDOT will obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
Many of the environmental issues and mitigation measures discussed in this EA will be further
quantified and evaluated as final roadway designs are completed.
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Permit: Any action that proposes to place fill into "Waters of the United States"
falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C 1344). The
CWA provides for public notice and review of pending Section 404 permit applications.
Encroachments into areas determined as subject under the CWA must be reviewed and
approved by the USACE through the Section 404 program. It is anticipated that an Individual
Permit will be required.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality
Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Any activity which may result in discharge to
navigable waters and requires a federal permit must obtain a certification through the NCDWO
that such discharge would be in compliance with applicable state water quality standards. This
permit is required in association with the Section 404 permitting process and is required prior to
Section 404 authorization.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Land Resources
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan: In accordance with the North Carolina
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, projects disturbing more than one acre of land
must submit an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to the NCDENR Division of Land
Resources (DLR). The plan must include erosion control measures and be approved by the
DLR prior to construction.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Forest Resources
Open Burning Permit: A permit is required to start a fire in woodlands or within 500 feet of
woodlands under the protection of the Division of Forest Resources. Thirty day permits can be
issued for highway construction.
6.4.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, MITIGATION
Land development activities that may adversely impact wetlands require consent through permit
approval from the regulating agency. At the federal level, under the CWA Section 404b(1)
Guidelines (40 CFR 230) and USACE regulations (33 CFR 320.4(r)), the USACE is obligated to
require mitigation for any unavoidable impacts to wetlands and streams as a condition of permit
approval. Mitigation for impacts to wetlands and streams include: avoiding impacts, minimizing
impacts, and compensating for impacts.
Avoidance examines the appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
wetlands and streams. Due to the extent of wetlands and streams within the project study area,
and the location of the existing roadways and interchanges, avoidance is not possible.
Environmental Assessment 6-30 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

r_

C

L

ter 6
' Minimization for wetlands includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce adverse impacts to wetlands. In order to minimize the impacts to wetland W15, which
has the highest NCDWQ wetland rating (92) in the natural resources study area, the bridge
' proposed to span Fourth Creek for each alternative is being lengthened beyond what is needed
hydraulically and will span an additional length of this wetland area that would have been
impacted by roadway fill. For the Four-level Offset Alternative, an additional 5.78 acres of
' wetlands will be bridged and for the Four-level Turbine Alternative, an additional 1.56 acres
would be bridged. The areas were developed by comparing the proposed construction limits for
the extended bridge with those that would be required to span the floodway.
' Minimization for streams includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce adverse impacts to streams. A retaining wall is proposed to run adjacent to the east side
of 1-77 for 1,730 feet to keep the fill slope from impacting stream S3.
' Other steps that will be implemented to minimize impacts to wetlands and streams include:
' Minimizing "in-stream" activities,
Strictly enforcing the sedimentation and erosion control best management practices (BMPs)
for the protection of wetlands and streams,
' Decreasing the impacts of the project through the use of Type III clearing and grubbing
which does not clear the entire right of way width,
Decreasing the footprint of the project through the steepening of fill slope where possible,
and
' Utilizing natural stream channel design principles when relocating streams.
Compensatory mitigation is meant to replace, on at least a one-to-one basis, the lost functions
' and values of natural streams and wetlands affected by development activities. NCDOT will
investigate the study area for on-site mitigation opportunities. If on-site mitigation is not possible,
mitigation requirements will be satisfied by the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for the
' project. The EEP is designed to protect the natural resources of North Carolina through the
assessment, restoration, enhancement and preservation of ecosystem functions, and
compensation for development impacts at the watershed level.
' 6.4.6 FLOOD HAZARD EVALUATION
This section contains information corresponding to the analysis of impacts to floodplains and
' floodways. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (42 CFR 26951) requires the
following:

All federal actions must avoid the occupancy and modification of floodplains and avoid direct
or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative.
If an action must be located on the base floodplain, the agency shall take action to reduce
the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare,
and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.
Each agency shall also provide opportunity for early public review of any plans or proposals
for actions in floodplains.
It has been determined that, due to the linear nature of the project and existing roadway
configuration, no practicable alternative exists to completely avoid impacts to floodplains.
Efforts are being made to minimize the impacts to floodplains and to diminish the risk to human
life associated with the encroachments.
Consideration must be given to the floodplain's "natural and beneficial values" which are
discussed in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Unified National Program
Environmental Assessment 6-31 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 6
for Floodplain Management. According to FEMA, surface waters, their floodplains and their
watersheds must be viewed as parts of one ecological system.62 This system exists in a state of
dynamic equilibrium. If one of the parts of the system is disturbed, the entire system will readjust
toward a new equilibrium. The geological and biological effects of the system's readjustments
toward its new equilibrium are often felt far from the original site of the disturbance and can last
for decades. For this reason, if for no other, floodplain development and modification should be
viewed with caution and with careful assessment of the potential adverse impacts on natural
values.
Floodplains in their natural or relatively undisturbed state provide three broad sets of natural and
beneficial resources and hence resource values: (1) water resources values including natural
moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, and groundwater recharge; (2) living resources
values including large and diverse populations of plants and animals; and (3) cultural resource
values including historical, archeological, scientific, recreational, and aesthetic sites in addition
to sites generally highly productive for agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry where these uses
are compatible with natural values.ss
The study area is located completely within Iredell County with portions of the study area
located within the City of Statesville Extraterritorial Limits. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)- Community Panel Numbers for the
study area include 370135 0001, 370135 0003, 370135 0004, and 370135 0005 for the City of
Statesville and 370313 0125 for the unincorporated areas of Iredell County. In 1979, the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development - Flood Insurance Administration
prepared a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) corresponding to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for
the City of Statesville.64 A second FIS was prepared by FEMA for unincorporated areas of
Iredell County and was revised most recently on June 22, 1998.65
The project study area contains five stream systems that are designated by name on the FIRM
with their associated floodplains and have been designated as Detailed Studiesb and are
included in the FIS for the City of Statesville. No stream systems in the unincorporated area of
Iredell County were Detail Study areas, thus were not included in the FIS.
The construction of the proposed improvements would encroach in several areas on the
designated floodplain associated with several local stream systems. A description of streams
and encroachments are discussed in the following sections and shown on Figure 6-13 for the
Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative and Figure 6-14 for the Four-level Turbine Interchange
Alternative.
6.4.6.1 Morrison Creek
Morrison Creek enters the study area northwest of the 1-40 interchange with US 21 and flows
southeasterly until it converges with Fourth Creek. Due to the on-ramp to 1-40 westbound being
converted from two-way traffic to one-way traffic, it was necessary to construct a new roadway
to provide access to the businesses along SR 1965 (Gaither Rd.). This new road and impacts
are the same for both alternatives. The new roadway includes a single bridge spanning just
below the confluence of Morrison Creek and Fourth Creek. The project will not impact the
floodplain or floodway of Morrison Creek.
b A detailed study is an engineering analysis which identifies 1 % annual flood elevations. For the North
Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program, this study method entails using the digital elevation data,
supplementing the data with field surveys for channel bathymetry, bridge/culvert opening geometry, and
channel and floodplain characteristics in order to conduct fully detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
and floodplain mapping.
Environmental Assessment 6-32 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
t
Chapter 6
7

CIS

J
6.4.6.2 Free Nancy Branch
Free Nancy Branch enters the study area southwest of the 1-40 interchange at US 21 and flows
northeasterly until it converges with Fourth Creek. The project will not have any direct impact
on Free Nancy Branch; however, the project will require some construction within the
floodplains associated with Free Nancy Branch. The required construction is widening existing
US 21 to accommodate turn lanes to improve the operation of the interchange. The total area
of the encroachment upon the floodplain would be 1.2 acres for either detailed construction
alternative. The floodplain area that will be impacted is highly developed and the extent of
construction is not likely to increase the impervious area or the elevation of the land within the
floodplain. Free Nancy Branch currently enters a culvert west of US 21 and is carried to a point
1,000 feet east of US 21. Therefore, the project is not likely to further affect the natural and
beneficial value of the floodplain system.
As previously noted, the floodplain is extensively developed, with several large stores,
restaurants and hotels located completely within the floodplain. The risks associated with the
impact to the floodplain with regard to human safety are moderate due to the amount of existing
development. However, the impact as a result of the project is not likely to increase the risk
over what is currently present, that is, the project will have no impact.
6.4.6.3 Tributary 2
Tributary 2, also identified as Stream S3, is a tributary to Fourth Creek that enters the study
area southwest of the 1-77 interchange with SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) and flows northeasterly
under the interchange and parallel to 1-77's northbound lanes until it turns northeasterly and
converges with Fourth Creek. In the vicinity of Tributary 2, the project will widen 1-77 and slightly
modify the interchange at SR 2321. A retaining wall along 1-77 is proposed that will minimize
the impact to the stream system and the associated floodplain. The project will result in two
encroachments of the floodplain associated with Tributary 2. The first encroachment is where an
existing culvert carries the stream under 1-77, outlets into a channel and crosses SR 2321 under
the overpass bridge. The encroachment upon the floodplain is transverse and crosses with a
skew very close to perpendicular. The impact to the floodplain will be minimal as the project will
likely only require a slight extension to existing culverts and the amount of fill material in the
floodplain should not substantially increase the flood elevation. The second encroachment to
Tributary 2 is longitudinal as the stream runs parallel to the northbound lanes of 1-77. The
impact to the stream system and the floodplain occurs for approximately 760 feet with a total
encroachment area of 0.5 acre. A longitudinal encroachment is not favorable, however, due to
the location of the existing roadway; the encroachment is unavoidable. The use of retaining
walls reduces the effect of the encroachment and allows for the preservation of the floodplain's
natural and beneficial values. The total area for both encroachments upon the floodplain is 1.7
acres for either alternative.
The area adjacent to the floodplain is vacant and densely vegetated with adequate storage for
flooding. Therefore, the risk to human safety associated with the encroachments is low.
6.4.6.4 Tributary 3
Tributary 3, also identified as Stream S2, is a tributary to Fourth Creek that begins northeast of
the 1-40/1-77 interchange and flows southwesterly across 1-40 and converges with Fourth Creek
as it crosses US 64. The interchange will be reconfigured in the vicinity of Tributary 3. Three
transverse crossings of the stream system and the associated floodplains will result. The
encroachments upon the floodplain are transverse and cross with a skew very close to
perpendicular. For one of the crossings the existing culvert under 1-40 will be replaced with a
bridge spanning the floodway. The existing culvert crossing is undersized causing periodic
Environmental Assessment 6-33 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 6
flooding. As such, the project would have a beneficial effect in the floodplain and will require a ,
floodplain map revision. The total area of the encroachment upon the floodplain for the three
crossings for the Four-level Offset Alternative is approximately 6.5 acres and 5.8 acres for the
Four-level Turbine Alternative. '
6.4.6.5 Fourth Creek
Fourth Creek is the major stream system running through the study area. The stream system '
begins northwest of US 21 and enters the study area before crossing under Pump Station Road,
converging with Morrison Creek, crossing under US 21 and 1-40, converging with Free Nancy
Branch, crossing under 1-77, converging with Tributary 2 and Tributary 3 and finally exiting the '
study area southeast of the 1-40/1-77 interchange. Within the study area, all of the crossings of
Fourth Creek are existing crossings and will be accomplished using bridges. The project
includes five floodplain crossings; at Hillside Lane extension below the existing Pump Station '
Road crossing, US 21, 1-40 (includes ramps to US 21 interchange), and 1-77 (includes ramps to
1-40 and a temporary structure for maintenance of traffic during construction). The floodplain
encroachment impacts will be minimal as the crossings are being upgraded to account for '
higher flows due to urban development within the study area. The ability to pass larger flood
volumes will allow for more of the floodway to return to a more natural state as the roadway fill
has a lesser impedance to the flow.
There is an existing risk of flooding in this floodplain due to existing development. The project is '
not expected to further increase risk to human life from flooding.
Hillside Lane Crossing '
There is no encroachment on the floodplain or floodway as the Hillside Lane extension crosses
Fourth Creek with a bridge spanning the floodplain at this location. The extension is required ,
due to the need for an improved roadway to service SR 1965 (Gaither Road) following the
elimination of the two-way ramp to US 21. The existing crossing at Pump Station Road just
upstream is accomplished using a 19-foot wide by 60-foot long bridge, while the new roadway '
connecting Hillside Lane and Gaither Road will be 32 feet wide by 155 feet long. The new
structure will provide for improved flood passage. The existing bridge on Pump Station Road
will not be disturbed and will remain in service as it provides the only access to Statesville's '
water treatment plant located at the end of Pump Station Road.
US 21 Encroachment '
The encroachment on the floodplain as Fourth Creek crosses US 21 will not be changed as a
result of the project. The existing bridge, which is 72 feet wide by 200 feet long, over Fourth
Creek will not be disturbed and will remain in service. '
1-40 Encroachment
The encroachment on the floodplain as Fourth Creek crosses 1-40 will be modified from the '
existing configuration as the ramps associated with the US 21 interchange must be lengthened
to provide adequate storage for safe operation of the ramp terminals at US 21. As a result of
the lengthening of the ramps the width of the structures will be wider than the existing bridges to '
accommodate the wider cross-section on 1-40 and the interchange ramps. The length of the
bridges will be increased from 150 feet to 180 feet, providing additional floodplain passage. The
new structures will provide for improved flood passage; however, they are not long enough to ,
completely eliminate the encroachment upon the floodplain. The total area of encroachment as
a result of the 1-40 crossing is approximately 16.2 acres for either detailed construction
alternative. '
Environmental Assessment 6-34 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

J
J

I
6
1-77 Encroachment
The encroachment on the floodplains as 1-77 crosses Fourth Creek will also be modified from
the existing configuration due to the ramps associated with the 1-40 interchange to the north of
the crossing. The reasons for the additional encroachment are due to the size of the proposed
1-40/1-77 interchange alternatives and because the ramp ties to the interstate must occur further
to the south of 1-40 to accommodate the larger interchange alternatives. To accomplish fully
directional movements, the interchange footprint becomes larger and thus increases the
floodplain encroachment. Fourth Creek will have bridge crossings on both the 1-40 to 1-77
entrance ramp and as it crosses 1-77. The length of the bridge as Fourth Creek crosses under
1-77 will be increased from 160 feet to 205 feet to accommodate a revised profile and provide for
the planned greenway that will cross under 1-77 at this location. The bridges for the ramps are
considered new crossings and are proposed to span the width of the floodway. The 1-77
crossing is considered a bridge widening and will not span the floodway shown on FEMA maps.
FEMA maps appear not to reflect the 1-77 crossing, and will require a map revision. A
temporary bridge for the southbound lanes of 1-77 will be required to maintain traffic during
construction. The bridge will be adjacent to the existing 1-77 structure. The total area of
encroachment as a result of the crossings at 1-77 and the 1-77 ramps is approximately 16.2
acres for the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative and 18.6 acres for the Four-level Turbine
Interchange Alternative. The difference is due to the reconfigured interchange ramps and
additional wetland bridging on the Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative.
6.4.6.6 Summary
Both detailed construction alternatives include structures crossing floodplains that are included
in FEMA detailed studies. Impacts to these floodplains / floodways will be analyzed, mapped
and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will be requested. The structures include:
Crossings of Fourth Creek (1-77, southbound 1-77 ramp, SR 1934 Hillside Lane extension,
and 1-40 with C-D and US 21 interchange ramps) and
A replacement structure that crosses Tributary 3 (1-40 with eastbound C-D).
A single CLOMR package to FEMA will include both crossings. The CLOMR will be submitted to
FEMA for review and approval. The analysis will detail the proposed structure opening, roadway
embankment encroachments and any hydraulic changes that would occur within the floodplain.
Upon approval and after construction is complete, as-built plans will be submitted with
documentation for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to FEMA. Once this is approved, the FEMA
maps will be revised and reissued by FEMA. For structures that are not in a FEMA detailed
study or structures that are lengthened but cause no significant impact to the floodplain, no map
revision is required.
The overall effect of the project as a result of the encroachment on floodplains are anticipated to
be minor and are not likely to be significant, as the project will increase the bridge lengths for
most crossings allowing for increased passage of water. The encroachments on the floodplain
will also not present an increased danger to human life as a result of the construction, nor will it
promote development within the floodplain for either of the detailed construction alternatives.
1 6.4.7 AIR QUALITY
In order to determine existing air quality issues and potential impacts of the project, an analysis
was conducted in accordance with 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93, Environmental Protection Agency's
transportation conformity rule; 23 CFR Part 771, Environmental Impact and Related
Procedures; and by the FHWA's Technical Advisory T6640.8A, Guidelines for Preparing and
Environmental Assessment 6-35 November 2006
I TIP No. 1-3819
ter 6
Processing Environmental and Section 4(F) Documents. Detailed results of the analysis are
included in the Air Quality Technical Memorandum.66
Iredell County is in compliance with current National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
As such, 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable. Because the project would represent new
construction in a rural area, Mobile6 model runs for the existing conditions were not completed.
Rather, it was assumed that existing ambient one- and eight-hour average carbon monoxide
(CO) concentrations are 1.8 and 1.1 parts per million (ppm), respectively.
Since the project is located in an attainment area, modeling for the effect of the project on
criteria air pollutants was not required. Nevertheless, a project-level (microscale) CO
concentration analysis was conducted on the 1-40/US 21 interchange and other free flow
segments. No exceedances of the one-hour average NAAQS for CO were projected for the
base year (2005) or the design year (2030) for either the build or no-build alternatives.
Likewise, no exceedences of the eight-hour average NAAQS for CO were estimated for any
alternative or model year. Accordingly, no adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment
area are anticipated with either alternative.
The purposes of this project are to improve traffic flow along the 1-40 and 1-77 corridors within
the study area and improve regional connectivity between Iredell County and points east, west,
north and south within North Carolina and across the Interstate System. This will be
accomplished by modifications to the 1-40/1-77 interchange area. This project will not result in
any meaningful changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, location of the existing facility, or any
other factor that would cause an increase in emissions impacts relative to the no-build
alternative. As such, FHWA has determined that this project will generate minimal air quality
impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special Mobile
Source Air Toxic (MSAT) concerns. Consequently, this effort is exempt from analysis for
MSATs. Moreover, USEPA regulations for vehicle engines and fuels will cause overall MSATs
to decline significantly over the next 20 years. Even after accounting for a 64 percent increase in
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), FHWA predicts MSATs will decline in the range of 57 percent to
87 percent, from 2000 to 2020, based on regulations now in effect. This will both reduce the
background level of MSATs as well as the possibility of even minor MSAT emissions from this
projects'
During construction of the project, debris associated with clearing and degrubbing, demolition,
and other operations will be removed from the project area and disposed of or burned by the
contractor in accordance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. BMPs will be incorporated into these
activities to ensure that burning of debris does not become a nuisance to area residents and to
ensure that these activities do not create a public health hazard. Measures to minimize dust
from construction activities will also be taken by the contractor.
Based on the evaluation of air quality impacts associated with the 1-40/US 21 interchange, there
will be no substantial adverse impacts to air quality associated with this project. In fact,
modeling results which compare the results from the no-build to the build scenario indicate there
could be a 50 percent improvement in microscale CO air quality near the I-40/US 21
intersection.
6.4.8 TRAFFIC NOISE
In order to determine the noise impacts of the project, an analysis was conducted in accordance
with the provisions in Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772).
Detailed results of the noise analysis are presented in the Traffic Noise Technical
Memorandum. 611
Environmental Assessment 6-36 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 6

i

C
L

r

6.4.8.1 Noise Abatement Criteria
To determine if highway noise levels are compatible with various land uses, the FHWA has
developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. A summary of the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria for various land uses is
presented in Table 6-20. The Equivalent Sound Levels (Leq) provided in this table represent
the upper limit of acceptable noise conditions. The receptors within the vicinity of the project
limits were classified as B (residential) or C (commercial). One church (category B, exterior and
category E, interior) and two schools (category B, exterior and category E, interior) have been
identified within the study area.
Table 6-20: Noise Abatement Criteria
Criteria for each FHWA Activity Category
Hourly A-Weighted sound Level - Decibels
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and
A 57 (Exterior) serve an important public need and where the preservation of those
qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended
purpose
B 67 (Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks,
residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 (Exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or
B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 (Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches,
libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U.S. DOT, FHWA
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic levels either approach or exceed the
FHWA noise abatement criteria (NAC), or substantially exceed the existing or ambient noise
levels. The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy uses an "approach value" of one decibel of
A-weighted noise (dBA) less than those shown in Table 6-21.
Table 6-21: Criteria for Substantial Increase in Noise
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - Decibels
Existing Noise Level in Leq(h) Increase in dBA from Existing Noise Levels to
Future Noise Levels
50 or less 15 or more
51 14 or more
52 13 or more
53 12 or more
54 11 or more
55 or more 10 or more
6.4.8.2 Ambient Noise Levels
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy
Existing or ambient noise levels were measured along the existing roadways within the study
area. Five ambient measuring sites were chosen to represent homogenous roadway
conditions. Figure 6-15 represents a visual representation of the measuring sites.
Environmental Assessment 6-37 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 6
Table 6-22 includes the measured and calculated ambient noise levels. The ambient measured
noise levels range from 76.9 to 82.9 dBA. The calculated noise levels are within three dBA of
the measured noise levels. Differences in noise levels can be attributed to the actual bunching
of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and vehicle speeds versus the computer model's 'evenly-
spaced' vehicles and single vehicular speed.
Table 6-22: Ambient Noise Levels (Lecl)
Location
Number Location Measured
Noise Level Calculated
Noise Level
1 Along 1-77 southbound near SR 2171 77.6 77.3
2 Along 1-77 southbound near 1-77/E. Broad Street
interchange 82.9 80.1
3 Along 1-40 westbound, west of 1-40/US 21 interchange 76.9 78.0
4 Along 1-40 westbound, east of 1-40/US 21 interchange 81.1 79.0
5 East of Old Mocksville Rd. along 1-40 eastbound 79.5 77.1
Source: Sepi Engineering Group, 2006
6.4.8.3 Traffic Noise Impacts
Receptors expected to experience traffic noise either by approaching or exceeding the FHWA
NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels, are considered impacted. The
maximum extent of the 72 dBA noise level contour ranges from 210 to 375 feet from the center
of the proposed roadway. The maximum extent of the 67 dBA noise level contour ranges from
450 to 650 feet. Under the future year 2030 condition the noise levels for both the detailed
construction alternatives would impact 120 receivers (97 residential sites, 20 commercial sites,
two schools, and one church).
6.4.8.4 Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
Noise abatement measures were evaluated for the 120 impacted receptors in the study area,
however, only one measure was determined to be viable for the project. Noise barriers at noise
sensitive locations were analyzed (by estimating the cost of the barrier and determining the cost
per benefited receptor) to determine if they would meet the minimum noise reduction goals.
The NCDOT defines the benefited receptors as receptors, impacted and non-impacted, that
would receive a minimum noise level reduction of five dBA as a result of placing the noise
mitigation measure. NCDOT noise abatement policy requires that installation of a noise barrier
cost no more than $35,000 (plus an incremental value) per benefited receptor and that the total
height not exceed 25 feet.
Noise walls were considered in six areas and are shown on Figure 6-15. Of these, three proved
to be reasonable, feasible, and cost effective. These six areas covered 114 of the 120 impacted
receivers. The other six impacted receivers are isolated in other general locations.
The first potential barrier location (Study Area A) is along the southbound side of 1-77, between
Davie Avenue (US 64) and SR 2321 (E. Broad Street). Of the 29 residential receivers and one
school included in this barrier analysis, approximately 27 are expected to have future noise
impacts. The optimized design of a concrete noise wall that would provide a minimum five dBA
reduction is approximately 3,870 feet long with an exposed height of 12 feet. The barrier would
benefit 23 receptors at an estimated cost of $696,700. This equates to approximately $30,291
per benefited receptor. Based on the NCDOT criteria, the noise wall is cost-effective and,
therefore, recommended for construction. Hence, this noise wall is recommended for
construction, contingent on completion of the project design and the public involvement process.

Environmental Assessment 6-38 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 6
' The second potential barrier location (Study Area Al) is along the southbound side of 1-77, from
SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) southward approximately 1,850 feet. Of the 16 residential receivers
included in this barrier analysis, approximately 13 are expected to have future noise impacts.
' The optimized design of a concrete noise wall that would provide a minimum five dBA reduction
is approximately 1,538 feet long with an exposed height range of 13 feet to 15 feet. The barrier
would benefit 9 receptors at an estimated cost of $311,500. This equates to approximately
' $34,611 per benefited receptor. Based on the NCDOT criteria, the noise wall is considered
reasonable, feasible, and cost effective. Hence, this noise wall is recommended for
construction, contingent on completion of the project design and the public involvement process.
' The third potential barrier location (Study Area B) is along the eastbound side of 1-40 from Radio
Road to US 21. The optimized design of a concrete noise wall that would provide a minimum
five dBA reduction is approximately 3,639 feet long with an exposed height of 15 feet. The
' barrier would benefit 60 receptors at an estimated cost of $818,700. This equates to
approximately $13,645 per benefited receptor. Based on the NCDOT criteria, the noise wall is
considered reasonable, feasible, and cost effective. Hence, this noise wall is recommended for
' construction, contingent on completion of the project design and the public involvement process.
The fourth potential barrier location (Study Area C) is located along the westbound side of 1-40
' from US 21 to Pump Station Road. At a maximum height of 18 feet and a length of
approximately 1,938 feet, six receivers were able to receive the minimum five dBA noise level
reduction. The total cost for this wall is estimated at $523,300. This equates to $87,217 per
' benefited receptor. Based on the NCDOT criteria, the noise wall is not cost-effective and,
therefore, is not recommended for construction.
The fifth potential barrier location (Study Area D) is located along the westbound side of 1-40
' from the 1-77/1-40 interchange to US 21. At an optimized height of nine to 12 feet and a length
of approximately 2,258 feet; seven receivers would receive the minimum five dBA noise level
reduction. The total cost for this wall is estimated at $393,500. This equates to $56,214 per
' benefited receptor. This area is also a commercial area and businesses usually prefer visibility
and accessibility from the highway rather than noise abatement. Based on the NCDOT criteria,
the noise wall is not cost-effective and, therefore, is not recommended for construction.
' The sixth potential barrier location (Study Area E) is located along the eastbound side of 1-40
from the 1-77/1-40 interchange eastbound approximately 2,200 feet. At an optimized height of
' 15 to 19 feet and a length of approximately 3,426 feet; 17 receivers would receive the minimum
five dBA noise level reduction. The total cost for this wall is estimated at $895,700. This
equates to $52,688 per benefited receptor. Based on the NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy and
' the NCDOT Noise Policy, the noise wall is not cost-effective and, therefore, not recommended
for construction.
Proposed noise abatement measures will be presented and discussed at the Design Public
' Hearing. The noise abatement measures shown on the design public hearing map will be based
on preliminary design and a detailed noise analysis. NCDOT design staff will fine-tune the
designs during the right of way plan preparation process. The location of the noise abatement
' measures should remain essentially the same as shown in the design public hearing map.
Noise abatement measures deemed reasonable and feasible by NCDOT staff will be shown on
the design public hearing map. The opinions of front row property owners will be requested so
' that a final determination on abatement measures may be made. A final decision on the
installation of abatement measures will be made upon completion of the project design and the
public involvement process.
Environmental Assessment 6-39 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
6
6.4.9 GEODETIC MARKERS
The National Geodetic Survey (NGS) geodetic monuments are located across the country to
provide a physical marker that is primarily used for land survey controls. For both alternatives,
there are twelve monuments that fall within the project limits. Seven of the monuments have
been documented within the past 25 years and will be impacted by the project construction.
Three of the monuments were not found during the last documented search. These are
assumed to no longer exist and therefore are not impacted. Two of the monuments within the
project limits will not be impacted by construction. Table 6-23 provides the current status of
each monument.
Table 6-23- Geodetic Monuments
Designation Northing Easting Status Impact
Broad 748
262.46 1
447
624.58 Last Monumented in Yes - within limits of Loop
, ,
, 1973 Y91-PA
Yes - in curbline
Debby 752
045.55 1
448
121.37 Last Monumented in approaching existing US 64
, ,
, 1973 Davie Ave bridge over 1-77.
Bridge to be replaced
Gray 753,445.71 1,439,533.06 1973 In Good Yes - within limits of Radio
Condition Rd. bridge replacement
Howard 754
972.96 1
448
221.31 2004 Mark Not N/A; Assume monument no
, ,
, Found longer exists
Johnson 754
053.28 443
706.20
1 1984 In Good Yes - on 1-40 bridge over
, ,
, Condition US 21 that is being replaced
North 759
621.59 600.57
1
448 1985 In Good Yes - within limits of 1-77
, ,
, Condition widening
In Good Condition Yes - within limits of 1-40
Oakdale 755,637.42 1,453,814.29 when last widening and US 64 partial
documented in 1952 interchange removal
Oakdale 2 755
773.68 453
775.74
1 2004 Mark Not N/A; Assume monument no
, ,
, Found longer exists
Patrol 754
901.75 098.37
1
448 2004 Mark Not N/A; Assume monument no
, ,
, Found longer exists
Last documented in Yes - on 1-40 bridge over
Pleuger 755,810.13 1,454,172.26 1973 US 64 WB entrance. Partial
interchange being removed.
Wing Wall 756
433.20 1
457
089.57 Last Monumented in No - located on SR 2158
, ,
, 1973 Old Mocksville Rd. bridge
No - located at SR 2171
Last Monumented in Jane Sowers Rd. overpass
Zim 763,497.18 1,448,765.22 1984 at
1-77 beyond construction
limits
Source: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources. North
Carolina Geodetic Survey. Available: http://www.ncgs.state.nc.us/dwf/iredell.dwf
Mitigation for the impacted monuments will be replacement at a nearby location to maintain the
network of survey controls along these two interstates.
6.4.10 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous waste is defined by the USEPA as any waste material, or combination of waste
materials that pose a hazard to human health, welfare, or the environment. Materials classified
Environmental Assessment 6-40 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 6
' as hazardous can be in the form of solids, sludges, liquids, or gases, and are characterized as
either reactive, toxic, infectious, explosive, flammable, corrosive, or radioactive. Examples of
hazardous waste sites include landfills, dumps, pits, lagoons, salvage areas, retail operations
' and storage tanks.
In April 2005, a search of available environmental records was conducted to identify potential
' hazardous materials sites in the study area. Results of the search were reported and mapped
in the EDR DataMap Corridor Study Report (EDR Report).69 A follow-up Geotechnical Pre-
Scoping Report (Geotechnical Report) was conducted in October 2005 to provide an early
' identification of geoenvironmental issues that may impact the planning, design or construction of
the project. The results of an examination of the EDR Report for accuracy and use of GIS to
identify any known environmentally impacting sites within the study area not identified in the
EDR Report are presented in the Geotechnical Report. Sixty-three active or closed
' underground storage tank (UST) facilities were found within the study area. Most of the USTs
are located within the northwestern and southwestern quadrants of the 1-40/1-77 interchange.
Two hazardous waste sites and one abandoned municipal dump were also identified within the
study area. No other geoenvironmental concerns were identified.70
As part of the Geotechnical Report, a map was produced identifying the location of each
identified site in relation to the 1-40/1-77 interchange. As shown in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3, the
' proposed right of way for both alternatives is mainly along existing 1-40 and 1-77 and at
interchanges with US 21, SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road), US 64 and SR 2321 (E. Broad
Street). Most of the sites identified in the Geotechnical Report are outside of the right of ways of
' both alternatives and are not likely to be impacted by the project, however, according to the
Geotechnical Report, specific impacts associated with hazardous materials sites have not yet
been determined. Based on the Geotechnical Report it appears that some hazardous materials
' sites are within the right-of-ways of the alternatives. These sites could affect project scheduling
and have a monetary impact on the project. As the project progresses, it is likely that further
studies will be necessary to determine specific impacts associated with these sites; however, at
' this time the effects due to hazardous materials are anticipated to be minor and are not likely to
be significant.
' 6.4.11 VISUAL EFFECTS
The viewshed in the study area consists of a variety of manmade and natural landscape
features that include commercial and industrial development, subdivisions/residential
' neighborhoods, scattered homes and agricultural lands, wooded uplands, streams, and
wetlands. The topography of the study area generally consists of gently rolling hills. Suburban
landscapes are more prevalent to the south and west of the 1-40/1-77 interchange, particularly
along the north and south sides of 1-40 west to the NC 115 interchange, and along 1-77 between
US 64 and SR 2321 (E. Broad Street). The landscape immediately surrounding the 1-40/1-77
interchange is generally comprised of agricultural land and natural areas.
' The natural features of the landscape providing vistas in the project area are hill tops and open
agricultural fields. These features combine with the topography, manmade objects (buildings,
towers, transmission lines, etc.), and breaks in tree lines or high vegetation at railways, utility
' right of ways and roadways to create views. No prominent scenic vistas or visually sensitive
resources have been identified in the study area.
' Visual effects of the project are similar among the two build alternatives. While the proposed
project includes improvements to interchanges adjacent to the 1-40/1-77 interchange, the primary
visual effects would result from construction of either of the multi-level interchange alternatives
' under consideration at the 1-40/1-77 junction. A multi-level interchange will introduce a new
prominent man-made feature into the viewshed of the study area. The visibility of proposed
Environmental Assessment 6-41 November 2006
TlP No. 1-3819
Chapter 6 '
interchange improvements will vary throughout the viewshed and will greatly depend on the '
location of the viewer. Because there are no prominent scenic vistas or visual resources that
will be affected by the project; no substantial adverse visual effects are anticipated to result from
the project. ,
Future highway oriented development which may be constructed adjacent to the proposed
roadway could be designed to reduce visual intrusion of the proposed interchange

improvements. The inclusion of treatments such as coloring of structural elements, buffer '
areas, and landscaped screening into a new development's design can obscure views of
transportation features. Additionally, it is the policy of the NCDOT to include aesthetic features
in its roadway designs. The NCDOT will consider incorporating the following principals in the '
roadway design in order to create an aesthetically acceptable and functional roadway and to
minimize visual impacts:

Integrating landscaping into the project design to promote visual continuity of the highway
and to blend it into the natural landscape as much as possible.
Minimizing the loss of vegetation, especially during construction when equipment and '
material access, storage, and staging are required.
Design noise attenuation features, if reasonable and feasible, to be compatible with
surrounding natural features and development. ,
6.5 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS
Construction activities associated with building either alternative would create environmental '
impacts that are short-term in nature and can be controlled, minimized or mitigated through
conformance with BMPs and standard NCDOT procedures.
6.5.1 BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
The potential exists for wetland impacts to be minimized through the utilization of various
bridging construction methods. For construction of the bridge in the vicinity of wetlands and very
shallow open water, several construction methods will be evaluated for practicability. These
methods may include temporary haul roads and temporary work bridges.
A temporary haul road would entail resting a layer of geotextile fabric in the wetland area
adjacent to the construction site on which select embankment material would be placed in
accordance with NCDOT specifications. This temporary haul road would provide both a road
and work platform for conventional land-based construction equipment. After the construction is
complete, the temporary haul road and underlying geotextile layer would be removed with the
use of construction equipment.
Using a temporary work bridge would be a potential construction method for the crossing of
Fourth Creek and its surrounding wetlands, particularly in the southwest quadrant of 1-40/1-77.
For this method, a temporary work bridge to support construction equipment would be built
adjacent to the location of the permanent bridge being constructed. The work bridge would be
removed upon completion of the permanent bridge. Impacts to the waterway bottom under this
construction method would be considered minimal due to temporary piles. The temporary work
bridge would be expanded between pier construction sites with bridge extensions called
"fingers."
Final selection of the construction techniques will be accomplished during preliminary and/or
final design and evaluated formally through the Section 404 and Section 401 permitting
processes.
Environmental Assessment 6-42 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

' 6.5.2 WATER QUALITY AND DRAINAGE
Erosion and sedimentation caused by construction activities will affect drainage patterns and
' water quality. Bridge construction activities will create turbidity effects in Fourth Creek and its
tributaries.
In accordance with the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (15A NCAC 4B
' 0001-.0027), an erosion control plan will be developed and implemented prior to construction.
The plan will incorporate measures to control non-point source impacts as recommended in the
NCDOT's "BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters"." These BMPSs include, but are not limited
' to: using berms, dikes, silt barriers, and catch basins; vegetating or covering disturbed areas as
soon as possible; and conforming with proper clean-up practices. Water quality and drainage
impacts are discussed in more detail under Section 6.4.3.
6.5.3 NOISE
Construction of any of the proposed build alternatives will result in temporary increases in noise
' levels within the vicinity of the project. Noise will be generated primarily from heavy equipment
used to transport materials and to construct the roadway. Sensitive receptors located close to
the construction activities may temporarily experience increased noise levels.
Construction noise can be controlled by regulating the hours of construction and equipping
machinery with noise reduction devices. Certain construction activities could also be limited
during the evening, weekends, and holidays. Storage and staging areas will be located as far
from noise sensitive areas as practicable. NCDOT specifications require the contractor to limit
noise levels in noise-sensitive areas adjacent to the project. The NCDOT also reserves the
right to monitor construction noise and to require noise abatement where limits are exceeded.
The NCDOT can also limit work that produces objectionable noise during normal sleeping
hours.
' 6.5.4 AIR
Construction activities could have a short-term impact on air quality, primarily during site
preparation. Particulate matter (dust) is the pollutant of primary concern during the construction
period. Dust will be generated during earth moving activities, handling of cement, asphalt, or
aggregate, and equipment travel over unpaved haul roads. Wind erosion of exposed areas and
material stockpiles will also generate particulate matter.
The amount of dust generated will vary, depending on the construction activity and local
weather conditions. Where excess dust is anticipated to be a problem, effective dust control
measures will be implemented in accordance with standard NCDOT procedures. Dust control
will be the responsibility of the contractor and could include the following:
' minimizing exposed earth surface;
• temporary and permanent seeding and mulching;
• watering working and haul areas during dry periods;
• covering, shielding, or stabilizing material stockpiles; and
• using covered haul trucks.
Emissions from construction equipment are regulated by federal standards. Any burning of
cleared materials will be conducted in accordance with applicable state and local laws,
regulations, and ordinances. Specifically, a Burning Permit from the N.C. Division of Forest
Resources must be obtained for burning within woodlands or within 500 feet of woodlands
' under the protection of the Division of Forest Resources.
Environmental Assessment 6-43 November 2006
t TIP No. 1-3819
6
6.5.5 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Construction, staging, and stockpiling operations will result in the disruption of the resident
wildlife population adjacent to the interstates. The clearing of habitats, human activity, and
noise from construction operations will result in the displacement of mobile wildlife species.
Non-mobile species will be lost as habitat is converted to construction areas.
Maximum disruption of wildlife communities would occur when project construction begins as
displaced animals are forced to compete for space with other nearby resident wildlife and
human populations. These impacts will be minimized as much as possible by restricting land
clearing and construction operations to within the project right of way. Off-site staging and
stockpiling areas will be located to impact the least amount of natural habitat as possible.
Stockpiling and staging areas will be revegetated after construction, which could provide
replacement habitat for some species. Expected impacts to biotic communities due to project
construction are expected to be minimal.
6.5.6 CONSTRUCTION WASTE
All construction waste material generated during clearing, grubbing, and other construction
phases will be removed from the project site and burned or disposed of by the contractor in
accordance with state and local regulations. Disposal of construction waste in wetlands will not
be allowed unless properly permitted by the USACE. Litter and other general trash will be
collected and disposed of at local landfill locations. NCDOT will require contractors to conduct
historic, archaeological, wetland and threatened and endangered species surveys prior to
approval and use of construction waste disposal and/or borrow sites identified for the proposed
project.
6.5.7 UTILITY SERVICE
Construction of either alternative is expected to require some degree of adjustment, relocation,
or modification to existing public utilities, particularly on the secondary roads. Any
modifications, adjustments, or relocations will be coordinated with the affected utility companies.
6.5.8 DETOURS AND ACCESSIBILITY
Impacts to traffic patterns and motorists will occur throughout the construction duration. Access
to adjacent properties will be maintained at all times and two lanes in each direction for
interstate traffic will be required. The construction of a revised interchange while maintaining
traffic on the existing interchange is a complex process and a detailed traffic plan will be
developed as part of the final engineering design to coordinate traffic flows with each
construction phase. Public awareness of construction activities or changes in traffic patterns
through radio reports, press releases, and changeable message signs can inform drivers to the
current or upcoming road conditions.
At least three temporary detours will be required to construct either alternative. Southbound 1-77
will require a 1.2 mile, two-lane detour that will be constructed adjacent to the existing lanes.
The alignment will include one temporary structure over 1-40 and one over Fourth Creek. The
Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative would also include a third temporary structure over a
new directional ramp. Temporary cross-over detours will be required at two locations on 1-40 in
order to construct new bridges over Stream S2 and remove the existing structures over the
westbound US 64 ramp. One detour will be 1.0 mile and the other 0.7 mile. The eastbound C-D
road could be utilized as a detour in order to maintain two lanes of 1-40 traffic.
The existing structures on US 64 over 1-77 and SR 2000 (Radio Road) over 1-40 will be used
while the proposed bridges will be constructed adjacent to each location. New bridges on

r

r,
Environmental Assessment 6-44 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

6
' SR 2321 (E. Broad Street) over 1-77 and 1-40 over US 21 will have to be constructed in phases
with temporary ties back to the existing travel lanes. This will involve closures of existing lanes
while the larger structure is built on the same site as the existing. Traffic patterns will change
' and the number of usable lanes reduced on E. Broad Street during this time but intermediate
contract times may be established to expedite construction.
Constructing the 1-40/1-77 interchange will involve temporary off-site detours to tie ramps and
loops back into the interstate lanes. This will be done at night after detour signing was set up to
route traffic through adjacent interchanges and may take place over a series of nights until
construction is complete. Temporary pavement ties will be established to maintain traffic during
the day. The loop in the southwest quadrant will require a detour for a longer period, however,
traffic volumes are low enough for an off-site detour to be maintained for a number of days.
The Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative would include temporary retaining walls in order
to maintain existing interchange traffic during construction. This could be eliminated with a
longer structure, but potentially at a higher cost.
' For either alternative, temporary road closures along with on-site temporary pavement would be
needed to construct the new intersection of SR 2000 (Radio Road) with SR 1965 (Gaither
' Road) and Museum Drive.
Other roads, including US 21, SR 2321 (E. Broad Street), and SR 2322 (Simonton Road) will
require temporary lane closures that will be limited to off-peak times of the day to minimize
' disruptions to traffic.
An increase in truck traffic in the study area will occur during construction. Access to
' construction staging areas and the construction sites may require temporary access roadways.
The traffic plan developed during the final engineering design phase will define designated truck
routes and parking areas for construction vehicles.
' 6.5.9 ARCHAEOLOGY
In the course of construction, all construction inspectors will have the responsibility to monitor
' the project area for potential archaeological remains throughout construction process. If
potential archaeological remains (such as foundations, fireplaces, bones, stone tools, pottery,
etc.) are identified, the inspector will immediately notify the Construction Supervisor (CS) who
t will immediately halt work in the vicinity of the potential find. At this point, the CS will notify the
NCDOT and the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (NCOSA) to determine the
appropriate course of action, as per the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
If the unanticipated discovery is determined to be ineligible for inclusion in the National Register,
the contractor will proceed with the project following written concurrence from the NCDOT and
' NCOSA. If the site is determined to be potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register,
additional work, such as a Determination of Eligibility or Data Recovery, may be required.
Further construction work at the site will be suspended until all criteria of Section 106 of the
' National Historic Preservation Act and other related federal and state regulations have been
successfully addressed.
' In the event that human remains are discovered, the Construction Inspector will immediately
halt work and notify the local law enforcement agency and medical examiner. If remains are
found not to be of recent origin, the contractor and the NCDOT will consult with the NCOSA to
ensure that all provisions of state and federal laws concerning human remains are followed.
Provision for security to protect suspected burials from vandalism will be taken. Only after the
Environmental Assessment 6-45 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
6

human remains have been properly removed from the site will construction in the area be I
resumed.

Environmental Assessment 6-46 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

' CHAPTER 7. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
7.1 PROJECT SCOPING AND INITIAL COORDINATION
' The 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvements Project is a federal-aid project subject to the
requirements of NEPA. As such, the FHWA is the lead agency in this action. A scoping letter
' (Appendix B) was mailed on January 13, 2004 to solicit comments on the project. The scoping
letter was mailed to the following local, state and federal agencies or agency representatives:
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Highway Administration
' NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
- N.C. Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
- N.C. Division of Environmental Health
' - N.C. Division of Forest Resources
- N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. State Clearinghouse Department of Administration
' N.C. Division of Archives and History/Department of Cultural Resources
• N.C. Department of Public Instruction
• Centralina Council of Governments
' Mayor of Statesville
• Iredell County Commissioners Chair
• City of Statesville Planning
• Iredell County Planning
' Iredell County Schools - Facilities
Iredell County Memorial Hospital
• City of Statesville City Manager
' Greater Statesville Development Corporation
Iredell Memorial Hospital
Davis Regional Medical Center - Facilities
' Coordination was maintained with federal, state and local agencies throughout the project
development process in order to evaluate and minimize potential project impacts.
' As the project planning study progressed, other agencies and organizations were contacted to
inform them of the on-going study and solicit comments. Those contacted are as follows:
• City of Statesville Fire Department
City of Statesville Emergency Medical Services
• Iredell County Rescue Services
' Statesville-Iredell School System
Statesville Parks and Recreation Department
' 7.1.1 COMMENTS RECEIVED
Comments received through the scoping and initial coordination process are summarized in
Table 7-1. Copies of comments received are included in Appendix C.
Environmental Assessment 7-1 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819

m
c m
c ?o
c
m o
v v
m o m 0
0
O 0
° 0
O
L C N •C C to L N
O € O a) H T L C N C C ? t N
O ?p € 0 0 h L C aO 'C C? I N
o c0 € 0 a) F-

w
0 w
O N
O
w
N
0 U a)
a) 0 U -
L .C C C L
, w E N O
E a)
p U ()
a) U) -
L .C C C -0
E w a) E N O ()
O U N
cn
L C C C E L
to O a) 0

d 0 Oo m =-r- U
mw c 3 c7i map
3 U 0) N m tZ = V
mw c 3 v ?°y-O
? y m a) m - .L U
mw c 3 0 „-O
3
fA
C - c: :E- o C
mo 'a)U'3 C o - o? c? ° c
O)o 0
)0 3 0 0 0 t- c L 0 c
°'0 0) 0 3 0 0
m o
" :3
L
m m 73
m m
N
4) m L
a) o U Q)
. ,?
?c
EU E `m c 0 o
.fl
U
EU N Ems? c': 0 a) o U?
L
EU N E
°
.
.
-2 m
aci 0-
omc a)
3
0Lm 0 0 0 ;6
r-
0 0 0 0- 3
o
E (D c) 0) E L) 0 0) :E 00 0,
0 C) -0 0 CD < U) -0
0
`
E
03° N03°- °
03nE
0a
))
-
U .? N U H E C E
oaa))r?
U •? N U H E C o Q)
U? N U 3 E C
U d V O N .0 T
E O m .2
,O
U 9 N 2 O T)
C C_C]n 0Cl N j
c
C CLn 00 (9 C CLd 0?H N
0) U N a) U O C
Z O O m O U O C
Z m U a) E Z N 'o

LO Q a0)n
rn"
n
` 0)_
Q n0) n
a
a) 0
a) Q a) n0) n O)
n
a) a) m m
. m a
c
) a) m a) o
Q fn2 -C
L? U m
m
c
o
J-
Q ?'(n24 ? U . m
c
o
Q ?cn?L?? U
D
N
00
N
c C .LO-
.O m d° c
o
Sw- m a) a)
ULO. L) U) O 'C U c) b ? w U> O 30 0)
62 a) a)c m
M-0 y N a) m
T,? L N T M
0 c
L c)3
CL v
_c 3 3 cn0 o3
o E m ?'o•c-L
-0 ° o c a) 0 c am
a? 30 ° 3 ?n a)
~
C

Q
a) C 7 N C O T

g.°- a) a) m NL o)
3
0
a) U L U n m m N N m` C Q C _

a) a) aE oLm? ° aa) TQ) c 0 U)
N a) a) 0)
>
.C
E-0 c- E.c pp ono a)
U E 0
0)
-0 o 0 > X m m 0 c ° c> m
a) a) a) Cl
3 0
'
? - 0 0
T.?Z v a?'i
o
_)

? C 0 o
? ?
a) p, -0 a) = C O
° 3 0
°D EQ °nm E a 0 ?w
? a)
o
o 3: O L X O L O L` 'p 0 C- E
U C 0 C p :5
ai
3
U a) X L m m 0
(6

o d C > a)
O U a) m -0
i
° ° •
O I- O U a) m .... N C
m 'U 5= n a
O
3
°
`
o °'
L o
N
w •- L L -O C
E a)
o W
?
nk c 3
oa
w
-0 .
°•
a) 0 ai a
?
a
0?
m _
rn 0 0 0 m
E- o
-
)
c
L) c
M a) a
i
0
>
p)
c U m
c >
U)'- 0
0 U m•`w c
.
°
m
cn
nm
° E? c o m a) U c E ° 71 Ew
°) ?.5 °) _
= rn
0
`aQ c? a) mLU
E .
o m 3 m?L m a)
N a
a0 E m c?.o 3 mZ m? o0 LD c .0) 4= 0 1

- c
0° E E :D
0Q

> L C m a) w
0 •C U N a) N N
0 C .O U U -O a) m m W 'o U O U ,? -O
<
?
m n
C
L ? U E a) O
D
N

` V)
2) a) m L -0
E L ,
E '
- a) 0 C
0 -° ° 0 'v
a) ?
- 3 o 0 v c a) 0= c 3 n r a
p)
0
=
°
O ?
? Q
O 0 0 a) a
c m? 0 m
C N CD
?,°) 0 :3 E m
- N i? ?
5 a)
ii
iH. =I
0
c a) ° a ar o)= m0 ° °w
c L U a-°
p c
m O
o m-0 a> c a Z` E° 0-6 L
> Q C U 3 N
Q O w 3 0 m
n
0
CD w
EM o
v c Q
L
L m c
E °
0 >
0
o O

c
.o a, 0'?
E
O Lli a
•
a)
ao
d 0 0
H.
rnrn? a) a)
0 rn Or- .0
-0
.c C
3'- CU
0? m c
p a) Q
0
Af
n- m °) i= a)

v 0

(n 0

BL
O
-0
_ c:
am
ac
u
co m
0-
U) ._
?
N
w
0
? m ? O
E O

-
j
0..

?- 0
U N 0) C
Z
H L
a) ?
m
? 5
-
a) 0 -0 U Z -E
C
C>
O C
U O u) m 7 - m p p m N U 7 L E 7 m m N U)
U n
O
E Q C O C
N O 0 n
°
U `
.
..
0 3 0) c c E 0
m
o ?' c °) a) aa)) 0 m c ani w 3 0 0- - 0) ? °c) 3 0 0 0
m
'
a
L 0
°
)
- - E 0? E L a) m 0 c .g
m
0
0 0
U m cn C
(D c m o
?' E 3 a) 7.
) c- 3 n
c
ai a)
0M ?.N
J-
C -7 U a W N u! 7 a) 1> a)
u)
!E a m 0
°)
0 o
L
m ° n c° c a ?
'D U a a) C 7

> 0?
c
E
?-
Q ?
?
7 L a) .,- U) n 0
-oa) c
a 0)?K
0
0
E .X C ° ` U O C U a) .C C a) m C n -°
-
o-°
m
°
E
° ? °'?.
me 0
C .C U M O U
n
a)

t L
rn?a)
3 E vi o C 0) a) w 0
- --) omL_
E
a)
u
)
-0 a)
c a) a) Z 0 mw 0
a)0? 0`0 c: 0)
m
c -0a)
U
i. Fz .
a
O
°
°° 0° E
w
u) io °C a) U) M a) aa)) o T
-
E.E
a)
? 0 3 0?D '? 0 x E in c a) 0 m 0 C .6 ,
n
U) a) > L ? Q a) o
o m?-0 0 ac cn o
a
E
3 ° c
m c.` n.? cU) En a•- o m 0 0)- a) (D 0 o cn
n C 0 0 M° 0
)
a) c--o 3 0 ?? -o
m
° O
c
N 6) E
° o n
?N V ° cn a
E U
o
o o U U
o'er o•°? a) N? 0 3 00(n-0 Qc? 0 0 a0 m 7
o c o c a)
rna0 m U)
° 3
a)
O .O 0)0)-0-0 N C)
.L-? 2 0=p () CON (6 a) -a m U' a) °U •M 0 .T w
` o
a) n N C O a)
m
CL ac - O c U)
4D ?) c.c 3° U
o E 0 0-a) -F; rn° a) E 3 U°
a
o
)
3E
2 0 ? -2 3 a)? c
a)
)
U) -2 0.
15 E
o
HLOLw °O0nn o o??
m EO
?o
E.°
)
o>0U
`ax)°3°p?0mu:0.?z°_?aCLM< a) 0-00 n. ao
a
N°m?aE

d c
o
C
G O o
.

E Z 0
CD N co
O
V c
tC
H
?o
0 1
0
N
N
Z

N '

L

c '
a)
c '
a)
Q
) CO
Q
c o
O z
W I- '

n
L

F

H

7
r

L
f0
' U
LO
O
O
N
N
N ?
O
E
N
O
Z
C o 2
O
C. m
c
a)
LL
m
a? C:

C p
o v o a -o 'o
U

` O
c O

c O

c O

c O

c

V O

c O

c
v
•`
N
m
ac)
ac)
aa)) y
O
a)
N
:3 E E E E E a` E E

c U U U U U U U

O
0 m
' m
3

o)
a)
N
-C -

p 0 °

? N vi E

-O O° Cl)

cn C ?
?
3 0 a)

- N O m

C 0 0

Q) (6 ID
cn
a)mcmE

Z . °? -o.- o
co
0)
3 0

Ea)

m

o c
-

3U
.- (n o
>co vi m U)
m C V
m° V
a)
ca)(L)>
? V U C U
mrna)a) c E
c ?- O Q
(D Lo
> p m m C a)
Q ' 'D c N T -
3 v) m C
t C) a) co (0 >
> m Q'
2 0 3 C in C.
? m a) m a) 0 'o .°'t
CL
co N N Q N U)
U >
0
to (0 O a)
w CU a)
)
? Q
c OL U 7>
) a) O L
.
'i) O X
-0
_ L6
CN -E--? C V
E
3 2) > 0 0
a) L_
3
p
0
9 N C U
E O o a
a) U ?_
° °i•
(n L a) cm
co 0
°
L CU -O T
a)r L oo
_
m .O Cn U C ca?
C. O C
.
o N
:3 m a)
n
> o cn-° 0 O)
c o
?Q
<`? - r- a) -° ° ° U
c aCL x U)
> X v_,
m -0?
6 U

co 3 U > °
0 ° w w
U)
vi pL
c
ac'3
? p
m
m ??a
m a`nii?'v
C X m?j- o
O a)? C?
a`ni ELaia)cu
O' O N .
a)o
L 0
a) c
cn
O a) N p >
a) > Q O

p 0
m? Y

m N m

Q) U

C 3 C. Z3 C >O

_

3 a)

C C w L
O

O
U
cn C
L 'D m m
cp > C O
a) 73 J]f
C
C a)
'O O
(n
C j> C
-
C E _V 0 p `
0
L4)
N m 0.
U C O
N 7 p
E E
cu U

m
_ C m cn r
C:
m O

U
N -

a)
Q) c
C m

O
n

) „
,

m N U _
T,
E _

C
E m ,C a) ? 'C a) C m E m :t C U cp (?

-D
N

O
C

) p
L > C_

L
. -. in
C

CD
a) N Ul
V

?

n c
m
m -C
U
3

m

m
U
j

O -0
`• U Y m o a) w
w-. .
a)
.L-? m O
> C_ C) - _
3 r .
N w a) •4) _O _ m cn
L +L- m U) C .O
Z 7 O

m
Q O i? C) E

'O
V N m O C
A Q) cn

a) o C
U) C p Co L 0

p a)
mo - m - O .L-+ Co L

>° (n D p C E a) O
SC 0 c p
Co Zn-
m
m
z N
TN
)a
0 c
L.
a 3 o m c
o)a ,na
cn Tc0)
EU
m c
L LL m cn ° E
N m a) °-' °
o
o if Q
C
a) 0
? U L)t o
m0' °
EQ? _0

o oy
j
a N C
a
cQ
o w
w ?
D
Um
m 2 u -0 m
3 ?
,? 0)
u °
o y

LL m e
a) ?
r o p.>o
M

E cn

a) c:
O
T
?.
a)m
U)
m
m ° o
c
L) -0 ce N
p
v o
in
co
)m`o
p -
1)-0
p
Mp
2 Y
o
??c0a0m ? vi
i
3a
o
`n
C
- ocanLn
N p
m o a
p (
Lr-
,
Q) -5
c0
3
Y
to ?
N
C
O co N
L .0
v) E a) 7°

in -o E E a) C Q

0) Q) m 'O cn N L

?
= (1)

C O)o a) -0

n L
N m
a C

W o m o T

C O) E T O

m 0
u7
- ?O
a) cn :5
W a) +L.. T U
C:
E? 'o
O C C O
c C)D o c 'D E a) C U C
m
m
Esc m ,.- c
C
m a) O a) a) o °
°? p m 00
E
"
t ,n
o
?' m `?
a ?? L
m m C a) O c= ?pL o, ? 5 a)d U
o
o
m
= a a F- ?>
LL C i c
m Qa
O O C
3 c. cn a
i?
"O O .C !E
_0 O N
c 0 E 3° 3
0 p_ C:
c
N p U E C
E w p 0 C
N c C
a) v_ p? C N
a)
??ui °)
c m. m >N E0 C? a)
° p a) ?LL n
t
E ?? c?? m
,ncn
c?,n
cn U) 'O C v)
O

m E
N E p
a)
a) cl a) m
-
3
E C U
) L
mcp.
U- 3 p X
3
1

t0 cl 3m>a)m
L O C
T
0-
m °°??
p m N O
L) om
'O L
0
` m a)
o° a)0 o
m C. It
hO m
c ()c 0 'O
7 0
L ° v) m a) p a
cyo 4
tq C
m rna) o?
a) ` C C_ O
C
L
0
..
°- N
p 0-

p 4-
L)
s c ?`GV C U

?n
d d d >i a _
P L c0') _0 70 F- m 0 :S :S d 3 O m L m 0 ;
a
i
o c
Q in C Y >i -0 C F- m O cs Q U)
m

d

E 6 c m
_
r N co
N
0 r-
V D D Z
0
0
0
N
L
N
N
O
Z
M
r-I
c
N
Cl)
Cl)
N
CO
Q
ro )
aci 00
oZ
Wa

Q)
CL
ro
U
E/)
N N C

m ca m m V) O ° ?_ N c Q? CO
°
j;z

E
1 _0 a)
0
-
C
w
m `
N-0 N U)
M N U
O D N
' C
O C co
-0
.
() r)
U
70 m ?m'
-o
•(p cL
m m
U D c-0
C O ?
m E w
c c a)
U m
m c c`a m
'0(D L7
_ m p
_
0 :E5 .2
C: a)
a
U) CL E

my 'm?as 0
m U) a-om 0 aV o>a'Eo
tl1 (D E c a)
a) c
C • .
c o
- a O U
? - c c m
m m
U) m 0 E io m-
O
m 0 ?? 0

O O
C
_ 0

a.` O
U L
E c
a) o

p v O
`
c ?C1 m
CL E
7 O 0
L) L
!q O "L Z d (p (n ?
O 0) _
0
m ° `- m u1 N O .C L-
-

d
o
E? U
m 0)m 3
0° m
.0
m Q) C
m C
3 F mm o
O
N O'E
L)
70 °i a)
a ._ c
m omyc-- a
0,2 mom m
,? d
o ?a
-00
c ? c
o
H W
M
m O
N N L N m

~ m C
N° C
co > O

N .o
U O
U) U)
Z
c
?
(n
a) F- m
-0 0) o _ L a)
o I- 5>
ca m o

a) p m
° c

O
U c
N
00 c
a)
E
m.
m L)
v - ;-
O
a)
c a)
:3 (0
o o c o
0 0 ° p
o 0
0 O
0o E N
` p
m
° m
U)-
-

N
O O
C m N .0
C
U
0 0)
p
m °
0
U)
p N Q) U Un C Vi
C
LL (n 0) m
a) C .? U C m N
N (n Y L 0 (n
Q1 O O C
a) C O
a) 0 p N C L a) m
N a) ? N O

cli cc
? :c'
EO E ° m a m m i m? E EZ 0w
U c
a
a aa)
o -D 3
c o
N C
o L C ?
o - a
O a l a E a) p p
O
m
Z ._ m m
CL 3L c Uo.D O O
Q c a U -
U ?.E O
Z u, U ao a)
Q -
cn
a)
U)
O
U D

_

a)

m

m m
:3
a
U)
r

cn L
.
7
o = .C
a) Un
.E -U N > -
m.
in a)
>> a) m 0
N

E 3'
m
'c (D
m
o L O
L
" 0
t!
m m
N a) Co
a) ,0 2= 70
Q O (°n
E C •0 7 O -
o
a)
a) E O a)
m (n Q 0)
N m> C
O cu
m ui N O
L.L
.
.?
0 ?
d
N U p C o 7
(p O a) U

0 ?11 = N Q)

d) :3
E p a)
C7 - p m 0
m p 0
p
v- p >
` O U (6 > Q U
c
(D
p
-0 E 0

p a -
C 0

o N

p -O

W m
C
E U-c C_ (p

0) N

U

m a) N
'p 'p N

N

C

°

a? a ? C
-0 Lr- U
N N m
0
Q
'N 0. m
C C p 0 0)
3 -O m L- m 0 :3 o E E
N o p 0
(D
" O m-
E
-O m
U (n O - 0 z
L C ro N
(
>_ ° N a) ° w?° 0=
m a m L
L .? C: U)
m° N p a) .
p 0 w O p
O U
- a
- U > C
E ( 3 N U) o0 ?
.
a .
E C° U o C C

CL° M C >,

U (n C O
? fn
L° U '°

"a T

O > >+

a

N
O D L
O_
a) .4
E U O. ?'
` -oho EXO? ??TO a`cj3ommui
a Er)° sc-°
> of c?ia ?°) io

O N _
3a:°
E 3 N O
N03? 0. °
a w >-.m C
m
Ea)o? aa)i 3 O r C
`)'-c° ` (n 0) U)
c?(nE°
a) C? o 7
O
c n n O E C C w N
?' 000
-o V c c
cn
a? o m
7 E (n c C
E' m U-r-
m 0 m ELL o
cn?-? ?
U)- c
> c 0-0 Ca °
a ° a) c moo
-
m m to m C D --0'0
. C 0 0 p cn m a) ?c E
U a w m (n a) ix m
C: U)
a) 0 m C N OC `

d

U
t- L>'

T ? c o m-

a N N a m

C
- ?- O

O
'm m =-0

a C

= d m

9
O- ?- U
E `
N C •E
co
U o 0)• 3
L a) O
a)
m
7 .=
) N
° U U)
C:
a) o
C p 0
O
p m C in u)
E s C
j
ca -0
' j ) a 3
E
0 Z z3
a) C
m 0) ,? `
p- a) .x m
o (n 0-0
)
p L C -0 Co

N r
a) a •?
° ,
m z C E -0 =3
O O N
(,? .0

c T 3 N

a) -
L
m 0

_p
m-0 °

d -O Y D D Y p

co 0-0 c L
o
`m L
? = •7 m

°
3 o 3
c .Q

c N D) 0
o O u) m
c m C -
E
m c
3
_0 L m m (n c
p m
U m -D >+ m ? U)
co Q ?
L o m. ui
=_ (n N L
m a) > ?
w OU L a > m
°
O m m E a) m
+.., L m"
L C'a
H .? d C N E - c
r-
C
N
0
m p `
0U) m a
a) -0
C j
0)? °
U
E °)U) _

L 3- L
3 (
i
o m
U?:> 7
mw m E a)
0)
0)
C
m o N C M.0
o c E c i o•?.m
E °) o
m- C
0 3
m a)
7 Q D n
Co -
O L O-C C 0)
-0 0) C
C° L O`
C
E
N 0) o a> m

L E N
(n O E D> m 'n
M '0 w
N a c O m L
(n
E
E a) ` (n m°
C 3 °U 0) . Z d
•C C •X Q C U '0 (n• n N a E
C
m

C 0 o
N d N :3 a) 'C G L
O m m
0)
C
O w O C U

€ N
0 w a) c a)
>
C a
U N N
j -0 0- - p- L m
°
W c c cn
o E ac6 E
-0 C f? o a°
U C c.- E c
m 0-- 0 0
o o)c c
C O N rn_
m m m
CL
° c
m W a)-C co--
U m o
N a) co i=
T

o
m.?
°
m
0 m m
n?
-
.E ao
-0 m '?-
?'=L_0
--
to U p` (n
.E O - ° a
7 O U 0)
o E
w
N O
p
-
c:
d
0 (6
0
p E o m ?3 3
L N C
D
y..
C U?
cn
0) O m C
-p I
-0
-0 o- m 0 ..- .? a)
2 a o-0 r-
L U p C N
0
T-
O D 0
C U
C •0 L
C m
C
E
N a 0 C -
L 0 3 E-0
((n -0 C 0
p 0 ?O ?5 -o V)
C 7
N '0 C O N
m 6
E
to
m m It ° C C C
E
C ?cw' a)

L) in°)voC

o
• a? om

w m o°
°moE
3•
o-- L
c°
0J-
om c rnv?
E
a(n
`n
-0U) moo>.o
o E
m
m m
CL E
m
'0
C °
>,
O
O O r
N c m
Q?
E o a L ° 0 M 0 aw m.
(n
E C E a
) Q
N °
0
E
'> Fu N
Q
C) a)
-0
U
L M E 0 0 (D p
U o O
•
L N L N .
m p 0
`
-E
:3 ?
3 aj 0 N N
L
m Y °O a)
L O
D
C a) -C
'
y
H w- ao woo a) 3 H m (n 0 E C CL
F-
- ?(o p
a(n - H m w D in E E
E
co co
c c
d 0 0

C co
U ?a
U
E
Z = ? N co It LO (o L ?
o 0 o
C) Z Z

C
11,

r

C
L
cD
U

N O = L !e W w W
>E_0 ?3 c°o Q30 m Q
o?? N0 c 3 E L?Q'? 3 E CO
r
-

W (0
0

to m

-0-0 0

U

a) m a) N Z a`) L C Z ?..
Q) oo
a) m m a) Z a) L
0
z p
Z
(D c
° -
0
-aU _
-°
U
L _0 ° to W-o w m >,
30-0 ap c c Qn
L-0 ° o W -0 •-
3m-0 ap c c
Wp2i Z a of M LLj m 3 a) oZ °-a°i a
a
m m 3(°Z^ami
d
U a)
ZLU m 7 c
-° °
LQ ._
? a
.c
O u EW_ mo
O -o a
Q ?W-0
°
a) Q a)
_ ° ? 70 cn C
>
m a) >
m a)
d ? 0 cu c c o cm E0? a) 0 E a) o :)
in
C L
c?
O a) y
41 L na)
C 7 u C_ C O 07 N to
'5 m
C C `O O) N
CL L
70 0
?- O O C N ?- L O
-
O
'

d O d

W N

U a)

O m

C (0 3 C)
to
° °? d. N E
10
3
O
d
V) o)
N
(n 70 o
_
a-0iv3
E m
mQ U ° a
70 a) c
70 Q) a>, o °)? aEi ° a)
? ?:3
E a>, ° m
? aa)) °
mrn? °a a) c°m aci? 3
07
E(°oC 0)wE
Q Ec?octn
c`ocmimw
Q
O Q N
mI L
° O N
CL - .C to
V
- a) to
L p
Co 0.- (D m C
OU j
m aL
` m 6.2 m m c
p
?
m C- L
O U
-O
0
o
N _ 3
0 O •
O
a) •-
N O L
> c L
-O
cn C:-E- c E Z O
-
m
3 W ?
u) c m •E - c E Z
L
-O m-
-
3 w ()
o
= a) o
3E? -0 CD a
co L •O
° o U
O
-0
E a)
?tnE- m
m? 0
O
N
n nE?m
°)
m
m m
v)UEZ
3° a..w
Eon ?
C
o. _
L m E w
?oa`)?co° _
.D m E 0
°?a)?cou)c6H C
()
E c 0 W u) E a) 00 Co ? ?.? > 0 a) >.00.- ?.0 ? o m > o0
> En E
C °) U ?F a 7 (D U a) a) m 0 C j) O(D U Y N` o !n O aEi U O
cn W QZ 1.9 '--0Z ?:-o a= C 2 W :?iZ m a2 7 0w2Z U
_0
u)
(0 O
O a) >,.O O m
a)
L) 'O

s
o?
3
.2
(D QccoC) 7
No M c ac
aL

N Y Q O O = N O Q ?
Q
0
0
O O= O O
co is 0 t m E a) a)
O C
10 .
o a) a
a)W v -
O u)
=
-0 LO a) -No N ago a) o f
ff
aa)0)-'0)
C N sv
Ucn
?
091)
O
moU=EcUco
m OUwQ co
X
C) co -E toc
O (n _O c ?
co
?-
76
L
?, a) •cU
(D
Z L L
co
c
L O
L
'O
L M
a) O
- O Z a
E u?
)
7 U Q C L m °) Q' W
M
0-0 a
O E a)
7
O L m co <
E m
LO-- m.2 41 In >, CD
> a) L> u) 7 Y
-
C .C 0)
0 (n
C a) C
Q
w a) U .
a v a) (0 co r- m
m E 0)
m'- E
X u) cn o' N - U
C 0)
? o
?
' (2 O-
Z) to
-
: 0
m U
a) a .
CL (n
_
E°a)w
C a) N
3
o0
?p

mm
a)
3

ri
c 0 0
c CL
acc m? N
(D >•Q o
0 a)
? w a°
w toUa IX ° a) c W
a)
ai°)cLn.o
° E>
co
++ to0wEa
°!E m to
°?0 a 0D: a (D C)
-0wmEc?m? 3a 0)mcoq
oo
?c
m
m o

EE
c

a)
y D
w o U) a = 70 °_•^-' a) > a? E .
?
??L E > io c
£• Y C C -O O
c U m°
a
(D -0 E O E? 0 a) N m
> E a a) Q' co _ a) 0)
c} 3 L ao
°
>
E aa)o 0) )

aU n ° m 0Nw00 O

a)E?
>
Y m(n~Ea)E
r
CU
o
u
0
0
w?

- L)
-1
a)
a .
n Z) a)
p ?
-
-
W o
2
m
c
V L C
O C to
°m
t-4 t
E' L v
m
=
a) tJ C p C
U?
Z E• Uo }. C
mo o'er

07
to od N

C C 7
0
Via)
°° m o o a)
'
a L
-0
- °
U) L a) a) pmj N Z m w
7 a) m m '?
-
m N
L
LL -
O-
a O
a) ° m co •> - --o 0 O C a. ?
° ?) U C -O o
c
C )
cn >, a)
a) a) L> Y co 7 m
U
O a) O
C N m L .3
° C m L m >? L U .C
a) C> T E2 Z O a) Z,
E O
a,
o
' cu a)
°
3 0 0-0 m 0 a? 3 o Ea 3?
. 3 mU o m a
Z N m 0
? vl
- o N V
C
m co •E m U
(6 N m C
L) (0
C m m to
In
a)
w (n C 3
a) N cn
w C a) °?
C m L -
T O C a)
C
_m a) to c
m-0 'D a C m N O LO w ?
p c N L) 0
"=
u)
O E w to
m
m
U a) aE o a 0 a
-0 to ° E a) mm
O -co 0-0 m 0 0 c
O w-0 m
m

>
p E D C O
'
-
a
a) L cn
O N E
C
° m
(n O U rte: 07 a
a
(D C C U U
m a d to
-0 cu
Y a) 3 cu
-Cu
U ?O
N
. O .
a)
°
m a m
O c
m E a)
_0 E C a
a)
O
L
m

0 cu
-O a)
in
c to
- m m u)

c
3 a) O

3m m
t] >' (9 C
c- c E
C
m
o m C

o
U a)m oc
2
_O
E
c
m

3

a) m
c m 3 O
o Y
.
> E 0 -° >
tn
cco' aci o tn?_a)
`n to ° E W M w
E m E
a) 2
O 2 m-
c 3

cu
O
6 d
?
tf
U n
:E 0 2 2
Imvrn o c m c .
:3
O Cl) a) ° ° 3

O C O t

O
> d
2 > O UN? > m
9 LLO -o in aE U._ U m
.M+
C

E Z N M
O
V
0
O
N
Z
L9
rl_
O
Q)
h
Q
cD ?
O M
O O
oZ
?
W

c a) CT

a)
t o m o
3o
Q
c
M°
Q

d O m 7
c- E m a) ) S)
O O W
N 0
U C O C
O U a) W
m
m

(6 'D C 7
p U C m
? U
O a) C :E- 'D
in U (a a)
41 -° ..L. to
a)

m -p a)
m 3 c E a) O
C c
o

- c

?
1 c

° m

_ `

w
a) m w a)
? '-p
OL • o
(D u
a) U c
U L 0
C) 7
O
U L
a) O C 7
7 N w Q N -fl .? 'C a)

N
cu
n

-0 aa))-0
-
0
°o in
p m

E -p co

C?
(° (n (n

a) m

E

(a
O 0 C W
a a
iU E ? U n E 7
N
0. o o U U O of d p E Q 3 N
N N U) >t
U (° ?N.`
7 7- °
O Wm
E E "a)o
m
m o
C
r C
a)
L -? C
) C
p
m V "O Q)
O C L
(n = O n
p
E Q
3 .7. -o Q E co o E m
Q) ? '3 H a)

t0

> (n a) W

a? o U)

L

E

m

z

) c
-0

0
c U) -0

7 •

of

Z

W
2 p
n .? CO a) O a)
a)
IJ w a) .L-. -0 U C N N N O
.° m C
E O U N -0
.
a) E
2 C
CU C '0 C m O a) C E a) r-
w
LL 'T p
C C° L N a p C U a)
C C >
m CO
' U C C
O E O
C
_ m a) m m O N
> -0 -0 a)
a) -p C
? O '° c

m a
)
E n
r` m
c c? m )NO?
a
(n m m in
`n ?.c
C E
E M
a) a
i
E
_ °c Fn in E
70 E -a m°
a -o E

_
O CD
Za
O
U
a) a) C 7
0 -o m a) N CT
O ? a)
U .? O
'D
Q ?
a)
?-o
a) O O a)
HU U-0
-O
Q
O
U
C
N
E 0)
0 _0
E uj
c
> O a)
mo a?U
m S
s
3U) 'c
a) a
U o
a) U
Q
°
(n (°
?- 3 7
a c
a)
_ c a) m
O L > C Q) ° p
C_ O a) N
a) O
U m C
LlJ O a)
O L C
a)
L a) - U 3-E
m .O a) 3 E _° -0 a) m
-O
m 7 -O d L
U (O D U a)
a) 2
L r 'O

>. U _

-°

CL c 4-
0
Fn -.
O (0 U
(6
U N d
7 •
E a) - 0
'a te .
-.
>
> -p C L-0
_0
O

E 0-
0
jn
a) a)
C= U .
•
Q)
'p m a) -- U)
- a C cCp U
M?
U L O 3 O
U
01
N E '
T) O O

3 3 m c0

m V a)

n? N O U Z

- o «-

- 0 a) O C N

-- O) o m .a p
-
i5
N U) w
Q) N .°
1 co - a)
E a)
n
-
CO-
E
c
a)
.? ? tm
C` of

'Fu
C a

C .
a. E

Q) a) C C]
:

.
O i
°cO
c
a
L 7 [1;0 m L

? to m

0 a
i
n
3 O 7 ` o o ?
C
O m a) .
o O)o (n m O
-O >° p m p m m E
0

O -° (°n

°) >M

C o

N :3 p? n E

U n n.c ° E E

a) -0 V m a) a)

N -0 m o 3

E °) ° -
m a?mi

L -0
n

'

°
>,
V) m
p
m 2, CD
c w U C
o m Z> o m
w c m a ,
a) -p
rn
a) = L c m
a) to
D
(n c
a
C E O O O L N W N M C> C_0 n
N `O lo c N -c- °' m 'a N O a 0)
m t5 O rn C ?, 7 N w N •p .
L N m ?- -O L CL N O- C m - 7 N
d o
3 c0 c
U CT .'n
CO
2 m U o
m 3 a) o 0 c: ) m v° w a
n
++ m
n a) C
>
N
.? w m a m
> E m E U) m o Flo
U N a) N .C a)?
4- m m ma
0)-o c L C c c
m m m
O e
'E

O N L-. Z C "'.• (0

a) 0) C'
'D a) U M (D
LL m
7 a) E O L o
o 7 •L-- 7 _0 a)
_
O
N 3
' m U) 0
N 2 = O (n
n a) -0
-
3
m
E O •?
E c`o -0 c
L N c >
c6 m° E
?C
c 0- N
u'mnrnM D
cio U m -p n
mm En »-?
° c6 c
c m E (n m CO M O E CT m
° m o c o` L o m
C:
° m 3 a) 3 0
m (n
c
C w
2 o a)
rn cn i
t o a p) m. (n M
.
Z a) cn
3 E i o o
a o o a m

E 0)
a) C E _
?.=
C

-0
E oU m u 7
L` T Q) 76 m a)
o

.
a) Q a)
m - m

O N o o

3 CT a) d

n

L

y

O
m
3
C m
3 m 0-
-0
- 7 Q)
O a) x c
m U > a) a) 3 O
w
'D a) L to
E _
L T-
U
m
m to m
C m
L L C
m
o m A= ?? co V ?,Z 3 a)E _
m C
M
N m o ?
,
a)a E c m
o 0 r? a
> c ° ?.- N? o? N c mU - o
p CD
- o E 3 m o
L C`
`
y ° - c
L O O
L d 3 o c
O

' W > m o c y- rn
= 7 n a)
0 (n
U
0
- a)
o > o
O
L a
? Cn v_ p
C 7 U (n o 3
m
7
E 3 v- m >
o T(0 M
Eaa)r`
a 3 m
0
Vl (
a
Er (
j)
4 m e C
m m u)
?? ?w.N U (n
c o
°-)
0
o? c ??-0 ;
(O O a (D U
E
o m C=
a a)
o
m
-C u) 0- w W ?
E o Cm
E° o f
m
m L 7 a
i
E O O O U
3 m n Z •
)
.?- LL L 'O (T p
o
o
C C O C a) m a)
a) .C N -O m
Q
(n a) n O a)
O U C
C O
? ° -p L
' a)
? p) 7
E O CO L
`.? N O C c
C) +.. C CO ID
N U m
-0
L O to L
n n
m
-0
?' a) a) a) 0--o
"?' Q) a)
.L
. C
a)
.
as ° m
CD CM D _
U °" °) m ° ami m° E m?-0 °)(°n ?-0 0)m a=im (D 0 .
3 E
m ?:
E coo axi mm aa)i nnE c a`))" °o
U°o aa))U o2aa)) oo tm
p
U 3 - E ~ nn Of U) E m m o E _
o_ U) U 0.S U m U?"= U Cl- to
co m
c c
w
C
O
o
41 CO N
E 6 N L N M 't In CO t`

V z z
co
0
0
N
Q)
N
Z

t

C
c
N
C ,
N
co
Q
CO
Q) '
)
c o
°Z
? a
W I-
C

J

l
7

e

0 70 E Q)
u)
Q

w w

c a)o

>
O

m
c o
-
c
U
Q)
o
E E c c
-0
3 0
3
.N E w t? t O O
?n m

E O E o p) m
In
T

m
cD E U - 2
a c ?) 0
° 60
o cn
?Y
a) C EU
p
v
a)
C a)
C
c
Q) ? .0 Z
4) (p 2 p o
O
Q?
Uc 0-0
° N > UL-'
m o c
E
v>
C c o
? a)
• 5 2L
L J
O

U
) N I E
(0 U
_°

O
C p C
3 41
U)
a rn
u) U
u) C_ C O m O m
_ C U a
m
dy 2
' En O > ' °
O a) a)
> E
?
?i. D
o N
Q N
U a)
°) C
cmi O
T
-
io N

Q c
o
-p w
0 L a) m
cL -0
c a)
m ` U°
3Q
a 7

w c
m ?
o
`-° E
m m m
m
- w
Q) ) -o _0 Z -p
m cf) _,°'
(D -0
a)
O
p C (1)
p a)
p w-
O a)
O o LL o O E
C
Q) ()

0
C

_° c _0

Q) c c N

? U
c m
L - 41
__ m
in
m = 3 ?
e

N C
Q)
u) C
O V
O C
a) to
>
O C) C
Q) d
C N cn Q C
m
E Q) E C:) E U) CL
o- c E 9 E o? a) U) E
cn
a) E
0 -6 E N E C Q)

(n

a)
-
n U Q U L U Q ? m U
_0 d
?w_0 Z U
N
U

C C

N c0
O
p c C
O
N C a) ?C (0 E
O M C N o v-
w O a7 m L 0
= O C w

a)
a)
cn a7 >.:U C
O m
a)

>

m
:3
=
En
En
0-0
U
>

0 .
E E 0).L/) -Co- -p C H E> °

°
_ a) C
O
-O C E Q)
- C N
m
m w U ,
-0
I
CT L Q)
v U a C
- 0
' F=
O L
4) m "D
L 0) u) m a) I? N O- Z''
-
c a) io
> 0)m c U) 3
> -- (0 E
E _ Q) O
o U)

C
L U
CU

N !?
r-
0

C

3 ?
d

'p C m N C m° > Q) p)

U N C-
!E 7? o
g 0
in
N v1 -E w
En o•2
m 3 m
w -
°? o
m m 3 0 ?c ° m 0
°)
°
- o
c
a) a 3L a)
= 3 3 >_0 o
? c
o
o -
m p 0._ p ?
°
m-
o c
o?
a)
a)
0 c
a)
a) 0) m °
L
L
o `

0) ?? Q)
?N-0

'p
N
U)
-0

C

tpc?
3EF
00-
(0 0-0 N 0) C O 7

o)
m- a1 wp L
a)
ma)
C
m Q1

o
-p
a) N
C p O>
u) p VJ U)
p L
m? O m -- ... a)LL OL`? t C
(n
" w
L-. Q)
)
> o N N a L Q)=
0)

U

m 70
c D N O N C c a a L n M L
0) U
-
a
C
u)

m
Q)

? CO _
C m

C
.
aUi
c E
ca . O N

a
L U
O a) O _
0
)
m
C -0 m I m° c j6 w m
a) O
- N o C o

a) a o Cl)
) E

co 0 3
a)

c
O
C a
i
°i .?. a)
? `
°
3v
v o
0_ a
C: p O (O U p
N Q)._ E a) O Y o
?3o?u Ecncom m a
.L-.
?
? d a)
m
?3mo.a' p_
:3
p ( o ic
n
p _
= ?
c a) c
0 O °
U
? a v C° a) 0) ? -Fn > ?
o a) m o .> m ? ? co N o
?+
C •? c _0
p
O 70 _r
4) d
N O

- `
? N o
F 0 ° -0 L p E m- E I_-
d w 0
M N Q) [0 U
p>'<p >. ? O
C
d
C m .p
>
-
0

m
) C
a) .N a) m e c0 p >,
a) o N
N C
N
U m° a) m?> s> L o o p -°
0 O 0
U C
a) °a) C
(
Q)
0-0 a) a
°
`
= a)
3 cn°
a' ao.a)
.
O (n ono
O ? ?U?c70
orn
D1
?
p MM
- m= m cn
c
u
[
C >
to
V
a
p
o
L V Q)
N U
N .m E
0 •
C m 3
a)
+,
N
u w p o a) ? o 0 V S. Oa m co c o ?? o? a0-o ° ac m g

E o a) E a) c• m Fn
c°w N n
o

m
m 0_
m ac) a) m
°-0-0
0 o m o
w a) a
c cn O a)
Q) o v)
v m 0)? E a) cn o a) c-0
m v).- cn

m m°
O > S

o a)
r- (D C

?
o c
m o a co n m r--0 u)
o p o a? a) o 0 o a) ° m E.S E 0 o
cl- a) f
a
i
E

a m
cA
o-0
-
M M
U N O O C L d- '0 O
O ?. U) a)
co
c
0
C m O'
.D
C

a) > C p °' N 0 Q s ° o U) a) O 3 .c

m

>
~
? a)
o 3: °

>
a
m
a) a) v of m

0

L
-C
. U O
E
c`a
L
a) cu
w

(D

cu U
7
??? O 0 O?
0 m -0
V
-

? Om L_ v7 N _

in Q) a) m Z
C C N O :3
fu O_ U :3
•= ?" U
m C +-'
c
U O
d L Q) u) m 0 3 0 X ?- O p U
E
-
m
E O m p) w O .C a)
U)
N C p
-0 ]
U L
N
3 `
H C p O ul
O
E a m
U
m p ?:
- O N O
c
O C- a) C
L
m m m C
w U L 'p 41
O
i m
C u) _0
o w a)
o
?
O u
) 5
o'
?' ?
E
C
a
o o,o > o a ?
3 m ?. o
- p
X
c a)L a) E m
?o 0? m
E
o >
>

o
o 7

U a
c

oo

c L) Y m
70 c
n

c> °
o
FD
O c
rn m
E
E? c a
E
o ? ?

a) Cl
m
°)

3
,
w O
U E
0> C 0
O
° c)
a) Q)
c
-0 a)
O 0- -p O w c
m N o . C
c: e
w Q) cNO
C m m m c
d Q)
.` N t
(D
m E
0
U O O
2
E v
i
p N c
E •C
m e cn N p O C j to p C T o
(n
E) N m
?3 'M w L U

0

u)
- 0.
U
U
Q)
O C j
m (d
a
p
N
O

U
p

> O
C C

0 m a)
>
d

N
m
E
= O
E
a

U
O
E C p

N O) _0 > m -p a)
N
Q) ? cn N ?p 0 U>
N c
LP
C
>.
O C C
m C O m

L
p
C
m J> N

°

Q
)
E Q p
U)
d°) 0
aw a) 0 ?t° O _
0- cam03
Ho?Na
m ? oa>>?
0 °
°3>
H IL-
cu - m
uu)
H .
u
i v
)
c c a)
C
G7 o o
(n
E Z 00 0) 1 co
L r co
= U N C7 V
U)
V O
Z O
Z -5
0
O
N
N
N
0
Z

C
N
h
Q)
h
Q
? M
C ?
W ?

N o
? ? rn
c
L °'
O

L
a)
L m
_0 Y_
c O m m
a)
C
4=
C
?'-

C
3
-0 _
(o =
C 3
m
C (n
O - 72& ? O 0 a) ? _0 mO 4-O 00
O

0 U)

N CAm

N Q) c ;o

.C w m ??

m

7 14- c)

N N
tnJ
a) m
V c C -0 aa) 0 _0 C r ? .C 3 N o ?' L--
O

J a) m

C C°

E
? m
O (6 7

'0 7

a m mp

L

o
O "o
C > a) 0)
C

0-

3
O Ep rn u)
m O
a ai
'D
m
a
m U
C 7 C
? (n
-o a U
;E m
n. O

N

3 mo

c
cocoom0

OL) cn

cn u)

(n
.m
0) c
7E
3
m
U)
E
?
E

C > -
3
c - N C co' w .
c-
i
O ° n a
) ;(n mm -0 a o(YE ai u)i=D ma
O. n mL m
a'? 0 3 a o o? :3 E ??
c
a)

)

3

)
a°i

0
o cn a) a)

-0 a)

.n

c c
U)

m a
-0

o? m

c
m
c o o c
w a) in E
N? m
L c
m c
m
r E
E
E m
QO
a)
7
cc ° 00L
c m o
0 3
m 3
' U U c
c n,n'- . c
and m E
e
'-
m N
jFj aCI
U) C
0
- U
O U
C
C
N =3 a) (6
'C C
'C
°
m
-O m
3 OU n
rn 0 O
° `O
'O
_0
m CL U m
m U
--0
(n

m
-
m 0 a)
3
° m
C ' m m
E 7 m m m
m- C C o m
?
L
. ° in
C m ° u
i
C m p c m
C m n m a
C w a)
C .
L m
U
°
C)
m o a)
cps
°)
ELaomm
?
c C .
-
w
o°
cL
a) °
cL
m°
a)EJ
E m
-°m
D D
me
E m ?
m
m
E a) m
m n C L
-0
t- .2
m n p E E m
E 0 o N C o
n
E 'Fn Z3
U) .o
w 3 0 'n -o )
a) 'V) a)
E .(n a)
E .? 0 0
o n cn m m m o c c
m.
O
U L
o
1- m O O 'D 7 a)
CO ,t m 0 Q L a)
F- 'o 0 a)
U 'o 0 a)
U o a) a)
E 2 b 0 7
Z o m O
Q? 7) U L E
F- w
O m C p U
Z O
' E ?`

a) p ()
L
u)
°
) C 0)

m c

?
O

_
t L 'S c E -0 m
F m m '? o c_
_°
g m m m _m c_n w `cn m?
•r- 7 co

O p a)
0
n 'Op m N
C
m
n~ C
a) m
U
?o C 70
7
m .C
3 m
a) n x
a)
T
L
-° a)
U
m
m C
.
'n m
E U w O
O c m
O
o Q) c C t
m m N
C L r
-
- u) 7
c v- -0 E a)
U
m 0
U
m m
L

= c-q
> a) >
u) a) c N
a) 'O O- T
C- m 0
m T 2
p 3
Q1
_U U o
E'
1] L •-

- E

.?
U ?
U
w-0 0 3
c
a) m

in
0 7
w n
'
c
0
m
Z
N
m
C
p
! 3 ?
m m L 3
cn-t m2 m U

a) m ?

0 (

00 E.D ° U o

n m

? ? L

U ?

= to

-

? L)
a) Of o
2
-`?
ma
w E c om>
a a) m a)moZ
in c 0 cmv.
°)
L C U 0 y T in 0) o a
ia? o`)
M Y °?
a) 3
N m p
0 3 .._
T Lm•.
In m •U '
= Z co 7-
m 0 p 7 2 .y
U
U .- C o c
U m °> m U N

(n
U N T

n `n o o

U a)

N

OC N
0
-0
C N
'o a) E w O
` C () m Q
-0 N T'?
7 m m U
n.D a)
D c

-
o m
a) -O >

) 7

M
cm °? a) w N m "- 0C
a) o m cn m
O N po c 70 C)
m L -p
L C O
U) oi E a)
:3 0 m
N T) N O
N 3 0
a) c m
=
>
L
' T

C
0
m-0 p C
Y)
0 7
a) > 0)

= m 7 O p

E 0

rn 3 o .D

O N .` O (6

7 m

C Q) N 0) m

D
?.
d ?
n '
'
C
a)0 c3
Z+ `
o>m L
c'm-0c;n
UcCaa
o
?0r
U) `m LL
°ani a) a)
cn,
cn'v?i*
=o
E }o T m O

g c
c fo
2 C 3
mx a) 7
E E Z M .D
a) U m' -°
> c U O) .0., C m C N .--'D E
o ?'
a? fn L
co
m
C
0 rn
w
U) u) w m p c
m a m
> m CJ Cl o
O _
a-0 •-
C C 7
a) v)
M C E m `ol•?
° c
m m
O 7
p
3 C
0-0 4) m
m ?p .L
- a) b
r- n n
O C O n
E
?` In
- O) m m E
Q) cL
M
a) 3
-r C
m E

a) = U
V m m E LL 0 (D LD
m m T? o = m X000 0 0 T- L)

' E a) a

c °° o
c0) E
7 `n

U.-
m 0

E
L)

o m

nc
m
m
0 (D Y
O m
,
O 0 o
N O L c Ox
U W- m
m c>,
n c p
° n
O >.?
N
O?
p
E
0)
M
N O
m
_
-- •
CI
m
C
a) O)
-0 U')
7
0)
Fn
Z a) n
U)
d Y
E
7
0 c
E
Umm
t
n
m
`
cU))

c`om
>
m
a)
o C

co a) m

-o O.
` _ O
o
?} TER O
T U a)
'D oc0a).?
'o 7 cn?.
a)
a
- U) a)

-0-0
z) c

° N m a) a)
'O
.
N
m
2 -
U) N
> O
a
o - L..
D a) N E O -
? o m
m
7 '
2
-0 .L-• U
3
o d
C/) 7
C a) L '=
n n io ° u, ? c
n a"
i
M L r' o E
C) M -0
U) c o
v m
M o
n m '3 i cn
o u
E a a) m m L = c
U ° 'x
0 .
3 0 0
' n U U 'O U) U H CL O)
U C C to
T 0) n C:
I` °
. O C
° E O
. ] w Z n E
Y I L m •L
C

° 7 (CO C

O a) n ?T'
N
f? 2 .0 u
i
C

m :2

-o U ,.. U)
~
O

'5 O
O
C

0 c > O)
U O
O C
N 1 C
m m 0
t=
a) t 7

-o
cccM
4- 3°>
o C? ° c?? -?
a) c oa)a)
c
0 0 a ?c
7 a)
< n
°
Z c
um
c o m V o
° m C mo
m m t

4- 3-

cn
v o
c_ c m
a
3 D
m c m
p
E m; m m
- nE E' p
?a vi 3
c I-Z
O
x U o
o a)

:3 ?o
c m O m
CL n C Q
>,
0 '
U L C m
m
'fn C E> C
O ° O 01 C 0).r-
- 7 C C J
fn 0 o p U) N V L) N co
C
3
m ._ O c?
4- 0
N U a) m m
N
m' C m
_ m
c .m
c U a) - >
N O C_
N L7) c
m
'- 3 7 m
O O` 3
rn m
C o ....
m

O
C
m 3 C m U a 0 °- Q CD N >
(0
O 0) m cn
0
U U
n c m
- m a)
N in C
U
m
0
" O
m c 'D N
' a) m
N m E N
EQ N
C7
p
c 0 0
aw`t ° L_
-p
L L
0 3l C
i
w m C N L
W m
E
°-)E a)
w 2 U
O
H m cca a) o
m o o p a)
c>o
• 7 'C
U'>
m E
i . _
. ?
a)

d U)
E Z O N co V CD I? co O Q

V U U

7

7

7
1
n

M
4t x
0
c c
O m w N U
U m
O ? OQ

p 0 m -T _
M-0
C '5
L) V) m C W
N N T ci>
- O'er
?
Y
C m E U
p 0
_
>. O
- 2 -0

d a)
0 -o :?i?
L-,
(D u)-0

C
C U
> 0 000 Q c
0 `0 -r .2 C :D rn,rn
Q
y O
M n 0 C O-
L
E C m
o 0 c °
°
0 0
_0
N

m E 0 L

3
m 0
C

> w
v ?o
U C L C aNi a)
U O>
, a) o M 0) •0 3
UL M
'
c 'p U «- p
0 O 2-0- D
M
p V) 0
-

0)
_
ro
a)
D
oYmu`))
-00m O
a)
a) U
0
0 ° ° _
-0 C
0
O C
O a) 0 O O O
0)
w c

c c

c m
m
u
i
p T.? v) m C
V)
c0 to m

c

c
L a) 0 a ui N U)
0 0 c 0 a) a a) a) 0
m E
f E
E n! ao
? c? o
co E
E E
E E
E
o
r O o a)-°?c
oE°
r c N
n
E ?
D
U) a) p
u' O O o
U U LnT
Hm -0 U U U U

c 7
O 0

Q V) a)
c 0 0

M O C
O
Y 0

C C

'a)
_0 a)

m
a
)
U C C> 0)
0 0 C C 0 0
'p m `O -0 N u) -0 L L
°
M L 0 0 m
C 7 N C O
m'
U Q O m
m> m
y
E "D Q C
n
° -O L O E N >' L O •? T
E OU) E O o O °U C

o n
c
oo
`°.I-?
3F-u)?-o
°pa)

0)
m
`-3

'
-
n
?

°
°

u) m 0 0 0 N
m O
Y 0 3 E `O N O C 7 L U ct
" °)(n o m?cD'- ? 0 L
EO
rn3 =0
M U H= a)
P C
a? p
? ?
m U
°
UO?LL? >
0 a)LL=-° ? u) 2
o)"O a) 0 Q) M N= m?? u
)
0 m F-
m i° ° o a. N ai C)N 3 o No aEi aEi m up ? c :5 m ..
is
° tic).E?Ea -a')0U)>,3i- 0)2 °cno°C
0
0 aa)) sao>??
a ?E? s

N c°-°??,m>

U)
-O f6
0 EE?3? a=
0a)
M 0 C C O 76 -0
o
0 U
0 E
E ?EcO?
? 0 0 0 2`

° ??_?
.?) O
°

E
aa)
° c 03
a
o M c mi u) o`f
0)
ai 0 _ a cnCU2
i
0
n
o 02 ?w
w, = a) a)
0
3
v,(Do
r 0
U

o
c
i
m n
0
C C 0 0 0

E
?

M C M YO ° Y E C

o
C:
m
C U m 3 0 :D
C)

C

Z L (D
to u)
QL -0
m
o

C)
° L

)
?

C °
m m
°a
i
0
m ? ) ? oo)
NMm
'u,a)a)0cE at w O 0=E°°
MESQa)0
N N w

3 ocm
°
c
-
mn a'- L D"It
wom c
°
d 07
a) ?
o ,n-°-o 0
U)
c ° o 2 •- cu-v) 0) w w
06
m
a
E-
)E? a co o,n =.C
? 0 En
a? - E ?i 73.5-0
m
? O 2L) L)-o
c (n
a)
m i U N 0 D
a
U c.c o m
3 n °
)
° a
a)
r--• L >' CCU
m °
n? ai oL Z . ?
m
>
? 0 ° M
w a?
U) o
? o
N C a
i rn?Y °
--c
° a
o a7,E (n o
?
a)
o m >n 0 a) 0
c
?o c~ o
A
U a)
a)
a
L)?°
p
? C:2 f
)
0 :t )c
m
oa
a
CL .2 :E
U ?
LL cn ?c a
)Z5 m LL ?
o °
c ML
ui a) L' c? E-6
M m C
' ?
E
0
aa))
.. N o U> w ,o u) mU m

o = c?
- L
• u
m
U- a M ?- Y
M _
Fn a)
C),? U U L

a) - p m>-0 c 7 0

,> .0 m

C p p
U M

U

j

(6

O

C
c a) j U a)
U) O> (0

a 3
co a)

)
U)
O
O (D M .C
- .E 3
- m .? I(n 0 d E C
O
d M
Q a) O Q v) 0 to U C >• O N V T U
u) 0
N O V) 0
a) c ?C?pp
- N o
> 0
0
o V) 0 _r c c p)
O
-O c: M N c u)
O C > O u) (n 0
O 0 0 L m O
'C Q ° M <0 L
N (D u)
O
O
0 0 U O u) U C _
?
(pp
U U m C c 'C C 'C U a ° C m C U
m
' (?pp
U M ° - 3 (n ° C Fu o

> cn c m D 0
° - °(D 0 ?= oE
'IT
0 w
u 2
?" o m
°
C) o c)
p 3 c m o ' N
:3 Cw
cn in
E
°
a a) 0 0
O >' _C v _
m >. - o) a
)) Q)
L
C
a) 'O 0 0 r
c b
O V) 2 0 12 ON
L ? M O ,? a) m
o?
(n m a)
"
> C
3 p .
?
a)
o a)
D
C 0`
M O
Q)
0
O U)
U) >L L C O U) m U 0) 0) 0 O (
L
V)
Q) t O t c` .D U cn > M
w? a) «
U C _
0 00
a
E
Ln a) m(n o on ?H
.3 o m ° a
cu
?.C ° 0 ?? c
Min
a)
2
)
C C U 2
a)
=
C -° V) E tn c Uj

N
0 O
y O p =

Q)
m
C to w ° u)
0)
N a) M
>
_
C U
-0
M
E 0
a C
U
L
:3 :3
O O O L 0 0 0
E
53) U p V
0
.L- (0 O •c L

. y
N

M
N

m O
Uo O E
O 0 O
UOa.Ec>-°
U ? L m 0 M
U(nm n3m?m? u) U o C m
- mcv. n LU L
F- 3 o r E
E?Em L
>,
1- L
?-

.,, c c
C
? O o
c
G 6 U U
-

GC
Z N M N
CD ?
- N co
0
V
?o
0
0
N
L
Q)
Q)
O
Z

C
O
co
Q)
CO
Q
c ao
c o
LLB

w
N O
a) O
0 E O (D

C
a)

m 0 C O a) ._LD y
..0 Q)
(n
j
CL _ 0 .?. -0
a) a C
>
p
c :5 a)
m
a) Q)
0
3 -O 0 c
L C
L-r
> p
3
p
o d aj

°
) m
a) (n
o-
-c
a3 Nc
3- U X O> p -
c
= L Em V
(p 41 a)
a N L (4 C
) - 3 U S] C
O
a
a) '
E
C L p p`
>

t Q) 0)-

a)
m
y O
o a 0U -p C U to c:
C O C E a) a) O 'C
D
p r
C -O a)
O
C E V)
O
o °)? . .L
-
°
o
a) a) a
C. M 0 o
- ai °
C 'I
m ) a0
L a
d
a' - CL 0
c
0 o o m
3L o 2 L
0 CL
o m ID
o D
(
n
a0) - U c a (n o o p n a m w c>
O C
OU -0 0 M U
n L ?C 7 U O
E
co
a._ 0) m c o I D m f- m D c=
a) E _ 0 0. = a)
N
- O
a) -o
aa)
a) 0
p
m
)
a)
D
W
.- (r 0 0 m (-
C
0- 0 C
gy
) E _
o
m
O >,
(n
a) U
a)
'
p
j
o> m a) o •N o
m
E C U
c m
?
O •C O p C L U m 0 m a)
U)) 3:- 0 in o m-'c o
H-0 H.E 11 LOCoU E 0
E? Er a)
EDP
O O 0
?mNE?o?EUEM O
UCU O
C)
-0 c
CU a) O
U n O
N N L O E 7
(n

L

)

C ~ C 0
(n 70 U)
a)
0 0 (p
N m C) U)
U>
Un
a)
'

(n C
L
m o a)
a)
O N E
_ m m
U
4
7 to L p
E
m N N M C
a) O
C
L
>
(n T
O D
a) C m U) _r_
_ C
a)
c
p= -0
c-oL000 O
tea to O '
?Ea
`
N w D U
- E )
Ufl c
O a
))o
'O U L L C
C
0 O M O
a) _0
N p 0 0-0 O Q) .
ci
>

(n U) _ V
EC>'
_° C
r-
L? >
C
m
cm
a
) C
°
c N pU
U 0
En ' D
16
0 m ? aX > a) 0 -Y ao
r+ 06 a) m m a)

m L
m 0-0
U) a)
m a) m c o m

`? N
C
41 L En
c >
m
c? °) m
3 a)
c m
0 .. 3>
m
E 7 m a) O-y "J >?
U O c(D
L U
E
L
C
3 D -O C O

m
m 3

m
d p C

O a)
a -
in L Q C
p) N 0 -o in
c (n C ?- ..O
c (o a
)

V a)
N>
X
Q)
L O Q)
-0 (n :3
O O
.
a) C O
Y E

U m
(?)
L
L a) u) 7 L `
N a
U O
Q) a) N U
C
o
pa 3 H>D
a)3c a) U)
cm
> .DE
a)
o m > >
> O a) (`) E O
p m o 41 O m
E
E m
L C cy t 0 ?-o-0
Z) L m
O
'
Z) a,
m
p) -0
3 m E m p n
0
w '- O
+-
L C m
0 U O v)

.- UU a)

? .
a) Q) U)
O m
M
(D
O- C >'
p- a) u) >
0
m C

c
E
p 0 U 0 7
L7 L to
>
a _
a) o
a) 3:
E
-O m p (n C,
a) p U L U O m c
p O a)
E O C
0-0
a N a
m a) a) _
° U a) 3 'X v
c
VI
(A v
i
m C
cn :3
0 O c m _)
m C - -C En a) Q)

N m= o _
p
L C O U .N
m
m N
L
p (n N
5 m a) 7 (n - f? O
-
- E -E
N U U _
O 0 O` C"

33 :3
U 2 r-
0 M
wovmv°E? in c: 0
QEo
r
C
d
E Z v U-) cD
O
V
7
' 7.2 NEPA/SECTION 404 MERGER PROCESS
The general purpose of the Merger 01 Process is to integrate the coordination and
' documentation processes for surface transportation projects in the State. The integrated
approach is an attempt to streamline the project development and permitting processes, with a
stated objective "to ensure that the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water
' Act are incorporated into the NEPA decision-making process for surface transportation projects
in North Carolina." There are designated milestones or Concurrence Points (CPs) during the
planning and design process where interagency meetings are held with team members and
' other interested parties and project specifics discussed and agreed upon. The CPs are as
follows:
' CP-1: Purpose and Need and Study Area Defined
• CP-2: Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward
• CP-2A: Bridge Decisions and Alignment Review
' CP-3: Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)/ Preferred
Alternative
• CP-4A: Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
' CP-4B: 30% Hydraulic Review
CP-4C: Permit Drawings Review

L

The following agencies are part of the Merger Team:
NCDWQ
USACE
FHWA
• NCWRC
USEPA
NCDOT
HPO
USFW
The Initial Merger 01 Screening Meeting for the proposed project was held on March 17, 2004.
Staff members representing FHWA, USACE, NCDWQ, and NCDOT were present at the
meeting. It was determined in this meeting that the project would not follow the full Merger 01
Process, but would follow a modified process. The Merger Team would not be convened for TIP
Project No. 1-3819 until CPs 4A, 413, and 4C.
As an action item, staff present at the screening meeting requested that as alternatives are
developed or if any major modifications occur, the Merger Team leaders should be notified,
even though the project would not go through the full Merger 01 Process.
A Jurisdictional Determination field meeting was held on March 29, 2005 with staff members
representing FHWA, NCDOT, USACE and NCDWQ. The purpose of the meeting was to review
the jurisdictional delineations completed for the wetland and stream features in order to gain
verification from the permitting agencies. During the meeting, the representative from the
USACE suggested that, due to, the amount of jurisdictional features potentially impacted by the
project, and the higher quality characteristics associated with several systems present, the
project be returned to the Merger 01 Process at CP 1. It was agreed that this suggestion would
be discussed in a future meeting.
Environmental Assessment 7-11 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
7
On April 14, 2005 an agency coordination meeting with FHWA, NCDOT, USACE and NCDWQ
was held to discuss agency positions on the Merger 01 Process for the project. Concerns
expressed by USACE and NCDWQ included the lack of alternatives and the identification of
additional wetlands and impacts that were not known during the original decision to enter the
Merger 01 process at CPs 4A, 4B and 4C. Design alternatives were presented at the meeting
and discussion was held as to why they were eliminated. NCDOT and FHWA held the position
that the project should still enter the Merger 01 process at CP 4A and additional agency
coordination should be continued until that time.
A letter from the USACE to NCDOT dated April 28, 2005 addressed their change in position that
the project should enter Merger 01 process at CP 1 rather than CPs 4A, 4B and 4C. On
September 27, 2006 an agency coordination meeting was held with FHWA, NCDOT and
USACE to present the project alternatives carried forward, explain the alternatives that did meet
the purpose and need, and quantify the impacts to the natural and human environments. Based
on this presentation, USACE agreed that it would be acceptable to proceed with the project as
originally agreed upon as long as NCDOT held a coordination meeting with the other Merger
Team members to solicit any comments before the circulation of the EA. An agency
coordination meeting was held on October 17, 2006 to present the project to the Merger Team
members and solicit input.
7.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A public involvement program was developed and will be maintained throughout the project
pursuant to Part 1506.6 of NEPA (Public Involvement Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provision of NEPA). In general, the public involvement program to date has
included development of a mailing list, a project newsletter, a meeting with the local officials, a
Citizens Informational Workshop, and a toll-free telephone number for direct citizen inquiries.
7.3.1 MAILING LIST
A mailing list was established for the project prior to the Citizens Informational Workshop. The
purpose of the list is to ensure that stakeholders having an immediate interest in the project and
study process, are updated on important decisions regarding the improvement. The mailing list
started with a GIS inquiry of property owners within the study area and has been expanded to
include anyone requesting they be added to the list. The list will be maintained throughout the
life of the project for receipt of newsletters and other important information.
7.3.2 NEWSLETTER
A project newsletter was mailed on August 7, 2004 to approximately 1,300 households located
within the study area. The purposes of the newsletter were to inform citizens about the
upcoming planning and design studies for the project, to provide contact information for NCDOT
staff members and their respective consultants for direct inquiries, and to invite interested
stakeholders to a scheduled Citizens Informational Workshop. The mailing list used for the
newsletter is maintained and updated throughout the life of the project. A copy of the newsletter
is included in Appendix E.
7.3.3 LOCAL OFFICIALS MEETING
A Local Officials Meeting was held on August 23, 2004 at the Old City Hall building in the City of
Statesville. Approximately 75 letters were mailed inviting local officials to the meeting and
approximately 40 officials attended the meeting. The meeting began with a brief presentation of
the project and continued with an open discussion and question/answer session. Participants
were able to view project exhibits assembled for the scheduled Citizens Informational
Environmental Assessment 7-12 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

d

7
Workshop, including typical sections, proposed design concepts and the future schedule. The
summary of the Local Officials Meeting are included in Appendix E.
7.3.4 CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on August 23, 2004 at the Old City Hall building in
the City of Statesville. The meeting was advertised to stakeholders via a project newsletter and
announcement in the local newspaper. The meeting was held in an informal open-house format,
with various exhibits and project mapping available for review, and staff members present to
answer questions. The purpose of the workshop was to identify the purpose of and need for the
project, show the various design concepts being studied, identify natural and human
environment concerns, and provide a future project schedule. Approximately 85 citizens
attended the workshop.
The following exhibits were presented at the workshop; primary purposes of the proposed
action, the development process for a transportation improvement, interchange design options
for the 1-40/1-77 interchange, and examples of environmental features and concerns. In addition,
1"=1,000' scale mapping depicting the study area and 1"=200' scale conceptual drawings of the
interchanges at 1-40/1-77 and 1-40/US 21 were displayed for review.
Specific questions asked of attendees and their responses are summarized below.
Question:
Based on what you have seen tonight, which types of improvements do you feel are
necessary, and where do you think they are most needed? (Types of improvements may
include reconfiguring interchanges and ramps, improvements to the existing 1-40 and 1-
77 interstates within the project area, traffic signal coordination, intersection
improvements, etc.).
Responses:

I

1-40/1-77 needs most improvements and should be a priority project. Accidents on 1-77
cause the interchange to back up and create more congestion on US 21, 1-40 and the
interchange at 1-40/1-77.
• Jane Sowers, Nixon and US 21 are also highly congested, especially when truck traffic uses
US 21. Putting a ramp on 1-77/Jane Sowers would alleviate traffic on US 21 and Jane
Sowers, which are already congested.
• 1-40 and SR 90 will also be more congested when the airport expands; need traffic light
instead of stops signs at this exit ramp.
If the intersection at I-40/US 64 is removed, please consider a traffic signal at the eastbound
exit ramp at Old Mocksville Road. [Do not close] US 64 [at 1-401, as this exit needs to remain
open for citizens living east of Statesville.
• Concerned about the intersection at US 21/1-40 and the type of improvements proposed.
• Use simple CD-type interchange designs instead of the four-level interchanges proposed (it
would be less confusing). Icing on higher level bridges will be a problem with the four-level
design.
Median width for the proposed six- and eight-lane concepts need to be wider; the guard
rails/cable also needs to be further off travel lanes than they are currently. The existing
emergency lanes are also too narrow, especially adjacent to median.
Consider three alternate routes to US 21: Cooper Farm Road and Radio Road, two-way
interchange from Jane Sowers Road to 1-77; 1-77 and N. Olin Loop Road; and US 21 from
Harmony to Noel Davis Road in Turnersburg to Old Mocksville Road at Providence Road
Church.
Environmental Assessment 7-13 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
• Improve intersection at US 21 and Jane Sowers/Shoemaker Drive and consider putting in a
traffic signal; also widen US 21 from 1-40 to 1-77.
Prefer the three-level improvement to the four-level improvement for 1-77/1-40; the higher
level concept will create terrible views for adjacent neighborhoods (ex: Dogwood Road) and
create more noise. We need better noise abatement measures.
1-40/US 21 improvements are more important than those to 1-77/1-40; currently experience
very high traffic volumes and delays during peak hours (especially volumes at entrance to
shopping mall). Consider the following:
- an east entrance from 1-40 to mall,
- a connection from mall to dead end street where theatres are located,
- it's a great idea to extend Pump Station Road to Gaither Road.
• One traffic signal that controls traffic from 1-40 to US 21 will not solve the problem:
- Provide through lanes on US 21 if you are not turning onto I-40,
- Don't provide a traffic signal for those turning onto 1-40 from north or south,
- Don't provide a traffic signal from 1-40 westbound to US 21 northbound (instead, add
east entrance ramp to mall).
Prefer the four-level offset improvement for 1-77/1-40.
Agree that the interchange at 1-40/US 64 should be removed.
Question:
What project development issues do you think are important for us to examine in this
study? Explain. (These might include natural resources, neighborhoods and
communities, economic development and land use, cultural resources such as historic
sites, and major destinations).
Responses:
• Safety, both for existing travelers and emergency vehicles that respond in this area.
Connect Gaither and Pump Station Road now to relieve congestion while this study is
underway.
Minimize the land needed for the proposed improvements.
If Pump Station Road is extended to Gaither Road, the amount of traffic along Gaither Road
will increase.
Established neighborhoods could lose property value if the four-level improvement were
developed; noise levels on adjacent roads (Dogwood Road and Brookdale Road) already
hear a lot of highway noise.
7.3.5 PUBLIc HEARING
A public hearing will be held following formal distribution and public availability of this EA.
7.3.6 TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE LINE
A toll-free telephone line was published in the newsletter and made available to local
organizations and agencies in order to provide immediate response to public concerns and
comments. Responses were made to inquiries and documented within a reasonable period of
time.
Environmental Assessment 7-14 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

0

8
CHAPTER 8. DISTRIBUTION LIST
This environmental document was prepared and distributed to the following agencies for review
and comment.
8.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of the Interior
Department of Agriculture
Federal Aviation Administration
8.2 REGIONAL OFFICES
' Department of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

8.3 STATE AGENCIES
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
North Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
8.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Mayor of Statesville
Statesville City Manager
City of Statesville Planning Department
Chair, Statesville City Council
Iredell County Planning Department
Iredell County Manager
Chair, Iredell County Commissioners
Lake Norman RPO
Environmental Assessment 8-1 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
L
r
L

' Chapter 9
' CHAPTER 9. REFERENCES
"Air Quality Technical Memorandum, 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvement Area, Iredell County,
' North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number IMS-40-2 (124) 152. State Project Number
8.1823901, TIP No. 1-3819, WBS Element 34192.1.2" Prepared for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by URS Corporation. June 2006.
' American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition. Washington, D.C. 2004.
' Basinwide Planning Program: 2003 Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.

i
J

J

Carter, Jimmy. Executive Order 11990. 24 May 1977. Available:
http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/content/EPA_EO11990.htm.
Cawthorn, Joel W and V.S. Jenkins. 1964. Soil Survey of Iredell County, North Carolina. Soil
Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC.
Charlotte Regional Partnership. Available: http://www.charlotteusa.com/index.asp
"The City of Statesville, North Carolina Land Development Plan." City Council Hearing Draft.
Prepared by Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle and Planning Works, LLC. 7 June 2004.
Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National
Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 1997.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitat of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Environmental Data Resources, Incorporated. EDR Data Map Corridor Study, 1-4011-77
Interchange Improvements Project, Statesville, NC. 7 April 2005.
Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns
in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analysis. Washington, D.C. 1998.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Designated Sole Source Aquifers in EPA Region IV.
Available URL: http:///www.epa.gov/OGWDW/swp/ssa/reg4.html [Accessed March 12, 20031.
"Feasibility Study 1-40/1-77 Interchange Area, Statesville, Iredell County, North Carolina, TIP No.
1-3819." Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation by Stantec Consulting.
March 2001.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Unified National Program for Floodplain
Management. March 1986. Available: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fima/fema100.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program. "Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Iredell County, North Carolina (Unincorporated Areas)." 22 June 1998.
Federal Highway Administration. "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and
Defense Highways." Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.htm1.
Environmental Assessment 9-1 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819

Fourth Creek TMDL Stressor Study, June and July 2003 (Iredell and Rowan counties, Yadkin

River Basin, Subbasin 06). North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, '
Division of Water Quality.
Greater Statesville Development Corporation. Available: http://www.gsdc.org/. '
Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R.,
MacPherson, T.F., 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina (map scale 1:1,500,000). U.S. EPA. '
Corvallis, OR.
"Hydraulics Technical Memorandum, 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvement Area, Iredell County, '
North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number IMS-40-2 (124) 152. State Project Number
8.1823901, TIP No. 1-3819, WBS Element 34192.1.2" Prepared for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by URS Corporation. June 2006. '
"Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment, 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvements, Iredell
County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number IMS-40-2 (124) 152. State Project Number

8.1823901, TIP No. 1-3819, WBS Element 34192.1.2" Prepared for the North Carolina '
Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by URS Corporation. November 2005.
Iredell County Emergency Medical Services, Letter dated: 16 February 2005. ,
LeGrand, Harry E. 1954. Geology and Ground Water in the Statesville Area, North Carolina. '
Lynn Miller, Superintendent of Parks and Public Grounds, Statesville Parks and Recreation.
Telephone conversation with Jeff Koontz. 30 August 2006.
Greenway map. Available: http://www.ci.statesviIle.nc.us/forms/x greenway.pdf. '
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC. 2005. '
"Natural Resources Technical Report, 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvement Area, Iredell County,
North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number IMS-40-2 (124) 152. State Project Number

8.1823901, TIP No. 1-3819, WBS Element 34192.1.2" Prepared for the North Carolina '
Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by URS Corporation. August 2006.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. '
Surface Water Classifications. Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.htm1.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. Transportation Improvement Program, 2006- '
2012. Available: http://www.ncdot.org/planning/development/TIP/TIP/.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. "Strategic Highway Corridors Overview." '
Available: http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/tpb/SHC/overview/.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Branch. "Strategic '
Highway Corridors Concept Development Report." October 2005. Available:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/tpb/shc/concept/.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. Memorandum to Kristina Solberg, Project '
Development Engineer, Project Planning Unit, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, North Carolina Department of Transportation from Richard P. Tanner, Traffic '
Forecasting Modeler, Traffic Forecasting Unit A, Statewide Planning Branch. "Traffic forecast
Environmental Assessment 9-2 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
Chapter 9
' for TIP#1-3819, Project #34192.1.2, Reconstruction of the 1-40 and 1-77 interchange area." 2
March 2004.
' North Carolina Department of Transportation, Relocation Assistance Program. "EIS Relocation
Report." 1-40/1-77 Area Interchange Improvements. 19 April 2005.
' North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways. Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. 1991.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant
' Species of North Carolina. Office of Conservation and Community Affairs, NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. Available URL:
http://207.4.179.38/nhp/county.htmi [Accessed August 18, 20061.
NC Division of Water Quality Stream Classification Method: NCDWQ Stream Classification
Form. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
' Quality. 1999
North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b)
and 303(d) Report). Public Review Draft. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2006
Office of State Budget and Management. Log Into North Carolina (LINC). Available:
http://data.osbm.state.nc.us/pls/Iinc/dyn linc main.show.
Personal communication. "Indirect and Cumulative Effects Survey." David Currier, Director of
' Planning and Development, City of Statesville and Shannon Cox, URS Corporation.
Personal communication. "Indirect and Cumulative Effects Survey." Steve Warren, Planning
' Supervisor, Iredell County and Shannon Cox, URS Corporation.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, A Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.
' Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh, NC. 1998.
"Traffic Capacity Analysis Memorandum, 1-40/1-77 Interchange Modification." Prepared for the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by URS Corporation.
September 2006.

II
"Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum, 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvement Area, Iredell
County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number IMS-40-2 (124) 152. State Project Number
8.1823901, TIP No. 1-3819, WBS Element 34192.1.2" Prepared for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by SEPI Engineering. June 2006.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Highway Capacity Manual.
Washington, DC. 2000.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Stream Mitigation Guidelines: Stream Quality Assessment
Worksheet. Wilmington North Carolina District. 2003
Environmental Assessment 9-3 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
9
United States Census Bureau. American Fact Finder, Summary File 1. Available:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTSelectedDatasetPageServlet? lang=en& ts=1757829232
52. Accessed: 8 September 2006.
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance
Administration. Flood Insurance Study, City of Statesville, North Carolina, Iredell County.
March 1979.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Guidance for
Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(o Documents. FHWA Technical
Advisory T6640.8A. 30 October 1987.
United States Department of Transportation. Final Order to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 15 April 1997.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Memorandum
from Cynthia J. Burbank, Associate Administrator for Planning, Environment and Realty to
Division Administrators. "Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. 3
February 2006.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Lists of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and
Candidate Species for the Southeast Region. Iredell County, North Carolina. Available URL:
http://southeast.fws.gov/es/county%201ists.htm [Accessed August 18, 20061.
US Geological Survey. Statesville East Quadrangle, North Carolina (map scale 1:24,000) 7.5
Minute Series. Washington, DC. 1993
US Geological Survey, Statesville West Quadrangle, North Carolina (map scale 1:24,000) 7.5
Minute Series. Washington, DC. 1993
Wainaina, Njoroge W., PE., State Geotechnical Engineer, North Carolina Department of
Transportation. "Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Report." Memorandum to Colista S. Freeman, P.E.,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina Department of
Transportation. 7 October 2005.
Environmental Assessment 9-4 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

Chapter 10
r

C

C

CHAPTER 10. LIST OF ACRONYMS
AASHTO American Association of State
Highway and Transportation
Officials
ADT Average daily traffic
AMS Ambient Monitoring System
BMP Best Management Practice
C Candidate
CA Critical Areas
C-D Collector-Distributors
C&G Curb and Gutter
CEQ Council on Environmental
Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map
Revision
CO Carbon monoxide
CID Concurrence Point
CS Construction Supervisor
CWA Clean Water Act
dB Decibels
dBA Decibels of A-weighted noise
DLR Division of Land Resources
E Endangered
EA Environmental Assessment
EB Eastbound
EEP Ecosystem Enhancement
Program
EMS Emergency Medical Services
EO Executive Order
ESA Endangered Species Act
ETJ Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
FEMA Federal Emergency
Management Agency
FFS Free-Flow Speed
FHWA Federal Highway
Administration
FINDS Facility Index System
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS Flood Insurance Study
FONSI Finding of No Significant
Impact
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
FSC Federal species of concern
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographic Information
System
GS General Statute
GSDC Greater Statesville
Development Corporation
HCP Highway Capacity Manual
HQW High Quality Waters
HSDS Hazardous Substance
Disposal Site
I Interstate
ICE Indirect and Cumulative Effects
IMR Interchange Modification
Report
K Kindergarten
LEDPA Least environmentally
damaging practicable
alternative
Leq Equivalent sound level
LOMR Letter of Map Revision
LOS Level of service
LSM Land Suitability Mapping
MGD Million gallons per day
MI Miles
mph miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning
Organization
MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxin
MSL mean sea level
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
NAC Noise Abatement Criteria
NB Northbound
NCAC North Carolina Administrative
Code
Environmental Assessment 10-1 November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
ter 10
NCDENR North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
NCDA North Carolina Department of
Agriculture
NCDLR North Carolina Division of Land
Resources
NCDOT North Carolina Department of
Transportation
NCDWQ North Carolina Division of
Water Quality
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway
Research Program
NCNHP North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program
NCOSA North Carolina Office of State
Archeology
NCSPA North Carolina State Port
Authority
NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission
NEPA National Environmental Policy
Act
NGS National Geodetic Survey
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources
Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic
Places
NRTR Natural Resources Technical
Report
OSA Office of State Archaeology
OWR Outstanding Water Resource
PE Proposed Endangered
PEM Palustrine Emergent
PFO Palustrine Forrested
ppm Parts per million
PSNC Public Service Company of
North Carolina
PT Proposed threatened
Rd. Road
ROC Region of Comparison
ROW Right of way
RPO Rural Planning Organization
SB Southbound
SC Special Concern
SHPO State Historic Preservation
Office
SHWS State Hazardous Waste Site
SR Significant Rare or State Route
SHC Strategic Highway Corridors
SQG Small Quantity Generator
T Threatened
T/SA Threatened due to similar
appearance
TIP Transportation Improvement
Program
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TSM Transportation system
management
USACE United States Army Corps of
Engineers
USC United States Code
USDA United States Department of
Agriculture
USDOT United States Department of
Transportation
USEPA United States Environmental
Protection Agency
USFDA United States Food and Drug
Administration
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife
Service
USGS United States Geological
Service
UST Underground Storage Tank
UT Unnamed Tributary
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
WB Westbound
WRC Wildlife Resource Commission
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
Environmental Assessment 10-2 November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

ENDNOTES

r

I

1 North Carolina Department of Transportation. Transportation Improvement
Program, 2006-2012. Available: http://www.ncdot.org/planning/development/TIP/TIP/.
2 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(0 Documents. FHWA
Technical Advisory T6640.8A. 30 October 1987.
3 North Carolina Department of Transportation. Transportation Improvement
Program, 2006-2012. Available: http://www.ncdot.org/planning/development/TIP/TIP/.
4 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(0 Documents. FHWA
Technical Advisory T6640.8A. 30 October 1987.
'North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1-40/1-77 Interchange
Modification Traffic Capacity Analysis Memorandum." September 2006.
6 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Highway Capacity
Manual. Washington, DC. 2000.
' American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy
on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition. Washington, D.C. 2004.
8 North Carolina Department of Transportation. "Strategic Highway Corridors
Overview." Available: http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/tpb/SHC/overview/.
9 North Carolina Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Branch.
"Strategic Highway Corridors Concept Development Report." October 2005. Available:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/tpb/shc/concept/.
10 Federal Highway Administration. "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of
Interstate and Defense Highways." Available:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.htm1.
11 Lynn Miller, Superintendent of Parks and Public Grounds, Statesville Parks
and Recreation. Telephone conversation with Jeff Koontz. 30 August 2006.
Greenway map. Available: http://www.ci.statesviIle.nc.us/forms/x greenway.pdf.
12 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy
on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Fifth Edition. Washington, D.C. 2004.
13 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(0 Documents. FHWA
Technical Advisory T6640.8A. 30 October 1987.
Environmental Assessment November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
14 United States Census Bureau. American Fact Finder, Summary File 1.
Available:
http://factfinder.census.qov/servlet/DTSelectedDatasetPageServlet? lanq=en& ts=1757829232
52. Accessed: 8 September 2006.
Office of State Budget and Management. Log Into North Carolina (LING).
Available: http://data.osbm.state.nc.us/pls/Iinc/dyn ling main.show.
15 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(1) Documents. FHWA
Technical Advisory T6640.8A. 30 October 1987.
16 United States Census Bureau. American Fact Finder, Summary File 1.
Available:
http://factfinder.census.qov/servlet/DTSelectedDatasetPageServlet? lang=en& ts=1757829232
52. Accessed: 8 September 2006.
Office of State Budget and Management. Log Into North Carolina (LINC).
Available: http://data.osbm.state.nc.us/pls/linc/dyn ling main.show.
17 Carter, Jimmy. Executive Order 11990. 24 May 1977. Available:
http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/content/EPA-EO1 1990.htm.
18 "Feasibility Study 1-40/1-77 Interchange Area, Statesville, Iredell County, North
Carolina, TIP No. 1-3819." Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation by
Stantec Consulting. March 2001.
19 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Highway
Capacity Manual. Washington, DC. 2000.
20North Carolina Department of Transportation. Memorandum to Kristina
Solberg, Project Development Engineer, Project Planning Unit, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina Department of Transportation from Richard P
Tanner, Traffic Forecasting Modeler, Traffic Forecasting Unit A, Statewide Planning Branch.
"Traffic forecast for TIP#1-3819, Project #34192.1.2, Reconstruction of the 1-40 and 1-77
interchange area." 2 March 2004.
21 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Highway
Capacity Manual. Washington, D.C.. 2000.
22 "Hydraulics Technical Memorandum, 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvement Area,
Iredell County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number IMS-40-2 (124) 152. State Project
Number 8.1823901, TIP No. 1-3819, WBS Element 34192.1.2" Prepared for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by URS Corporation. June 2006.
23 "Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment, 1-40/1-77 Interchange
Improvements, Iredell County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number IMS-40-2 (124) 152.
State Project Number 8.1823901, TIP No. 1-3819, WBS Element 34192.1.2" Prepared for the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by URS Corporation.
November 2005.
Environmental Assessment November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819 1

J

24 "Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment, 1-40/1-77 Interchange
Improvements, Iredell County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number IMS-40-2 (124) 152.
State Project Number 8.1823901, TIP No. 1-3819, WBS Element 34192.1.2" Prepared for the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by URS Corporation.
November 2005.
25 Iredell County Emergency Medical Services, Letter dated: 16 February 2005.
26 Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Justice: Guidance under the
National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 1997.
Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for Incorporating Environmental
Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analysis. Washington, D.C. 1998.
US Department of Transportation. Final Order to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 15 April 1997.
27 US Department of Transportation. Final Order to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 15 April 1997.
28 North Carolina Department of Transportation, Relocation Assistance Program.
"EIS Relocation Report." 1-40/1-77 Area Interchange Improvements. 19 April 2005.
29 Charlotte Regional Partnership. Available:
http://www.charlotteusa.com/index.asp
30 Greater Statesville Development Corporation. Available: http://www.gsdc.org/.
31 ,The City of Statesville, North Carolina Land Development Plan." City Council
Hearing Draft. Prepared by Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle and Planning Works, LLC. 7 June 2004.
' 32 Personal communication. "Indirect and Cumulative Effects Survey." David
Currier, Director of Planning and Development, City of Statesville and Shannon Cox, URS
Corporation.
' 33 Personal communication. "Indirect and Cumulative Effects Survey." Steve
Warren, Planning Supervisor, Iredell County and Shannon Cox, URS Corporation.
' 34 ,Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment, 1-40/1-77 Interchange
Improvements, Iredell County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number IMS-40-2 (124) 152.
State Project Number 8.1823901, TIP No. 1-3819, WBS Element 34192.1.2" Prepared for the
' North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by URS Corporation.
November 2005.
35 "Natural Resources Technical Report, 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvement
' Area, Iredell County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number IMS-40-2 (124) 152. State
Project Number 8.1823901, TIP No. 1-3819, WBS Element 34192.1.2" Prepared for the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by URS Corporation. August 2006.
' 36 Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina, A Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage
' Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, NC.
Environmental Assessment November 2006
' TIP No. 1-3819
37 Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 1998.
38 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Lists of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed and Candidate Species for the Southeast Region. Iredell County, North Carolina.
Available URL: http://southeast.fws.gov/es/county%201ists.htm [Accessed August 18, 20061.
39 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List
of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. Office of Conservation and Community Affairs, NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. Available URL:
http://207.4.179.38/nhp/county.htmi [Accessed August 18, 20061.
40 Natural Heritage Element Occurrences. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage
Program, Raleigh, NC. 2005.
41 Natural Heritage Element Occurrences. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage
Program, Raleigh, NC. 2005.
42 Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H.,
Lenat, D.R., MacPherson, T.F., 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina (map scale 1:1,500,000)
U.S. EPA. Corvallis, OR.
43 US Geological Survey. Statesville East Quadrangle, North Carolina (map scale
1:24,000) 7.5 Minute Series. Washington, DC. 1993
44 US Geological Survey, Statesville West Quadrangle, North Carolina (map
scale 1:24,000) 7.5 Minute Series. Washington, DC. 1993
45 Cawthorn, Joel W and V.S. Jenkins. 1964. Soil Survey of Iredell County, North
Carolina. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC.
46 "Natural Resources Technical Report, 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvement
Area, Iredell County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number IMS-40-2 (124) 152. State
Project Number 8.1823901, TIP No. 1-3819, WBS Element 34192.1.2" Prepared for the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by URS Corporation. August 2006
47 Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H.,
Lenat, D.R., MacPherson, T.F., 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina (map scale 1:1,500,000)
U.S. EPA. Corvallis, OR.
48 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Stream Mitigation Guidelines: Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet. Wilmington North Carolina District. 2003
NC Division of Water Quality Stream Classification Method: NCDWQ Stream
Classification Form. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality. 1999
Environmental Assessment November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

49 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality. Surface Water Classifications. Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.htmi.
50 Fourth Creek TMDL Stressor Study, June and July 2003 (Iredell and Rowan
counties, Yadkin River Basin, Subbasin 06). North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
51 Fourth Creek TMDL Stressor Study, June and July 2003 (Iredell and Rowan
counties, Yadkin River Basin, Subbasin 06). North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
52 Basinwide Planning Program: 2003 Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality.
53 North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006
Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Public Review Draft. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2006
54 Basinwide Planning Program: 2003 Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality.
55 Basinwide Planning Program: 2003 Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality.
56',Hydraulics Technical Memorandum, 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvement Area,
Iredell County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number IMS-40-2 (124) 152. State Project
Number 8.1823901, TIP No. 1-3819, WBS Element 34192.1.2" Prepared for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by URS Corporation. June 2006.
57 LeGrand, Harry E. 1954. Geology and Ground Water in the Statesville Area,
I North Carolina.
58 Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Designated Sole Source Aquifers in
EPA Region IV. Available URL: http:///www.epa.gov/OGWDW/swp/ssa/reg4.html [Accessed
March 12, 2003].
59 LeGrand, Harry E. 1954. Geology and Ground Water in the Statesville Area,
North Carolina.
60 North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways. Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. 1991.
61 Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior.
62 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Unified National Program for
Floodplain Management. March 1986. Available: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fima/fema100.pdf.
Environmental Assessment November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819
63 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Unified National Program for
Floodplain Management. March 1986. Available: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fima/fema100.pdf
64 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal
Insurance Administration. Flood Insurance Study, City of Statesville, North Carolina, Iredell
County. March 1979.
65 Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program.
"Flood Insurance Rate Map, Iredell County, North Carolina (Unincorporated Areas)." 22 June
1998.
66 "Air Quality Technical Memorandum, 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvement Area,
Iredell County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number IMS-40-2 (124) 152. State Project
Number 8.1823901, TIP No. 1-3819, WBS Element 34192.1.2" Prepared for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by URS Corporation. June 2006.
67 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Memorandum from Cynthia J. Burbank, Associate Administrator for Planning, Environment and
Realty to Division Administrators. "Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents
3 February 2006.
6e "Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum, 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvement
Area, Iredell County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project Number IMS-40-2 (124) 152. State
Project Number 8.1823901, TIP No. 1-3819, WBS Element 34192.1.2" Prepared for the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways by SEPI Engineering. June 2006
69 Environmental Data Resources, Incorporated. EDR Data Map Corridor Study,
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements Project, Statesville, NC. 7 April 2005.
70 Wainaina, Njoroge W., PE., State Geotechnical Engineer, North Carolina
Department of Transportation. "Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Report." Memorandum to Colista S
Freeman, P.E., Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina
Department of Transportation. 7 October 2005.
71 North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways. "Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters." 1991.
Environmental Assessment November 2006
TIP No. 1-3819

L

J

I I
r

Appendix A
Figures

r

C

0

S Chnip,=Ford
z C/) 1 y'-
o \
cn
d4 a N X -n
-
t

7 o
d - CD
C:
x

G)

'p

T7
Un)
x

M(In

0

I{
,?

<

7 0
a

d

a
8

CL
w
?i

00

/)

A)

C ?1

W
I a (, o
n v
M. CD
f 3
°
3

--
I
T
?? ?- ?? CD

_ 2
- cn
-
0
o' w
T

-

-
-

-

?i

CD
z
m

0 - - - --
a

C
o
d

o

a
cl

D C
T
Cn
x
T
O
0
a
CD c
n cn
O
c
N
A
W
S
Z N
O O
x 7
O N
CD X
?i
a
U)
U)
N
C-
4
?
ppS0
O CD
a
M O
0)
M a CL
_N
Ot
O
a
0
0
5.
CD
N
CL
a ? m
0
??
^ o
m - m
3 0

? I I I
V

3
m
0

z

10

r ?Q

o

Ln

:

/? r cn C D

m m ? 17 `R

O

-.

r?

C

-c
'CL
Z

o

i
N
U) Z v

CO r
?' ? f3 m cD
w o. o Cn = (n Q
o a o.
a

c.
n3?
G p CD
N, D

m
n. Q D
co m D pp -
Z
_' N
(D d n (0 -0
-4
'n
C
A
C? L
tD
3
m
rn
Q m Q
I
US-211,)) w m ?- ?,?)
--
d ?
N
J \
W J
N
I ? `1. N n 1
,.a
N ? -: ` o IA , o
O
N m •-
(5,151 I5, 15) 7 7 15,16)
w
o
? t
\ I
w N ? N
? v
-_ N
ti? N?t" o
a
1 _ :t I
`.1
lw
I
I
n i
Ft.
•f
fV\? x r
°; p z
? \ , W N
m
w
? ? ?aa n??`?10 Ji ? -_ ??w 55 -''v'llSR-2158
N'
J a -? m
J J a m a
r N • JNF' N -
? ? I
??v?U? (Lr 2) o
w `J
I
IV
to
o o

E p O x
0
O N a G p
m < V
- c (D a K w (D T o c " ..
m ()
o °
n *
Z N
cn G
(D N (D O N
II (p (D <
(D n
= p (D
(p 0 n

3 m m : ? 0 2 O ? m M m CD z y
z
(n -n v o
0 N ° r
ID D y ?! - c

m
p E

y
' -i

O O

(D
o ?

-0 (D

M.
$ c

S<
<

m :y

? --1

?
? G

m p> :3 ?p

3 c CDI
f0
03
o C7 CD D

'n
noN.
n
°
D z
o
» C
CD
Q ?
N
CL
O N
fD
d

z
m o
T
o
°
za

C-) o
(D
c <
-u
r: +
3
n W-0
o i p C, 0 3 <
n I
O H m
N O p (D
(D n 7
N
l ? ELF 7 ? 0 0 ? ] 0 ?] ? 0
® > 0
O c
H z
rl ;u
Y a;
Y
G) (n
z H Y
< 3
ro cn
H
> G?
r z M
s n
H >
N r n
M M

m

'
M H

'. p N G)

3
)
G)
M
M
M

ty
.
_ __
H O
z
H U
H >
.< tT]
! L7
H H
M z C
M
(n r7
Z
,1
T H 7
C) M
C)
n cn M
H M
H n b
: cn
M z
H
O H
' z H -' G1
3
..-.
H
O
I "1 r
0 M
z
O I
c

Y I
Ul
13

x
n 1

O
3

3 H
I
ro
3 -- Y
3 r
O
ro
3 ..
ro cn
r
0 3
cn r
o
N
r
0
N ? ?1

o n ?

c?
r
Z
I pppppp4p
H If ' o
N p
n W 1?
N p
C7 F' "?'
-- G r.
A U
- ??--ice-- ° n) n
M ? I n .-, i r-. n r-?
U J O "7 ---- n H
1; J
deli
n
b
d
`I1
s?
,?r l H
0 ?` I
1 ?A
e? E
b
n
I?
h.
j..
,A
`.J
n l! 1
H
C ?
n m
? o
CJ?
tD ?. ?\` `p OJ
'y
I
.A
n+ O
F o 0 O
omg V
V
m m CD N 7
< C r.
o0°i Z S ID
z 0. ?C1
p Y O f-7D = C o 3
Z G f0 ., o Q
CD CD >
(n :3
0 O 0 N
?qoN % D (n o N W d
z CO
o m fll 3° n v
0 3 0
d 7 O
m fA <
CD
c 3
x CD
rn
N
0 0 m= 0 0 0 0
? I bd ? . W
J
tP ? m
W
US-21 ?,
N
N
/II
? J
- O
1-77
?. I
i•? N
m
N I? i
1
i
i
n !
o
1 > z
?J x
6?
ti
x
w o
l oz
i
SR-2158
?oo 0 -D 0 # o
<
v <
m °
`DOm
CCD O
wCD
i v
I
O '
C < O
d C 7
-?
o Z
O N .
m CD o
n _

V m m 0 v cn Z O 'G 0

?.
4
N ID r O
' Z y
Z z ? -1 -i
0 0 2
? 0
- (D
(A r
p W
U3
C - C 7
gy

N
t
cn cn Cn CD c f . C
`?Q 0 (
p
aCD

p

D

0 0
-

0 <<

3 o ::r s

o m

m D N >

= coo

m o
- CD
C m
/n
(
D ;;

w
CD

?
?
?o 3
? D O °°
3
?
c
<< y.
D. n

c°
p'

77 C)
W
--1 0
m
a < u
o? 3
pn 3 0 0 IMD
C)

cm O

H z r? b v
O (o v X (n
z H < ro
> G) rl n
r z 3
H Y n M
N r

H C)
L7 G)
G7 m
u
u
N
3
C1 l
:E
H o z d
H H K G
H H <
to z i to cn ?
co 01 v 0 c C7

n co to
H ro ro N 1.
O x M H
O H L7
z H b ^
o z
o
LO H ;z
> co

ro { r
d 3 O
I - ro w

o
co r
o r
n O

rh ?1
I
1 O
'*] H
?Y r
M
ro?'?K
J, <
M
O
N
W ^7
J M I--{ ,.? V
„y J ? rr ?? „? ^ r?7 H
o Mill?.*l
!i .A
I O
??'Y1I1}1
rJ 1l
` m
rn
Y; ? H
i I
n
O? ? H
00
ul U
m n ?\` o H
d 0
j: cn0
mov
a ? ?
A
p
o' m
N C =

v
m m
- r N .4
a
oam fD-O
z ? -ice

c9 z
ri aoA < ? -h
fn O - -n CL c9 Z GI S
p ?? z EL- (31 oQ•o
c W G

o
r
R l CD
3 7 i
z Oro -
o m 3 0) n °

CD O
n
C <
CD
3
CD
N

TIP Projects
1.3819 (1-40/77 Interchange Modification)
1-2514 (Add Interchange)
1.4750 (1-77 Widening)
1.3309 (1-77 Improvements)
R-2911 (US 70 Widening)
U-2568 (SR 2333 Widening)
2731 (US 21 Widening)
U-2930 (US 21 Widening)
U4749 (US 64-70 Widening)
8-2576 (Bridge Replacement)
E-4722 (Museum Greenway)
I I --J
115

J
G

0 0.5 1 2
Miles
I-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements
N r °?? °'?•.? TIP Number 1-3819
Iredell County, NC
Legend W E *~
Project Study Area ?--?H Railroad o Figure 3-1
_- _- = Interstate Streams (non-delineated) S 2006-2012 TIP Projects in
US Highway Municipal Boundary
-- Vicinity of Proposed Project
State Highway ¦OMENNOW¦ TIP Projects
Dale: September 2006
-- local Road Sources: Iredell County, INC, ESRI, Inc; NCDOT; and URS.
Map for reference only.

r

L

L?

CI'
r

TWO-LEVEL INTERCHANGE

THREE-LEVEL INTERCHANGES
-4c ?N' _'AL

FOUR-LEVEL INTERCHANGES
STACKED OFFSET TURBINE
1-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements
TIP Number 1-3819
Iredell County, NC
U? ,101lf11 ?,,
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 4-1
''q do System Interchange
(Freeway to Freeway)
Concepts

i
C

G

I

m m m m = m ? m = m = = = = m m m m =
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

I

C

7

I

lE LEI... [ f:? L !.
z
0

H
x

n
> ti
PUMP STATION RD.
?

F--I
- ?_TZ ? b
-- S
z a - 01 i
b--
? it
? '
1 ' !
? .. ? '
I
i x
d m m N
rz
n x I r?

.-ObT
S-7-
LZT-•
? -9f
-6TT
-96 US--21
:0 ?5? °`1 "?
SZ.
2
1
2
i
Si TST-. .-TST
-
9T-
S k 61T-•
SZT -• )
1
1
1
,
,
TBt 96
? ,-OE
_-__

n c?
K r

' t? I
I
t7 I? ? ?
I
I

=TT KNO X ST.
BEECHWOOD
-- T
(D
SS?Pt-0 9
(S, 1S)
P!,

11 C[1
I-77 15,10

-TZ ? I
D
=6T MALL
ENTRANCE
oT-- ?f l ^
[
bS I a?? _
n
,:?

I

STATION DR. of of MALL
6--? ,--ZT
?1'
I ENTRANCE
II

J x 0
?o
°z
N
N

oWa

10 68
?
88 -? -711SR-215 8
£
v (2,2) -
6Z-? (2,2)

(2,2)

t

1

dom
9 C ry
n i
A
0
?
omy
m O v O X 44 44
m o n < O 7
rn

?c

d O

705 WO

N
-a O p fn ID -?(D

i
ID
A
2
x
z i.lao r J, Z N < o
CID o
,
u o

BM
r fD W
0 C T
A Z d
' --I T O v o N C
CL fa
3
M Y
6 cn o cn m M. 'U
0 <
ID to
Of K "
CD 0
C:r ID
0 o ? o CD Er

: 0)
-3
> R D)
z
0
r- T3 n
0?O
d <
? O

n 0 T. .
. <

c c w
?o
CID
0
o CD
3
(n CD
N
0 = = = = 0
?cn 0
m o v

acm -"

O
C

A
O
oNC
V
c CD
< V

oom

S O

°
y
rY
BCD
-U 0
C

m

rs_

A Z
0

O C

z ,
Cn ',D K) -n
CD

0' L
CD Z =r
r
cn
03
° CD
A_
P
...
(n
0
" WCD
0
C CD

»
noN
>
m
C '
Cl) D) G. V
_
K ' W
n
0
3(a z CO
p m 3 CD n tG

a m D
Q
3

fD N

®®>0
w Z ? S >
0 m ? a (A
Z N 9 N
> m m 0 }
N ra- m m z 4
m N q O m
M c)
c ..
m i m A o m
Cl) En m
4 m m N z j
N 0 3 m -4 m 5 y r°
O O ^ ?"1
Z N L m
o r m
z o z
p3 y '..? N t
A t
.9z.
D r ?
y 511 j
U) r ° t4
o r
N O
W r S { i?
w ?1 ?SStF o
0
,411 f m
a
0
9 0 ,.t: y m
i'.tSyy{ NIP,
R
Cl)
9 O ???? m
N 1Sia >
im n
rf N G ? Q m n yy?l
V n ?...... m m M
Ir m
v ;1y (/m ? V
> tm
m 411 t
A I m
11
,
y11
m;
w
H
A
O
C m
T
!i
( N
1 \ .i
II m
m?a n
z: cn D c a r O
oN? (D -
< V
m m ? r CD ~
n
porn Q -?
z S O CL
z + ??? tr?? O C fD N fD Z y
3 ?Q !D O W0 -a 7
m ° ` - oC 09 3
m z W c?D O Q
T Z
D
P cn CCD ':r S. A :3
z*r,,N,*1+P D c3aoD
r m cn z CO
o m 3 'D
c) to
a
D
Jw
d ` 1 <
d 9
D)
O y

A

C)

r
L)

li
y' D
rl h'?r
L)

( n f.D
O'. I
J
y.
?o

FOR CUTS
m b ?
?
n
1 w
0

Oo'
X INGE POINT
"FOR .ILLS
_? N
a v - ?
h vI,
N p O

r
m n
Cn H
N I-3 O

?? z H

n y

! O C?
A
(V H
O

p' N
H
H -
x co
_
w
Irn

N o
?

O
eQ
O \ 1 H
I H
H I
O
7
y
H?
N LTJ ??

N I
? I
? Irn
'-3 O

O Z -_
-
F
B z M
..H

1
'I J
T

o q
,
? r? rl
. Cn n
H H
N W O
O :u
° ? z d
l? H

- (n
H
I
a S N
E
I I.? H03
]d .
p?tvIH ? V t F3
Q
p
D
* £ ?
?yy
N
r

~ I
~ j
co
I
~ Y
I
`
1 I]
Y
? rn
om 51GJ a03 -..
' '
mr- ZNIOJ 39NIH y
rn

° fc9
v f
?.)
Y Ll N
f0
r v c^
N
O
O
L y
0
b
r
0
O
co
H ?
Q y
O ?
? H
n
H ?
J ?
J
H
H
Z
n
q D
n
oy y
?
,
I
n
I ?
I O
`
~
HINGE POI".1T'
ti
FOR CUTS
'?
,
rOm ,,
1
mq

-
I
O }

w
Q

Co
I E?POINT-
w_ kTSLLS j
i0

i T H a
N

I !I co

L
j 'o

e?)
H
N
o ?
H I
H ?
0
2+
H
I
00

? HLOG. ? 1LY,N

-
FOR Y LS

? ti a 00
W
0

-HINGE POINT
FOR CUTS t
rn
z
__ - _
M Im 199
r
f 9

1 0l
t d
f
?
c
C) 1
Y ? ? fp
r ! (^
L ?
U
of _
rl
Ll
C
KIn o
p? O N
v ? m O
a m D
N
V

O O N
= O '?
C z -A (D -U -

m

'6
O

p U C)
?. rl Z
0Lo -C 7
-? n3?
O
- Z r?
0 O Q
CD SOD
o
Z
ON A r 0 0) =? W d
n m z 00
J
W
p n
LO
O
'a <
C
A ?
3

L
L
L L
N

h b'
/ 4)

V b
- ti
HtncE eolns
?
y? FOR CUTS ?

-

- o A I
HIN- FOIn?1
FR CUTS I

I:

HINGE
FCR FILLS'

H J

?t

H _ b
HINGE POINT' _?.
t" r'
? N C
N Ir1
I? l
° - -- - I ?
x\. H I FOR FILLS
m

'
lJ
lV n L7'
n n H
n
V v FTy -- - - -?'a
n t7,
_

r" F
r N „
?
ro ?a

n o
H O °
n > a z
r
I to H d
H
r+
I
I. O
ti

o O
I ?f HiNCE POINT b
?I FOR FILLS
i ? yp
? ,?
} /
N m '
A
v P
HINOE POI NT A ryry? V
o m '
A _ FOR CUTS

r

o
N
L)
y
°
f
O
?
h
?D
tom)
m
HINCE POINf _
FCR CUTS

?f -

H _HIFCE-POINT
FOR FILLS
v

N N N
n
\ f

L H

o
y b Q 1? No- '- Ln

t7'
.< I
z
n ro
> y B
F
I
v
O M,H POINT
r
Z FOR FILLS
O
O
Izy ._
N

HINGE POINT 'm
' FOI, CUTS
.3.
Y
r

r ro

O r
f
t11 ? l7
9 C ry 0
o m V
m m ?

°o
0 CD
w
O
_ "I ID
CL -U 0
_

?ao 71 J1 z

O

_
v
-
2-1 z
z ???
1
o C
d
c 0 30
fD
N
p
-
_ a o

?
N -?
O N(D o cr
o D
Ln CD -+
rM J d
o*?,n
??+ 00
O ?N * r
m N
Z
o
a ?
n

C 3

A !D
!n
M
N
=M - I f 0 I f I = == 0 0
0
0 0 O CD 0
n 3 fa v
0 °c N°o .? T I I I ?. .? fD
(T m
`-? J?30 1f J? X W l J M C: V CL V =
z CD 0 1). C/)
r- r
CD U3
O
C: L ;u n o F G N to p) Ip
• 03
CD
°o Z N En C/) Z O W n =r CD
c m D
:3 cn
C-) CL ON * Its' 0 L C4 d
=3 0 z CO
m w D 0
ni .o
n o
C N 01 <
A O = CD
U) 3
w >
N
0 = = 0 0 0 0 0
1 Q \\
e s'riipst,[ i 1 v - n
0 C:
1:150 - _
x p°, `G (D
N
- 7

-
.i
?

m
cf)
,.?. ?
1 ':A
rT,
1 ® (D
- • i
i
r CL
w„1,11 D t\- .'\ T
/' ccn 3 r r
--
p
o m -p
(n U)
M' of N _? \ ffl °-'
C) .. (n I
C p cD \ cD
:11111 _.
0 - ?_
1rr111r? D.? 0 (D
S O
S O
r, .
_ I? II
-? i - { j Ali T-?---
.r?. f \ I i ). j
T
Y CD
n1
W
00
(Z
CL n
CD (7
O
O
(.
< N
dd
e
?1fi•:
7dA1f4
I
J0
(D
m
N
1% CD
p
I,
'I
j
'I
'S

?. C/)
N (p
cf) <
n ?
O
O
C
co
v C
.N
N, (D
L7 ?
=• D
c <
1 CD
'Tl
m
(D
S
c
n
i \
E: 0
CD v
CL :5.
v?
o(D
(D 'Q
=3 0
?f

C)
c p
n O
Q
(n
7 p
d=3
C) o?
(D n?
3?
CD
nn
Ov,•c
G p ('
?O
_• O t_
r- (D
cn
c
(D (n
cn o
ry O d
O ? ry

?

Q
O ry N

N N

D-V -
44

o N
°o

?130 * S?
+ N)
N
C 0 0

0 m
A CD O O
a m C7
O- O O
°1 ? °?-' (

°?'

c'
Q O
o E

m

2
7
N
n
Get
- (D
a 'V n
Z y
,f
T? C S o
O O Q ° a -n z

o o
--
i
O
U) N o
7 0
m o'
N 0
3
m
O
a
m -
W
g
CL
:D d
CL s
:E f
m
` D
a
D r
(D
(n co

N
c
(O
o
C (D D

m cp
O o
co d
a 67 01
a N .7}
?G W 6)
(
n N m a .G ?-
q
n a a 0 (D 'p

'n m
x

(D 1

<
A
'
N CO
(A
ICJ D [? ? ?] ? C O O CrJ
t i i-- F'adro Rd I } +
1 1 -? ?`4 ? ,1? t 1
I _7
i-
x x
I_n
X
CL
_ Old Mock
j
8

Sao ?
o
o
?3 3 -4
3
Co I I I I l O l I I I y
0 o N o n n n n n m cn o cn c c -o :d m
0 CD CD
ID -4 (D -U
?y++iao * ,r, 0 0 0 m 3 °m 2 co ? a it CD Z y
o cn cn to ?' cn a o o m cn r C to - C O
z m m c m co M , a s m c O _ C 03
° (D 6 m O o o F a O Cr CD
(D Ln 1< CD C CD >
N o* ?C m (D m y m W d y W W
A ?,naH * T N N (D (O D 3 j ? Z pp -
c c m Ln 3 1 m a) 0
d
o a
r -1 r m 3 0 <
a v m
c ( CD r N CD
N N rn N 7 3
N 7
r?
N
u

n

= m = = m m m m = m = = = = m m m = =

?-? 11„nL.J' I i
((pp
C U ? O i ? r 'O fA T T I +

D 1111101

r (q C
3
(? ?
m n 3
m
o N
?_

o
0
N
cn ? ? ? ? ?. a f a 7 ? ?
9 QQ3 gg3 C? t? t?
p d <y d
? D n ? ? G?,
$
@° S2 6i to
ate{ _ E
8 m A ? GI
?^ y
Y C
z j1
t o 00
' $ W ?, 3 g m m c c 3
O

A

ON

m

? a ? N.
a

?

w
a 3 0
A
N
n

K M m
a
A' fA

y? 1111001 + I I 0 I 3 g
44
N N
F6

°3
m
0

o
$ s ?
5-
3 m m
`

o N; r N

m 3 v w A x ?o

S Z

a

y

V

.?.
j No
•? 7 m
?? i % r?? jV
G 4
? y
26 ?h' x $ w ?' `" m°$ v F?
?: 9 m x
be `y 0
S i
-
R Z y

z

n O
S

A
i
?t
[1
C)

/
/n Z
N ° j F d j Ul
3

r
W
r a
3 '?
j .? TI #
N

a 5
CD

? n
D) L
U)

D A
C
.a
OV - c

c 3
t(OD

c fD D

1

'Y n?N
m y ?K _
? 0
Z Cc
3
a d
.. CD 3 n

a
c
o
a 3
C c 0
m
N N
? m = = m = m ? m m = m = = = = = = m
? = = = m = m m m m m = m m m m = m m
?o
C y N

?a3
-?
O

I

®

I

I I I

0

V

° c o
'7 °m
p

x,30 % f
? ?Q
W
a
n o
F

?'
o

d O
co y a r

ID _ m CD
d co m r

a
? (3n
ID
' Cf
S C 7
cn z ) c O Q

d
' CL
(n
A N » m CD

m CD
?_ 5

?- CD
.?
m a)

Z°-+3

a a
m

m a
CD O

N n to ?
c
A
U)
w
3

m
o
:3

a
<D

3
O
v,
? = = m r m m = = = = = = m m = = m m

\. I
JI
Cl)
o -
l FL-
NW

I1 Q
J
cn C!
r ?c
i
i
T
m r- n
o O
a 3 I I I I I 01 < ?I
m v I _ m e*
n= o O O 1- c to :U o? fn C Z 0 .?.
0 ON (N W 7. 7. t R. (n ?p C O O 1 ('D
rn+I0 Jr cri S j 3 S2. O GI CD = n
?3 ??Q ` ° m o o v N° f +D m a
so M
r 'D C?
0i 0 o m 0 0 R m ? o a d m'r<, to .7? V! C n 3
o N v Z 3 :: 0 m a c l< > 0, .0 Sr M
c? f? Of
m *??no VJ D D D - N d C' ? t'S ,', '? tD
m CD CL
a tp n to
X 0 U)
n m
a) m
<
3
3 CO)
A ' N N (? 7
A H ?l

U)
N

(D
a
N
n
0
C
S
A

o
o 3 T,
O
o m I}I
m _a
V
m m m /?!
® I I I I a I V
?¢ m T i n a m =° '0 ci
klo
z :r
+? '?o m m o pip ° c'o m?) (n d i T c
I :r
o (T N Z 3 c c d do s
9? ? ? (G ?? 0c p3?
7i 9@3
m CD CD a) 0.
?oN m s
N a ; N ZTN
0 3 a M
q m (D 0
m d <
;o CD
3 ? 3
7
N N a)
N h

r
-T
ni
CL
CD
II Q

J- H,

D ?
1= I
r
a
N l
N Z
O \
co
N
n
S ?
i

TI
O
C
U S
n
CD
(D

J \_

K
O
N
O
n
N
CD
X,
T
O
c
S
n
N
I
01 ? m 'n
c I}I
J O
- D
0 1 I I I I I I V
3 V
X r fn C ' ID Cpl
0 o N o m e c g m = m ND
' O :CC N
c'7 rn ???ao * f, cNi ?b Q. S G a C
to 03
:71 -1
?C Q z a mrn > D
cn `' imp d ?_ w - la d
Z7 ON Lp fn N a C Z C!
?. ti J
Up CD DO p
so
A <
N U!

a
a
o ^?

w
i
l -? ¦
o N N o
X111 t
3 V
m n -n -n -n r-
__ o i i ° g m x `m' on
z ti?? '4? } o m m H °
n
° F m y y= N Z
p C) r CD
C) X 'con 3 a a o m t?D C n 3 N
o Cn Z „ m m n?aa> A D
.ZN7 ?1goN M ?? 'O t6. N 3 Q w .p :? 1a DI o L>
Z03
?n cD -? Co = o eo p
S' p ° o c 0
CL 3
U
3

CL
D
m
D ?
O CD
N
c
:3.
cD
1 r-1 J . A
I?
X
a
3
Q
fD
C
N
N
N
C
7.
7
f?
cn
W
(D
x
a

Old Mock

cr
m
C
CD
°'
N
G
7.
7
t0
U)
CD
Ul
v ?m
N

o p

m
m o I I ! • I I I I
Z V
n

0 o N
oo
rn
z

p

??+1a Jr'?

o
N
C
C

TI
O
C
Z

TI
O
C
Z

z
O
1 Q
CO o

-u
O

c

CD 7
p) C?

;p r !? C
N ?p O
O •rt
O - O =
f/!

D1
T
7

N
C n
A Z y

$ Q

:
o
N (n Z m
m m
m
O w
o cc z
U)
r y.
a 3 ?'
(n v
0 o °' ? v
° w:7 ?
a n co ?c
use - c
ovm
c A y
m QQ
m a ?i r 0
((D a) l<
D a
`a N
n
l
A ON »
m 7

CD

D N O CD

a
< o :3 CD
-

fD

v

- co a N

=
CD fD

m r

o

d ,>
Z OD

nCD=i

c
O
3

cD n
i
fn O
Q O p (p
a C
O
N
(1)
N f (D
7
N

Vi

J

t

Appendix B
Project Scoping Letter

n
C

r

1
r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 23, 2004
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Request for Comments for Environmental Ad Engheering
Studies Related to Improvements to the Existing 1-40/1-77
Interchange Area, Statesville, Iredell County, Federal-Aid
Project No. IMF-40-2 (124) 152, State Project
No. 8.1823901, WBS Element 34192.1.2, TIP Project
No. I-3819
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has retained the firm of
URS Corporation to prepare environmental documentation and engineering Studies for
the proposed improvements to the existing I-40/1-77 interchange area. Preliminary
findings indicate that the NEPA/Section 404 Merger 01 Process, which has been mutually
adopted by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR), and the NCDOT will guide these studies.
Study Area Characteristics
Mr. Clarence Coleman
Federal Highway Administration
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director C
Project Development and Environmental
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
The project is located just north of the City of Statesville in Iredell County, North
Carolina (See Figure 1.1). The study area is comprised primarily of land adjacent to the
I-40 and I-77 corridors, centered on the I-40/1-77 interchange. I-77 runs north/south
through Iredell County and I-40 runs east/west. The project study area falls within the
municipal planning limits of the City of Statesville south of I-40 and extends northward
to include existing commercial areas along US 21 on the western boundary of the study
area and northward along SR 2174 (Crawford Road) to include light industrial areas
along the eastern boundary. Most of the northern portion of the study area to the existing
I-77/US 21 interchange is an unincorporated area of Iredell County (See Figure* 1.2 for
boundaries of the study area).
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27611
2
Four interchanges make up the extreme points of the boundary. To the north is the
I-77/US 21 interchange, to the east is the 1-40/ SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road)
interchange, to the south is the I-77/SR 2321 (Broad Street) interchange, and to the west
is the I-401US 21 interchange. The eastern boundary includes Fifth Creek; SR 2174
(Crawford Road), US 64 and SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road). The southern boundary
includes US 64 and SR 2321 (Broad Street); the western boundary follows adjacent to
US 21.
The study area contains a mix of land uses. The western and southeastern parts are
comprised primarily of commercial and retail businesses. The southwestern and
northeastern areas are primarily residential. Land adjacent to I-77, north of I-40 is largely
undeveloped. Land uses in this area include agricultural fields, pastoral lands and forests.
The eastern portion of the study area is primarily comprised of light industrial and
manufacturing facilities.
Commercial development in the area is increasing and is a major traffic generator
contributing to existing safety deficiencies and high traffic volumes. Several portions of
the study area, including large tracts of land northeast of the I-40/1-77 interchange, have
considerable development potential. The majority of existing traffic volumes in the
project area are currently at or exceeding local roadway capacities.
Project Description
The proposed action is the improvement of the existing I-40/1-77 interchange area in
Iredell County. The project is designated in the 2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as TIP No. I-3819 and described as the "Statesville,
modification of I-40/1-77 interchange area." The goal of the study is to identify solutions
to improve the operations of the transportation system in the vicinity of the 1-40/1-77
interchange.
Purpose and Need
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
The primary needs for the proposed action include the following:
• Deficiencies in Traffic Operations, Levels of Service (LOS) and Safety,
• Inefficient high-speed regional, statewide and interstate traffic flow, and
Inadequate accessibility and efficiency of the study area roadway network.

r

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
3
The purpose of the proposed action includes the following objectives:
• Improve traffic operations, levels of service (LOS), and safety in the vicinity of
the existing I-40/I-77 interchange.
Needs Addressed: Many of the study area interchanges, freeway segments,
mainline segments, and intersections currently operate at deficient LOS. These
deficiencies cause significant travel delay, increase potential for accidents, and
contribute to the inefficient operation of motor vehicles. Future needs and
projected LOS are also deficient and therefore will cause increased travel delay,
increased potential for accidents, and contribute to the inefficient operation of
motor vehicles.
• Improve high-speed regional, statewide, and interstate traffic flowing through the
existing I-40/1-77 interchange.
Needs Addressed: Projected increases in traffic volumes will increasingly
diminish this interchange's ability to function; thus, impeding the efficiency of the
overall transportation system.
• Reduce negative impacts associated with delays to regional and interstate freight
' movement through the I-40/1-77 interchange area consistent with planned or
recommended local transportation improvements. Improve movement of freight
by ensuring a transportation system that is accessible, integrated and efficient.
1 Needs Addressed: Manufacturing operations require movement of goods to
maximize their competitiveness in the marketplace. Inefficient freight movement
' impedes interstate commerce and slows economic growth.
• Provide adequate roadway geometries.
' Needs Addressed: The existing interchange configuration includes ramp/loop
geometry, weaving areas, interchange spacing, and ramp lengths that are
' considered substandard.
' Natural Features
The majority of the study area has been previously developed. Preliminary investigations
' did not document any cultural resource sites, protected species, or parks within the study
area. Natural features in and/or adjacent the project study area include reforested
agricultural land, streams, ponds, and wetland areas. Fourth Creek and Fifth Creek and
' their associated tributaries drain the study area. The project study area is located within
the South Yadkin River Basin (HU#03040102).

4
The project is located in the west-central part of the Piedmont region of North Carolina.
The study area's terrain is gently rolling with elevation differences between 760 feet
(230 meters) above sea level in the southeastern area and 940 feet (286 meters) above sea
level in the northwestern area.
Schedules
This letter constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to the described project.
Please respond concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts of the proposed project
relating to the interest of your agency to allow the impacts to be fully studied. If
applicable, please identify any permits or approvals that may be required by your agency.
Please respond with any written comments by March 10, 2004.
Interagency meetings will be held periodically throughout the study periods. In addition,
agency meetings may be scheduled as specific issues arise.
If you have questions concerning this project, please contact Ms. Kristina Solberg, P.E.,
Project Planning Engineer, at [phone], Extension 310.
Thank you for your cooperation.
GJT/plr
Attachments

0

C
r

J

Appendix C
Agency Correspondence

r

7

J
L

u
Appendix C
Agency Correspondence
Part I
Federal Agencies

d

L
L

1
0t/Okl/2005 13:11 NC DOT PDEA 4 94611415 NO. E398 D01
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 29402.18"
April 28, 2005
' Regulatory Division
Action ID 200531626, TIP No. I-3819
1 Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Manager
RECEIVED
APR 29 2005
DIlI ONOF 000 W
PDEA-0FFICEOF HAT UlDWUW
North Carolina Department of Transportation
' Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
' Dear Dr. Thorpe:
' Reference the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) TIP
Project Number 1-3819 (State Project No. 8.1823901), described as Improvements to
Existing 1-4011-77Inrerchange Area, Statesville, Iredell Counry. This project was the
' subject of a NEPA/404 Merger Process Screening Meeting in February of 2004 at
which time we concluded, based on available information, that this project did not
meet merger screening criteria and would not proceed under the merger process. It
' was agreed that impact minimization would be reviewed following completion of the
environmental document. Recent developments, in the form of design changes and
natural resource field data, bave caused us to reconsider this earlier position. The
' purpose of this letter is to identify reasons why we believe this project should now be
processed under the NEPA/404 Merger Process.
' During the referenced merger screening meeting, this project was presented as
a reconstruction of the existing interchange having limited expansion outside of the
' existing footprint. No natural resource held data were available, however impacts to
jurisdictional waters and wetlands were projected as minimal and expectations were
that the project would be authorized by nationwide permit. On March 10, 2005 we
' received a Jurisdictional Stream and Wetland report for the project from your
consultant, URS Corporation, and conducted a joint inspection of the site on March 29,
2005 with representatives from NCDOT, NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ),
' Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and URS Corporation. Based on this report
and our field inspection, the proposed project alignment would impact a substantial
bottomland hardwood forest and riparian wetland complex in the southwest quadrant
' of the interchange. This wetland complex is estimated in the consultant's report to
measure approximately 20 acres in size and constitutes a high quality wetland,
„•05/09/,2005 13:09
NC DOT PDEA 4 94611415
NO. 897
1101

receiving a total score of 92 on the NCDWQ Wetland Rating Worksheet (Fourth
Edition). New interchange ramps from the proposed project alignment, which we
understand is the only alternative being considered for detailed study by NCDOT,
would run through the center of the wetland thereby maximizing the probable impacts
from construction. A follow-up merger screening meeting was held on April 14, 2005
to consider this new information. Representatives of NCDOT and FHWA concluded,
however, that they would continue to develop this project outside of the merger
process and get agency input on their preferred alternative when the draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) is released.
The Merger 01 Screening Process criteria (Appendix D) are now clearly met by
the present project. An individual Department of the Army (DA) permit will be
required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. High quality natural resources will
be impacted and the total direct impacts to these resources will far exceed the one-acre
threshold. We believe that this project will benefit substantially from early
coordination with and concurrence of the merger team members beginning with a
review of the purpose and need statement and the alternatives that NCDOT has studied
to date. A merger process meeting should be scheduled as soon as possible to address
Concurrence Points 1, 2 and 2A. A Concurrence Point 3 meeting would follow
completion of the draft EA mid our public interest review process. Failure to involve
the merger team at these early stages of the Merger Process will most likely lead to
project delays in the environmental review and DA permitting processes as NCDOT
backtracks to address issues and concerns regarding project purpose and need,
alternatives and avoidance of waters and wetlands. Therefore, we strongly recommend
that this project begin a full merger process review at the earliest possible date.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Mr. Steven Lund in our
Asheville Regulatory Field Office at telephone [phone], extension 223.
Sincerely,

E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Clarence W. Coleman, Jr.
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
2

D
C

C

MX0'9/2005 ^ 13:09 NC DOT PDEA 94611415
0
Mr. John Hennessy
NC Division of Water Quality
Transportation Pernutting Unit
' 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
' Ms. Polly Lespinasse
NC Division of Water Quality, Mooresville Regional Office
' Transportation Permitting Unit
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
i Mr. M.L. Holder, Division Engineer
NC Department of Transportation, Division 12
Post Office Box 47
Shelby, North Carolina 28151-0047

NO. 896 D01
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS COPY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 200531626 County: Iredell U.S.G.S. Quad: Statesville East
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: Gregory J. Thorpe, Director
Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone No.: 919-733-3141
Property description:
Size (acres) 100 approx. Nearest Town Statesville
Nearest Waterway Fourth Creek River Basin Yakdin
USGS HUC 03040102 Coordinates N 35.8041 W 80.8615
Location description Intersection of 1-40 and I-77 east of Statesville, TIP 1-3819
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
_ Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are wetlands and surface waters on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
X The wetlands and surface waters have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the GPS plat
provided by URS Corporation and dated 11 October 2005. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Page 1 of 2

LI

r
r
n

Action ID:
200531626
' Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
' determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Steven Lund at 828-271-7980.
Basis For Determination: Fourth Creek and its tributaries exhibit a distinct ordinary high water mark and flows directly to the
Yadkin River that is a navigable water. Delineated wetlands are subject to the regular and unimpeded exchange of water flow
' with Fourth Creek and its tributaries, are dominated by hydrophytic vegetation and exhibit wetland hydrology and hydric soil.
Remarks:
' Corps Regulatory Official: Steven W. Lund, Project Manager, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Date: November 21, 2005 Expiration Date: November 21, 2010
t Corps Regulatory Official (Initial): W
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data forrn must be attached to the file copy of this form.
• A copy of the "Notification Of Administrative Appeal Options And Process And Request For Appeal" form must be
transmitted with the property owner/agent copy of this form.
' • If the property contains isolated wetlands/waters, please indicate in "Remarks" section and attach the
"Isolated Determination Information Sheet" to the file copy of this form.
' Copy Furnished: Mr. Ray C. Bode, URS Corporation, 1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 100, Morrisville, NC
27560

L

1 Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM
To: Project File (31823345)
From: Jeff Koontz, PP
Date: March 25, 2004
RE: State Project 8.1823901 (7'1 P I-3819)
Iredell County
1-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvement Project
Comment provided by US Fish and Wildlife Service

A comment was provided on the subject project to NCDOT Project Manager, Kristina Solberg via
e-mail on March 25, 2004 and is as follows:
I wanted to comment on the scoping for 1-3819. At this preliminary stage, the USFWS has no big
concerns with the project. 1 have searched the Heritage database and that, combined with local
knowledge, reveal no known locations of listed plants or animals in the project vicinity. When
more is known about specific project plans and the resources that will be affected, we will provide
more substantive comments. Should any rare resources be discovered in further work on this
project, we will provide the consultation necessary.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment informally. We look forward to working with you on
this project.
Marella Buncick
USFWS
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
828-258-3939 ext 237

C
L

r

Appendix C
Agency Correspondence
Part II
State Agencies

H

L
r
I

' NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor Y S William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
L?
?'? ? 200A
IC7
o+t??
' MEMORANDUM
' TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
' Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: 04-0199 Scoping, Proposed Improvements to the Existing 1-40%I-
77 Interchange Area, Statesville, Iredell County
DATE: March 2, 2004
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the appli-cant's
information.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
i
Attachments
' 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
-Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
'roject Number.
Due Reaivd:
rP??ll 02-1 , CON
its project is being reviewed as indicated below:

1
Date Response Due (firm deadline): 1
c? z z 1
1
1
Zegional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
7 Asheville Air Soil & Water ? Marine Fisheries
:1 Fayetteville ?Water c Coastal Management
:roMooresville /?SJroundwater Wildl e t ? Water Resources
Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Environmental Health
Washington ? Recreational Consultant ?Iorest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
Wilmington ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
D Winston-Salem Parks & Recreation ? Other
/
Water Quality -- J N
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
Manager Sig-0ff/R4on: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Other (specify or attach comments)
WET

RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
LANDS 1401 GROG 1
FR OUAu T S'r_'00P:
1
1
?yjC
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
k M,
FCDENFZ Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Number: v - LDue Date:
fer ERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
D comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
,'ppljotions, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual. (90 days)
not discharging into state surface waters.
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment 90 - 120 days
discharging into state surface waters. facility-granted after NPDES. Replytime,30 days after receipt of plans or issue (N/A)
of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit I Preapplication technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days
On-site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement

to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. (90 days)
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A 60 days
(2Q.0100, 20.0300, 2 H.D600)
I Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
60 days
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A (90 days)
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919-733-0820.
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of S40 for the first acre or any part of an acre. (30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. 30 days
1 Minino Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond flied with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted. The approoriare bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C- Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required "if more than five 1 day
in coastal N.C-with organic soils. acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested (N/A)
at least ten days before actual bum is planned.'
i Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90 - 120 days
(N/A)
Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is accordino to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program,and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. 30 days
' An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum (60 days)
fee of S200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
I

PER '
MITS I SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time

Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
File surety bond of S5,000 with DENR runnin
S (Statutory Time Lrmrtl
g to
tate of N.C. conditional that any
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged accordin '
1
days
g
to DENR rules and regulations. (
(N/A)
Geophysical Exploration Permit

Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application
by letter. No standard application form. '
10 days
(N/A)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. 15 / days I
- 20
(N/A
'
)
401 Water Quality Certification
N/A ays
=

CAMA Permit for MAJOR development ((11
ays) '
$250.00 fee must accompany application I 60 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MINOR development S50.00 fee must accompany application
;22 days
days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the p
N
C roject area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
.
. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C.27611

Abandon
f '
ment o
any wells, if required must be in accord ance with Title 15A.Subchapter X0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if'orphan' underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered durino anv Pxcavation operation.
Compliance with 1 SA NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
45 days
(N/A)
P Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certa'n to cite comment authority)
'3 A
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office Mooresville Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place 919 North Main Street 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Asheville, N.C.28801 Mooresville, N.C.28115 Wilmington, N.C. 28405
[phone] [phone] [phone]
0 Fayetteville Regional office ? Raleigh Regional Office ? Winston-Salem Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687 585 Wauahtown Street
"Fayetteville, N.C.28301 Raleiah, N.C.27611
[phone] [phone] Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]
'7 North Carolina
Department of [n?rrunment :utdi ? Kurth Carolina
Nair ral Resources FOREST Di osron vl'Forest Resources
---?? SERVICE
Michael F. Easley, Governor Stanford M. Ad: qqty` p e g
14CDE'NR ?L''illirm G. Ross] r., Secretary N*C 241 1 Old US0 West
Clayton, NC 27520
' February 23, 2004
1
' MEMORANDUM
' TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources
' SUBJECT: DOT Scoping for Improvements to 140/177 Interchange Are near Statesville
' PROJECT 04-0199 and TIP # I - 3819
' The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced scoping document and
offers the following comments that should be addressed in the EA concerning impacts to woodlands.
I . The widening of an existing roadway usually has fewer impacts to forest resources than a new
' location project. So that we can evaluate construction impact, list, by timber type, the total forest land
acreage that is removed or taken out of forest production as a result of the project. If no impacts will
occur please state so in the document.
' 2. Additionally, efforts should be made to align corridors to minimize impacts to woodlands in the
following order of priority:
t Managed, high site index woodland
• Productive forested woodlands
• Managed, lower site index woodlands
' • Unique forest ecosystems
• Unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands
• Unmanaged, cutover woodlands
' • Urban woodlands
3. The EA should include a summary of the potential productivity of the forest stands affected by the
' proposed project. Potential productivity is quantified by the soil series, and is found in the USDA Soil
Survey for the county involved.
' 4. The provisions the contractor will take to utilize the merchantable timber removed during
construction. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products. However, if the wood products
cannot be sold then efforts should be made to haul off the material or turn it into mulch with a tub
' grinder. This practice will minimize the need for debris burning, and the risk of escaped fires and
smoke management problems to residences, highways, schools, and towns.
r
1610 Mail Service Center, fUeiuh. North Carolina 27099-1601
' 11honu (W) _ 7 ; ,-"- I o? \ I 1 \ 919 \ Inrrrn !r www dfr <t.m, nc us
5. 1 f woodland burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and regulations of open
burning as covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through G.S. 113-60.31. IrredelI County is a non-high
hazard counties, and G.S. 113-60.24 requiring a regular burning permit would apply.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take to prevent erosion and damage to forestland outside the
right-of-way. Trees, particularly the root system, can be permanently damaged by heavy equipment.
Efforts should be to avoid skinning of the tree trunk, compacting the soil, adding layers of fill,
exposing the root system, or spilling petroleum or other substances.
7. The impact upon any existing greenways in the proposed project area should be addressed.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and encourage the impact on our
forestland be considered during the planning process.
cc: Barry New
W A T?
? 9 Michael F. Easley, Govemor
Willi
G
' ?
Q
O G am
. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
\
. Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
> Division of Water Quality

February 18, 2004
'
MEMORANDUM
' TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator CiVCv
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Improvements to Existing I-40/I-77 Interchange Area,
' Statesville, Iredell County, F.A. Project No. IMF-40-2 (124) 152, State Project No.
8.1823901, TIP Project No. I-3819. State Clearinghouse Project No. 04-0199.
' In reply to your correspondence dated January 23, 2004 (received February 12, 2004) 1n which you
requested comments for the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project indicates that the
following water resources in South Yadkin River Basin (HU 030706) will be impacted:

Stream (Index) Water Quality Classification
¦ Fifth Creek (Five Mile Branch) & UTs C
¦ Fourth Creek & UTs C; 303(d) list
¦ Beaver Creek & UTs WS-IV
¦ Morrison Creek C
The purpose of the project is to improve access and to improve safety and traffic carrying capacity.
NC Division of Water Quality believes this project should not go through the full Merger/Concurrence
Process, but have team merger meetings at the Concurrence 4a, 4b and 4c points. DWQ has the following
comments:
Environmental Documentation
¦ The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. There should be a discussion on
mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is preferable to present a
conceptual Of not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While the
NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects
requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification.
Planning and Design Issues
¦ Fourth Creek and its unnamed tributaries are on the §303(d) list of impaired waters from nonpoint
source pollution resulting from urban runoff and sediment. The hydraulic design for this project
should pre-treat stormwater runoff to remove pollutants and sediment through best engineering
practices appropriate to the project site's topography.
¦ While this project is not located within the critical area of the Beaver Creek water supply
watershed, hazardous spill catch basins may be required if USEPA determines this project area to
be a "hotspot" for spills.
¦ Onsite wetland delineation shall be performed prior to application for §401 Certification.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
GA
NCDENR
1-3819 Scoping Letter
February 18, 2004
Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. In accordance with the
NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)}, mitigation will be required for impacts
of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation becomes
required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values.
In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)}, the NC Wetland
Restoration Program (NCWRP) may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Fourth Creek and the lower South Yadkin River watersheds (03040102 030020 & 030040) are
two of 55 watersheds in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin that have been identified by the NC
Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) as areas with the greatest need and opportunity for
stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be given higher priority than a non-
targeted watershed for the implementation of NCWRP restoration projects. Please contact
NCWRP or the NC Division of Ecological Enhancement for more information if this project
requires mitigation.
Construction Issues
• Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands. Sediment should be
removed from any water pumped from behind a cofferdam before the water is returned to the
stream.
• Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands or waters are impacted by waste or borrow.
¦ Impacts due to utility relocations from the project may require compensatory mitigation.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
pc: Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Gregory J. Thorpe, NCDOT PDEA
File Copy

7- -w
1 2004

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number

' NATORAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 0-Ir _ o„?y
Count
y
Ic?e ?
re
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
O0Yove
Z4O -
1
f
Z-1 `1
?
,,
...7a r
-
.
s
Project Name ?.,4`erc?a,,c? -s7ofP??l?eType of Project S?iaa
' Comments provided by:
? Regional Program Person
' Regional Engineer for Public Water Supply Section
? Central Office program person
Name: Z2 c 1T S6--i- z 2 Date: -
_
2-4
Telephone number: G3 - A- 1 I
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
? Public Water Supply
? Other, Name of Program:.
R
s
h
ll
k
li
bl
e
ponse (c
ec
a
app
ca
e):
? No objection to project as proposed
? No comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
Comments attached Lp,•? q C ??
' See comments below

7/K C r i h orb S74 TF S V - L- t J'_ ? f
LG ?f Tc .,? ! O,? % W E S T S I a E o rC i vn o? o S f D STi- D
n-rL.P-,Ir' "f, s ,S T-,
Return to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health
rrC -
1 ,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES c q- o
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name Type of Project ??-
? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required- b)415A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Sectio!tt, (919)
733-2321.
? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
? The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
? For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.

? 2 /V- s, 7-2-,C-A- P's f
Reviewer
Section/Branch
2-1? A?
Date
L

2 3 7 S
••,ra,? ZU04
VEb
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

J

Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator 7?',-I xw ?--
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: February 26, 2004
SUBJECT: Scoping review of NCDOT's proposed improvements to the existing I-40/1-77
interchange area, Statesville, Iredell County. TIP No. I-3819.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting comments from the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) regarding impacts to fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Staff biologists have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d).
The NCDOT proposes to make improvements to the existing I-401-77 interchange area.
The two intersecting roadways are among the most heavily traveled interstate highways in North
Carolina. Commercial development in the area is increasing and is a major traffic generator
contributing to existing safety deficiencies and high traffic volumes. Several portions of the
study area have considerable development potential. Several streams, ponds and other natural
features occur in the project area, including Fourth Creek, Fifth Creek, Beaver Creek and their
tributaries, all of which appear to be Class C waters. We recommend that NCDOT plan the
project in such a manner that will effectively accommodate the inevitable periodic future
widenings of I-40 and I-77 and the expected growth and development in the area, while
minimizing impacts to the natural environment.
The NCWRC has no additional specific concerns at this time regarding this project.
However, to help facilitate document preparation and the review process, our general
information needs are outlined below:
' Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Semce Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. _'81 • Fax: [phone]
I-40 and I-,77 Interchange
Iredell County 2 February 26, 2004
4.
6
7
9
Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern species. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project construction should be included in the inventories. A
listing of designated plant species can be developed through consultation with the
following programs:
and,
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. If applicable, include the
linear feet of stream that will be channelized or relocated.
Cover type maps showing wetland acreage impacted by the project. Wetland acreage
should include all project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic change as a result of
ditching, other drainage, or filling for project construction. Wetland identification may
be accomplished through coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). If the USACE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be
identified and criteria listed.
Cover type maps showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed
project. Potential borrow sites and waste areas should be included.
Show the extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of
wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
Include the mitigation plan for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and
indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
Address the overall environmental effects of the project construction and quantify the
contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation.
Provide a discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources, which will result from
secondary development, facilitated by the improved road access.
If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal, or private
development projects, a description of these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors should be identified.
' I-40 and 1-77 Interchange
Iredell County

J
3
February 26, 2004
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages of this project.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Marella Buncick, USFWS
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ

7/06/2004 15:17 NC DOT PDEA 4 94611415 NO. 817 1?01
North Caroline Department of Cultural Resources
State Estorie Preservation Office
Michael F. 8aSley, am mor uevLMan nvu sUsou EM
Lisbeth C. Evuas, Secretary Devi ? Dfrwwr
Icffmy J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
LAJ
blarch 5, 2004 61
]AEMORANDUM
Ok'
PP.OJEG ,???!
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director FnVI R01?M
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Dit ision of Highways
MOM: David Brook "It, `?. SUBJECT: 1-40/1-77 Intercha rea, Statesville, 1-3819, Iredell County, ER04-0367
Thank you for your letter of January 23, 2004, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic
resources which would be affected by the project Therefore, we have no comment on the
undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc= SCH
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT

Post-W Ftix Note 7671 ome 1 , ?
To F?>7? From lpisk?
CrolDepL U ?°• ?G .?Q l
Phona w Phone r 3 • -? ?4t1: s ??
Fax #A (p 1 - 15 ax
www. b pe.der.atate.ne.oe
Leastloe Malling Address Telerpboatmes
ADMU"SCRA.-nON 507 N. Blaum St. Raleigh, NC 461.7 Mail Service Center. Raleigh. NC 27699.4619 10 101 71u761 . Rq-X V;

J

r

I
Re: Scoping Meeting for TIP-3819
I-40 /1-77 Interchange
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
DA 130%
I have reviewed the information and material you sent me on March 10, 2004, and the
prior Feasibility Study on this project date March 2001, that was given to me by my
predecessor on the DOT Board, Frank Johnson. There are a few observations that I do
not want us to overlook since I live very close to this interchange and drive it in various
directions on virtually a daily basis.
The first and most important concerns traffic proceeding in a westwardly direction on I-
40 intending to proceed south on I-77. This would be traffic coming from the Winston-
Salem area headed toward the Charlotte area and represents a huge and ever increasing
volume. The present route of this traffic at the interchange is an up-grade loop from I-40
up to I-77. The angle of the turn-off from I-40 is such that a reduction in speed is
absolutely required and the grade of the loop upward prevents normal acceleration of
most vehicles (particularly trucks) resulting in a less than normal and undesirable speed
of vehicles on this loop and is very hazardous for the slower vehicles merging into
normal speed traffic on I-77.
' The preliminary drawings of the proposed improvements that I have seen all seem to
retain this loop as it exists. I urge strongly that some type high speed "fly-over" road or
route be incorporated in the plans to carry south bound traffic on I-77 from westbound I-
40 in a more efficient, safe and desirable fashion. I feel very sincerely that not to do so
would be a serious mistake that future generations of travelers on this particular
intersection would have to endure.

,r a0??A3 ??yh
01
rIG
91
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
ROBERT A. COLLIER. JR. SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
Judge (Retired)
Post Office Box 293
Statesville, NC 28687
March 22, 2004
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548

There are two other items that I did not see in the information you sent me which may be
covered elsewhere, but which I do not want us to overlook. Both would be in the Study
Area (Figure 1.2) that was attached to your letter to me outlined in red.
The first is the need for adequate street lighting of the study area which at present is non-
existent except for very minimal (band-aide type) lighting in the immediate I-40 / I-77
interchange that was installed a few years ago. Statesville is the only town I am aware of
that has virtually no lighting of the interstates within its limits even at the interchanges.
We must at least provide modern highway lighting in the study area as a part of this
project.
The other feature that I see no provisions for in any plans that I have seen are sound
barrier walls along residential areas that border the study areas. There are existing and
proposed residential areas on the west and east sides of I-77 south of the 1-40 / I-77
interchange in the study area and on the south side of I-40 west of the interchange also in
the study area. Some of the neighborhoods are very upscale and deserve a quality brick-
type barrier wall.
The only other matter I would mention is the arrow pointing down on the study area map
indicating that "To Downtown Statesville" is toward the bottom of the map while
downtown Statesville is actually to the left (west) of I-77 and south of I-40. A minor
point but it could be misleading to anyone not familiar with the area in that the arrow
actually points away from downtown rather than toward it.
As you know, I am very new on the DOT Board and if any of these observations are out
of place, premature or misdirected please disregard them. I trust I will learn in due
course the proper procedures.
Sincerely
obert . Collier, Jr. /
Director
N.C. DOT
JBC / jmt

r

C

7

r
Appendix C
Agency Correspondence
Part III
Local Agencies

02/25/2005 16:54 NC DOT nMf 4 94611415 NO.67e 002
r
Titu of
?tattaufflt
dBoe of the ag M=Wr
Rebut W. H mm IF.
701678-3564 phone >W- M3514 69
rab.J9U*@d.%U1eWMCJX z

ti. (P. 79ax 1111 • 61desuiUe. Nort4 Maraltua 28687
February 8. 2005
Ms. Kristina Solberg
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
RE.: Comments on 1-3819 2004 Presentation of Project # 1-7711-40;1-40/NC 21
Improvements
Dear Ms. Solberg:
Thank you for coming to Statesville and presenting your conceptual plan
for improvements to Interstates 77/40 and Interstate 40 and NC Hwy 21. We
appreciate NCDOT's recognition of the problem related to these intersections
and as such offer the following constructive comments.
Generally, we would prefer that the design for the entire project relieve
current traffic conditions and provide at least a "B" level of service at the date
' of completion. Given that it is a "20" year fix we do not believe that moving
from an "F" to a "D" provides 20 years of relief.: f
Provide a "direct access" for 1-40 to the service road that serves
Crossroads Shopping Center (Wal-Mart) ga?ft cut it through to serve the North
Western side of 1-40 and then 1-77. This will cut out a tremendous amount of
' traffic at 1-40 and NC Hwy 21 since all proprietors in that area must use the I-
40/NC Hwy 21 intersection to traverse the city.
' Design and construct the 1-40 bridge over NC Hwy 21 to handle a five lane
pattern with accommodation for bicycles and pedestrian traffic under the
bridge. The city is currently expending over $150,000 per annual constructing a
comprehensive pedestrian travel system through town and along the city's
greenways.
1
Ensure that all bridges are designed to accommodate either
pedestrian/bicycle lanes over or under bridges.
Ensure that 1-40/1-77 and I-40/NC Hwy 21 are lighted. Due to design
limitations of a "D" traffic projection from date of completion, we request that
median lighting be installed from Exit 154 through Exit 150 in this highly
congested area. Should lighting not be possible In this project provide conduit
and stub out for future median lighting.
Ensure that NCDOT provides planting plans/stub outs for electricity and
water for future irrigation in order for the State and City of Statesville to property
maintain the new Intersection with sprinkled planting areas.
The consultant recommends improvements of Pump Station Road to serve
as an access road to 1-40. Provide continued unrestricted access to city's water
plant and grounds. Provide suitable underpass at Fourth Creek to reconstruct
existing greenways/walking trails currently maintained by the city.
Bear the cost of any additional security measures displaced or changed
by the location of the road that protect the city's water treatment system.
Widen to six lanes NC Hwy 21 from 1-40 to its intersection with (service
road) to avoid a traffic backup on the Interstate or design and construct "direct
access" to the service road from 1-40 described in item #2 above.
Thank you for your time in reviewing these comments. Please do not
hesitate to contact me or the city staff at 704.87&3583.
Sincerely,

Robert W. Hites, Jr.
City Manager
JEM:RH:nb
Cc: Honorable Robert E. Collier, Jr.
Wayne Lambert, Public Works Director
David Currier, Director of Planning & Development
Mike Holder, D.E., NCDOT

flII
1
01.?? - Office of the Fire Chief
T 316 S Meeting Street
' Statesville NC 28677
tatesutll?e
. (??. t nx 1111 • *tutesuille, Nort4 Qirulina 28687
' December 17, 2004
' Kimberly S. Leight, AICP
URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive
' Morrisviiie NC 27560
Re: State Project 8.1823901 (TIP No. 1-3819)
' Per your request dated December 9, 2004, 1 am supplying the following data:
' Fire Station Locations (none are in the general vicinity of any interchange).
Fire Station #1 - 316 S. Meeting St.
' Fire Station #2 -110 Security Dr.
Fire Station #3 - 779 Eastside Dr.
' Service areas.
Fire Station #1 - area generally contained within quadrant defined by N. Lackey
' St. to the east, West End Ave. to the west, James Farm Rd. and US 21 to the
north and S.Center St at Amity Hill Rd. to the south.
' Fire Station #2 - area generally contained within quadrant defined by
US 64-90 and Walker Rd. to the west, W. Front St. and N. Lackey St. to the east,
Hwy. 115 and Museum Rd. to the north, and Buffalo Shoals Rd. and Johnson Dr.
' to the south.
Fire Station # 3 - area generally contained within the quadrant defined by E.
' Broad St. at East End Ave. to the west, E. Broad St. and Mocksville Hwy. to the
east, Crawford Rd. at Brookview Rd. to the north, and US 70 at Intercraft Dr. to
the south.
' Annual number of calls per station (5 year average).
Fire Station #.1 - 497
' Fire Station #2 -193
Fire Station #3 - 485

'
Current Issues with existing travel patterns.
Highway 21 at 140 interchange at virtual standstill during normal workday traffic
and holidays due to retail services in the area. ,
• Construction activities should allow fast adequate access to all areas from center
of city '
.
• Comments - the Statesville Fire Department does not use 1-77 or 1-40 as

emergency response routes due to traffic conditions and dangerous conditions '
presented by the access ramps. Responses are generally limited to emergency
incidents that occur on or in areas contained by the Interstate highways. Any ,
corrections at your listed interchanges would be most welcomed by our
department and we can work with your personnel to prevent problems during
construction.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, contact me at your convience.
Sincerely,
Richard Campbell, Fire Chief
Statesville Fire Department
Cc'. ? A S .,,q
January 6, 2005
Iredell County Rescue Squad, Inc.
' P. O. Box 781 JAN
1 2GD5
Statesville, NC 28687
Ms. Kimberly S. Leight
URS
1600 Perimeter Park Dr.
' Morrisville, NC 27560
Dear Ms. Leight,
' In response to your request for information, I hope the following explanations to your
questions will be helpful:
• Iredell County Rescue Squad, Inc. is the primary provider for rescue service in the
affected area. The Squad building is located at 1902 Wilkesboro Hwy. which is
approximately four (4) miles away.
• This station provides coverage for the entire area affected by the construction. It
serves from the Catawba County line to the Davie County Line from west to east. It
covers north from the South Yadkin River to the south just north of Troutman.
• The average number of calls in the area varies from month to month. We respond to
as many as 15 calls in a month to as few as 8 in a month's time.
' • Current Issues:
1. Clover leaf area of 1-77 & I-40 is extremely over crowded. You should never
' have cars exiting and entering using the same roads.
2. The area around Highway 64 and 1-40 is becoming more congested as time
goes on. A traffic signal will be necessary in the near future.
' 3. Highway 21 has numerous problems - congestion prevents exiting the
interstate on the west bound side without long lines lining up beside the travel
lanes of 1-40. Along highway 21 the area is congested in the lunch and after
' work times making response difficult.
4. Reconsider the closing of the entrance and exit ramps at Highway 64. These
areas if closed will cause much more congestion at the Old Mockesville Road
ramps. These ramps do not hinder traffic as they now exist.
• Issues with Construction Activities:
1. Up to date notice of closings or limited access to construction areas.
' 2. Complete as much as possible during night and non peak hours of travel.
3. Compensate for turnarounds for emergency vehicles.
4. Limit construction to non-vacation time.
' 5. Allow access to emergency vehicles into construction areas. Allow vehicles to
utilize construction lanes when traffic backs up blocking access to any part of
the interstate.
Please let us know if we an be of any more help to you in the future.
W. M. Sherrill, Jr. Deputy Chief
Iredell County Rescue Squad, Inc.
' Iredell County Emergency Medical Service
P.O. Box 788 - 400 S. Meeting Street - Statesville, North Carolina 28687-0788 '
Administration: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Web Address: www.iredellems.com - K. Lee Darnell, Director
February 16, 2005
Kimberly S. Leight, AICP '
URS Corporation
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 100
Morrisville, NC 27560 '
Dear Ms. Leight,
This letter is in response to the packet that you sent me on December 13, 2004. I apologize for '
the delay in getting back to you and I do hope that my tardiness has not hindered your efforts. In
case you have any questions about my responses I will give you my cell phone number. It is '
[phone]. Feel free to call me at anytime as needed. Below is the information that you
requested.
The names and locations of all EMS facilities within or immediately adjacent (within a street or
two) to the project study area.
No EMS physical facilities are located in the boundaries as noted on your map. Two
points of vital interest to EMS are within or near the borders. Iredell Memorial Hospital ,
(within the borders) is our most frequented hospital. We also use the helipad frequently
as a direct means on flying out patients to local trauma centers. Just inside the eastern
border of the map is Davis Regional Medical Center. Davis is also a frequent destination
for our ambulances. Davis also serves as a helipad site as well.
The service areas for each facility.
Since no EMS physical facilities are located in the area this doesn't really apply. For the
record, the entire map area is covered by the Statesville EMS base which is located at 400
The average number of calls each facility responds to monthly.
The county as a whole responds to about 1,000 calls per month. Statesville is our busiest
base and the area indicated on the map is a very busy section. I don't have stats other I
than what I listed for the area.
Current issues that you have with existing travel patterns for EMS responders throughout the I
study area.
• The highway 21 & I-40 interchange area is a constant area of concern. We very
frequently respond to accidents both on 21 and I-40, specifically on I-40 west
bound on the exit ramp to highway 21.

• The I-40/I-77 interchange is frequently used and we have concerns about the
area once major construction begins.

• The rest of the area really doesn't present any major travel issues for us at this
point.
Issues you may have with construction activities occurring at the listed interchanges.
• As noted above serious work needs to be done at the 21/40 interchange.
Any other comments that may be pertinent to the planning, design, and implementation of the
improvements project.
I appreciate the fact that you contacted me about this project. So many major projects
that impact us come and go without us ever being considered. As the process continues, I
ask that you make sure to consider access for us to cross the interstate at different points
between exits. Right now on the interstates we will respond to wrecks and have to pass
by them and travel down to the next exit to turn around and come back. Major delays in
patient care result from this issue.
That is all that I can think of so far. If I realize any issues that I have left out I will forward them
to you. In the meantime please feel free to contact me at your leisure.
Thanks again for considering us!
Sincerely,
K. Lee Darnell, BS, NREMT-P
EMS Director

C

r
L

n

Appendix D
Agency Coordination

06/2004 15:17 NC DOT PDER 4 94611415 NO. 817 901
' North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Mstorie Preservation Office
' on
MiohmlF, Easlry, vomor invrsr PR%KA%A&4 MUMUl"04
Davi Dw'
Lisbeth C. Evuas, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crew- Deputy SecrctwY
Otrt'ice of Archives and History
' L44
March 5, 2004 cr_
' MEMORANDUM
PROJE? V
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director ?NVI ROVA
' Project Development and En-vironmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT' Division of Highways
PROM- David Brook
SUBJECT: I-44/1-77 Intercha Area, Smtesville,1-3819, Iredell County, ER04-0367
Thank you for your letter of January 23, 2004, concerning the above project-

r

We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic
resources which would be affected by the project:. Therefore, we have no comment on the
undertaking is proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
9t 9/733-4763. In all future conunuaication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc:: SCH
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Post-K' Fax Note 7671 "
°its 1 ?
To J,e F.?t,.?? Cam
from
WOW. U C
! Co. QG.?
Phone M Ph" A 7, 3 - ? X44 ? 310
Fax 41 LO 1 - + 15 eK
www.b pu.der.ente.ar-o.
L Cedon MaMpg Address Telepboneffax
_? "-__ -__. -_-.. ... _.._ ,.. _. ? .._ _?.?.._ .... .. .... -...... u.w .......w„ ...?.. ...w errs
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Fly
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 200531626 County: Iredell U.S.G.S. Quad: Statesville East
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: Gregory J. Thorpe, Director
Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone No.: 919-733-3141
Property description:
Size (acres) 100 approx. Nearest Town Statesville
Nearest Waterway Fourth Creek River Basin Yakdin
USGS RUC 03040102 Coordinates N 35.8041 W 80.8615
Location description Intersection of I40 and I-77 east of Statesville, TIP I-3819
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are wetlands and surface waters on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
X The wetlands and surface waters have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the GPS plat
provided by URS Corporation and dated 11 October 2005. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Page I of 2

Action ID:
200531626
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Steven Lund at 828-271-7980.
Basis For Determination: Fourth Creek and its tributaries exhibit a distinct ordinary high water mark and flows directly to the
Yadkin River that is a navigable water. Delineated wetlands are subject to the regular and unimpeded exchange of water flow
with Fourth Creek and its tributaries, are dominated by hydrophytic vegetation and exhibit wetland hydrology and hydric soil.
Remarks:
Corps Regulatory Official: Steven W. Lund, Project Manager, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Date: November 21, 2005 Expiration Date: November 21, 2010
Corps Regulatory Official (Initial): W
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
• A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data form must be attached to the file copy of this form.
• A copy of the "Notification Of Administrative Appeal Options And Process And Request For Appeal" form must be
transmitted with the property owner/agent copy of this form.
• If the property contains isolated wetlands/waters, please indicate in "Remarks" section and attach the
"Isolated Determination Information Sheet" to the file copy of this form.
Copy Furnished: Mr. Ray C. Bode, URS Corporation, 1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 100, Morrisville, NC
27560
Page 2 of 2

E

Appendix E
Public Involvement

' 1401-77 luterchange
Project Schedule
1
' citiz's I»fo»mmiaw wom*
AWA 23, 2004
' 4:00 -1:00 pm.

? August 23, 2004
? May 2005
? Summer 2005
? December 2005
' Kristina Solberg
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation
A 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548

The NCDOT will analyze the impacts of the proposed
improvements to the human and natural environments
within the project study area in the forthcoming
environmental document. Human environmental
issues to be explored include general demographics,
special needs populations, air/noise and community
cohesion. Important natural features under
consideration include wetland systems, streams,
protected plant and animal species and water quality.
The results of all studies will be documented in the EA
and available for public review at the Public Hearing.

- Citizen's Informational Workshop
- Environmental Assessment Complete
- Public Hearing
- Finding Of No Significant Impact Complete
I-77/I-40 Interchange Improvements
Project Newsletter
NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program
0
'.o
Z
I?,
WBS No. 34192.1.1
State Project No. 8.1823901
TIP Project No. I-3819
AbOUt t1_IC 1'1_0jCCt
Mark your The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes
calendars! to improve the existing I-40/1-77 interchange and five adjacent
interchanges just north of the City of Statesville in Iredell County. The
adjacent interchanges that will also be analyzed for improvements are:
CITIZEN'S . 1-77/US 21;
INFORMATIONAL • 1-40/US 64;
WORKSHOP I-40/SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road);
• 1-77/SR 2321 (Broad Street); and
• 1-40/US 21.
August 23, 2004
The NCDOT is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) for the
4:00-7'00 p.m. project, which is scheduled for publication in May 2005. An EA
discloses relevant information about the potential environmental
impacts and benefits associated with the project. The Federal Highway
Statesville City Hall Administration (FHWA), NCDOT and our Federal and state
Council Chambers environmental resource and regulatory partners will use this
information to select the best alternative for the improvements.

p 1'1ICct tudv Alv'l

This study area is located in the west-central part of the Piedmont
region of North Carolina and is characterized by interstate freeways,
major thoroughfares and a considerable amount of commercial
development. The City of Statesville encompasses the project study
area south of I-40 and extends northward to include the businesses
along US 21 west of the study area and SR 2174 (Crawford Road) east
of the study area. The northern portion of the study area lies within the
unincorporated portion of Iredell County.
High traffic volumes are experienced at the I-77/1-40 interchange and
on adjacent roadways. These volumes increase the potential for
accidents and congestion. Improving the I-77/I-40 interchange would
improve traffic operations and safety in the vicinity of the I-40/1-77
interchange; regional, statewide and interstate high-speed travel
through the I-40/1-77 interchange; and accessibility, efficiency and
safety of the local road network.
t
rurpose or the r1-oIect
The primary purposes and objectives of the project include:
• Improve traffic flow along the I-40 and I-77 corridors in the study area.
Existing and projected future operational
deficiencies in the I-77/1-40 interchange would i
contribute to operational deficiencies in the other
interchanges within the system, thus impeding the
efficiency of the overall transportation system in
the immediate area.
• Regional connectivity between Iredell County
and points east, west, north and south within
North Carolina and across the interstate system.
Project
Study
Area
a. arva"i#a1w!? , ?
-Identify solution to inner ovtidt tioh
of the' existing 1-40/1.77 interchange and the
five adjacent interchanges within the project
study area.
-Implement the proposed improvements
while preserving the human and natural
The existing and projected future traffic volumes environments.
and land use conditions within the study area will
diminish the I-77/1-40 interchange's ability to
function as an interstate interchange serving the Southeastern United States.
2
? I ?' III

• Improve movement of freight by ensuring an accessible, integrated and efficient
transportation system.
Manufacturing operations require movement of goods to maximize competitiveness in the market.
Inefficient freight movement impedes interstate commerce and slows economic growth.
• Adequate roadway geometries.
The existing interchange configurations include ramp lengths and loops, weaving areas and
interchange spacing that are considered substandard by today's design standards.
Informational Workshop
NCDOT invites the public to
4:00-7:00 p.m. at the States
28687. This workshop will i
concerns and review the proj
NCDOT and the Consultant I
with you. All citizen's intere
with a member of the study t

n
u
end a Citizen's Informational Workshop on Monday, August 23 from
e City Hall, Council Chambers, 301 S. Center Street, Statesville, NC
)duce the project, describe its purpose and need, identify environmental
schedule. The format will be very informal. Representatives from
n will also be available to answer your questions and discuss the project '
d in the proposed project are encouraged to attend the workshop and talk
I-77/1-40 Improvement Concepts
The following graphics
interchange, including a
two different design concepts being considered for improving the I-77/1-40
3- and 4-level interchange.
3
4-LEVEL IMPROVEMENT

0
C
' WBS No. 34192.1.1
State Project No. 8.1823901
'rip Project No. 1-3819
t I-77/I-40 Interchange Improvements
Citizen's Informational Workshop
August 23, 2004, Statesville City Hall

'
COMMENT SHEET
Name:
Association/Agency (if applicable):
Address:
' (Street, City, Zip Code)
Telephone No.:
' Would you like to be placed on the project mailing list? Yes No
t COMMENTS/QUESTIONS:
Based on what you have seen tonight, which types of improvements do you feel are necessary, and where
do you think they are most needed? (Types of improvements may include reconfiguring interchanges and ramps,
' improvements to the existing 1-40 and I-77 interstates within the project area, traffic signal coordination, intersection
improvements, etc.).
1
' What project development issues do you think are important for us to examine in this study? Explain.
(These might include natural resources, neighborhoods and communities, economic development and land use, cultural
' resources such as historic sites, and major destinations.)
1
WBS No. 34192.1.1
State Project No. 8.1823901
TIP Project No. 1-3819
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
Summary of Citizen's Informational Workshop
August 23, 2004
4:00-7:00 p.m.
Introduction
Ot NORM .1
N
x
o O
e
''ryFHr Or rR ANSQO~~f
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Consultant team of URS
Corporation and Simon Resources, Inc. conducted a Citizen's Informational Workshop on August
23, 2004 at Old City Hall, 227 S. Center Street in Statesville, North Carolina.
The project includes improvements to the existing I-40/I-77 interchange, as well as improvements
to the following five interchanges in the adjacent area:
• I-77/US 21;
• I-40/US 64;
• I-40/SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road);
• 1-77/SR 2321 (Broad Street); and
• 1-40/US 21.
The purpose of the workshop was to identify the purpose of and need for the project, show the
various design concepts being studied, identify natural and human environment concerns, and
provide a future project schedule.
Meeting Notices
Two weeks prior to the workshop, a newsletter announcing the workshop was mailed to 1,264
residents, property owners and businesses located within the project study area. An
advertisement was also run in the local newspapers. Appendix A includes copies of the
newspaper ad and Newsletter No. 1.
Workshop Format
Participants signed in at the registration table and were provided with a project newsletter and
comment form, if needed. Eighty-two citizens attended the workshop between the hours of 4:00-
7:00 p.m. See Appendix B for the meeting sign in sheets. Although the format was a very
informal, open house-type setting, URS Project Manager Jeff Koontz, presented a brief, 15-
minute project overview every hour due to the large crowds. After the overview, participants
were encouraged to view the exhibit boards, typical sections and proposed design concepts,
complete a written comment form, and/or talk with staff present. Representatives from NCDOT
and the Consultant team staff were available to answer questions and discuss the project
concepts.
7
' Summary Of Comments/Questions
' Approximately eleven comment forms were completed at the workshop and/or mailed to
NCDOT. These comments are summarized below and included in Appendix C.
' Based on what you have seen tonight, which types of improvements do you feel are necessary, and
where do you think they are most needed? (Types of improvements may include reconfiguring
interchanges and ramps, improvements to the existing I-40 and I-77 interstates within the project area, traffic
' signal coordination, intersection improvements, etc.).
• I-40/I-77 needs most improvements. Accidents on 1-77 cause the interchange to back up and
create more congestion on US 21, 1-40 and the interchange at I-40/I-77.
• Jane Sowers, Nixon and US 21 are also highly congested, especially when truck traffic uses
' US 21. Putting a ramp on I-77/Jane Sowers would alleviate traffic on US 21 & Jane Sowers,
which are already congested.
' • 1-40 and SR 90 will also be more congested when the airport expands; need traffic light
instead of stops signs at this exit ramp .
' • 1-40/I-77 should be a priority project and where resources are spent first. Need to improve the
safety of this interchange.
' • If the intersection at I-40/US 64 is removed, please consider a traffic signal at the eastbound
exit ramp at Old Mocksville Road.
' • Concerned about the intersection at US 21/I-40 and the type of improvements proposed.
' • [Do not close] US 64 [at I-401, as this exit needs to remain open for citizens living east of
Statesville.
' • Use simple CD-type interchange designs instead of the 4-level interchanges proposed (it
would be less confusing). Icing on higher level bridges will be a problem with the 4-level
design.
' • Median width for the proposed 6- and 8-lane concepts need to be wider; the guard rails/cable
also needs to be further off travel lanes than they are currently. The existing emergency lanes are
' also too narrow, especially adjacent to median.
• Consider three alternate routes to US 21:
' • Cooper Farm Road and Radio Road;
• 2-way interchange from Jane Sowers Road to I-77; I-77 and N. Olin Loop Road; US
21 from Harmony to Noel Davis Road in Turnersburg to Old Mocksville Road at
' Providence Road church.
• Turn lanes on Jane Sowers Road, Shoemaker Drive and Ft. Dobbs Road
• On James Farm Road, widen exit lanes from US 21 to I-40 east and west.

• If more traffic is added to Pump Station Road at US 21, customers of Fourth Creek Mini
Storage will have a difficult time entering and exiting.
• Improve intersection at US 21 and Jane Sowers/Shoemaker Drive and consider putting in a
traffic signal; also widen US 21 from I-40 to I-77.
• Most important is I-40 and US 21; important is I-77/I-40.
• Prefer the 3-level improvement to the 4-level improvement for I-77/1-40; the higher level concept will
create terrible views for adjacent neighborhoods (ex: Dogwood Road) and create more noise. We need
better noise abatement measures.
• I-40/US 21 improvements are more important than those to I-77/I-40; currently experience
very high traffic volumes and delays during peak hours (especially volumes at entrance to
shopping mall). Consider the following:
• an east entrance from I-40 to mall
• connection from mall to dead end street where theatres are located;
• great idea to extend Pump Station Road to Gaither Road;
• One traffic signal that controls all traffic from I-40 to US 21 will not solve the problem;
suggest the following:
• provide through lanes on US 21 if you are not turning onto I-40;
• no traffic signal for those turning onto I-40 from north or south;
• no traffic signal from I-40 westbound to US 21 northbound (instead, add east entrance
ramp to mall)
• Prefer the 4-level offset improvement for I-77/I-40.
• Agree that the interchange at I-40/US 64 should be removed.
What project development issues do you think are important for us to examine in this study?
Explain. (These might include natural resources, neighborhoods and communities, economic development and
land use, cultural resources such as historic sites, and major destinations).
• Safety, both for existing travelers and emergency vehicles that respond in this area.
• Connect Gaither and Pump Station Road now to relieve congestion while this study is
underway.
• Minimize the land needed for the proposed improvements.
• If Pump Station Road is extended to Gaither Road, the amount of traffic along Gaither Road
will increase.

' • Established neighborhoods could lose property value if the 4-level improvement were
developed; noise levels on adjacent roads (Dogwood and Brookdale roads) already hear a lot of
' highway noise.
' NEXT STEPS
The workshop was a successful venue for local citizens to provided comments and feedback. All
' comments will be reviewed by NCDOT and if applicable, incorporated into the technical
analysis being completed for the project. As the study progresses, NCDOT will continue to seek
comments and hold additional meetings, public workshops, and a formal hearing at appropriate
times during the study. All attendees will be invited to future workshops.
CONTACT INFORMATION
' For more infomration about the project, or if you have a question or comment, please contact
either NCDOT or URS Corporation at the following:

I?''I

Kristina Solberg, P.E., NCDOT Project Manager Jeff Koontz, PE, URS Project Manager
NCDOT URS Corporation - North Carolina
1548 Mail Service Center 1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Morrisville, NC 27560
919.733.7844, ext. 310 800.233.6315
ksolber dot. state.nc.us ..eff [e-mail]

WBS No. 34192. 1.1
State Project No. 8.1823901
TIP Projcct No. 1-3819
1-77/1-40 Interchange Improvements
Summary of Local Officials Meeting
August 23, 2004
1:00 P.M.
Introduction
??'Op µORTry ?q
~r
g
OF 1RA
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and consultant team of URS Corporation
and Simon Resources, Inc. conducted a Local Officials meeting on August 23, 2004 at the Old City
Hall, 227 S. Center Street in Statesville, North Carolina. Approximately 75 letters were mailed to
various agencies, departments and local/elected officials inviting them to attend the meeting, of which
approximately 40 representatives did attend. The purpose of this meeting was to review and discuss the
proposed 1-77/I-40 interchange improvements, as well as the following five adjacent interchanges:
• 1-77/US 21;
• 1-40/US 64;
• 1-40/SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road);
• 1-77/SR 2321 (Broad Street); and
• 1-40/US 21.
Kristina Solberg, PE, NCDOT, introduced the project and team, followed by a brief overview of the
project by Jeff Koontz, PE, URS Corporation. After the 15-minute presentation, the floor was open for
discussion and comments. Participants were also encouraged to complete a written comment form,
review the project newsletter, and/or talk with staff after the meeting. Participants were also able to
view project exhibits, typical sections and proposed design concepts displayed around the room.
Summary of Comments/Questions during Meeting
During the discussion period, the following comments and/or questions were proposed. Copies of all
written comment forms completed at the meeting or mailed to NCDOT are attached. At this time, one
written form was submitted, however additional forms may be submitted at a later date and addressed at
that time.
Comments
• Encourage NCDOT to include bicycle/pedestrian signals at the intersections in the study area,
particularly those at US 21/I-40.
• Commend NCDOT on six-laning the entire project and reserving ROW for eight lanes in the future.
(Most of the project is six lanes - three lanes in each direction with auxiliary lanes as needed -
although it will eventually taper back to four lanes. At this time, it is unsure where the six-lane
section will end. The eight-lane section will not impact ROW in the future as the widening will be in
the median.)
Questions
• Question: Will NCDOT redesign and realign the I-40 bridge over US 21 to six lanes'?
Response: Yes, it will be redesigned as a new six-lane bridge. How many lanes the bridge will span
over US 21 has not been determined at this time.

• Question: How far north along US 21 from the I-40/US 21 interchange will improvements occur'?
Response: This has not been determined yet.
• Question: Is there a higher level of service (LOS) on the stacked interchange versus the offset
interchange at 1-77/1-40?
Response: The LOS for the interchanges is approximately the same, NCDOT design standards
currently design for LOS C. The cost difference between the two interchanges would be marginal.
• Question: What is the cost of the stacked interchange versus the offset interchange?
Response: NCDOT priced a stacked interchange at 1-77/1-40 at approximately $76 million. The
offset interchange may be less expensive to construct because of lower Maintenance of Traffic
(MOT) costs.
' • Question: Is this project a design-build, and if so, is it a quicker timeframe to complete than
conventional construction'?
Response: At this time, the project is identified in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
as a design-build; however, that could change. As far as timeframe, the design-build and a
conventional construction project arc about the same. The four-level stacked interchange is difficult
from an MOT standpoint because it needs to occur on roads that cross over the interchange ramps
and loops. The offset interchange can be phased so that MOT can be transitioned from one road
upon completion to another road.
• Question: Which design concept for 1-77/1-40 will have more impacts'?
Response: The footprint of each interchange is essentially the same.
• Question: How will the improvements be sequenced?
Response: Not sure at this time. It would be primarily up to the contractor during construction.
Each contractor is different, for example, when construction begins one may have resources available
for one area of construction that another may not. However, since bridges take longer to build, these
may be constructed first.
• Question: Will the single point urban interchange have one traffic signal'?
Response: It may have one to three signals, dependent on the traffic volumes approaching the
interchange and turning movements using the ramps. A traffic study is being conducted that will
determine the signalization.
• Question: The northeast quadrant of I-77/I-40 is vacant, but it is prime real estate. Will you
provide access to this parcel'?
Response: A new interchange at.lane Sowers Road was at one time proposed as part of this project;
however, it is not at this time because it would delay the overall project schedule by at least two
years. This project could be developed independently in the future.
• Question: Will the annmenitities be similar to other interchange areas in Charlotte? (i.e. lighting,
noise walls, etc.)
Response: A noise study is part of the environmental analysis for the project. This would determine
if and where noise walls would be needed. Lighting is not part of the environmental analysis, but is
still a consideration for a proposed interchange.
i

• Question: There is no "off-ramp" connection to the shopping center at US 21/1-40. Therefore, when
exiting 1-40 westbound during peak shopping periods, traffic is backed up on the ramp and 1-40.
Will you provide an off ramp connection or access road to the shopping center'?
Response: NCDOT has not considered it at this time; however, this can be investigated during the
planning and design phase.
NEXT STEPS

The meeting was attended by 40 officials and participants provided excellent comments and feedback.
All comments will be reviewed by NCDOT and the Consultant Team and, if applicable, incorporated
into the technical analysis and advanced through the project. NCDOT will continue to seek comments
and hold additional public officials meetings throughout the remainder of the project. All attendees
will be invited to future meetings.
CONTACT INFORMATION

For more information about the project or if you have a question or comment, please contact either
NCDOT or URS Corporation at the following: I
Kristina Solberg, P.E., NCDOT Project Manager
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
919.733.7844, ext. 310
ksolberg(u)dot.state. nc.us
Jeff Koontz, PE, URS Project Manager
URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 100
Morrisville, NC 27560
800.233.6315
Jeff_koontz(c,urscorp.com

7

r

7

Appendix F
Relocation Report

L
C
I

L

J

r
r
J

05./03/2005 _13:23 NC DOT PDEA 4 94611415 NO.866 D01
F
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
r X 1 EI.S. M CORRIDOR 1 1 DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
PROJECT: 81261901 COUNTY IREQELL Alternate 1 of 1 Agemate
1,0. NO.: -3A g
DOCRIPnON OF PROJECT: F.A. PROJECT STPNN -1 1
I-4OI I-77 AREA INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
STATESVILLE. IREDELL COUNTY
ESTIMATED WLACE@S INCOM LEVEL
;

-1 =sPlacam of

Residential
Owners
3
Tenants Total
2 5
MlnoritleS
1
0-15M
0
15-25M
0
25.35M
0
36-50M
2
50 UP
3
Businesses 2 1 3 VALUE OF DWELLING 053 MUM AVAILABLE
Farms 1 0 1 ners Tenants ent
For Sale

Nan-Prord

Yes No

ANSNIJ5R ALL QUESTIONS
E*Ialn ad 'YE'S' answer
.
1. W01 special relocation services be neaesswy7
0-20M
20-dolt

40-70M
.100x1
0 60-150
0 150-260

1 250400
1 400.600
0
0
0-20M
20 SON

s0.701f
70-
100N
o
pj5L2
23
59
43
0
s

16
13
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by
1 100 uv 1 600 up 0 10o uF 29 11 600 up 7
displacement? TOTAL 3 2 154 41

F X 3. Will business services still be available alter RatAwcs (Respon by Nutrtdar)
m - project? 1) Starbucks Cofffee (Under construction) 8 employees/ 2 minorides
4.
4. Will any business be displaced? 11 so, 0 square feet.
f
t
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. ee
2) Fame Plastics Inc., 25 employseal3 minorities, 8000 square
3) K 8 W Cafaterla, 30 employ essr10 minorities, 6500 square feet

x X S. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
S. Source for available housing (list). (4) James Farms Inc. 6 amployees/0 minorities
X 7. Wig additional housing programs be needed? S. Locai newspapers, rental agencies, real estate agencies.
d
X B. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? B. Last resort housing will be administered in accordance wirth State an
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. Federal guidelines.
famllies7
' X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing aveilable? 11. Public Housing is available.
X 12- Is it fell there will he adequate DSS housing 12. Given current housing vends, comparable housing should be
housing available during relocation period? available during the relocation period.
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (I"ISt 14. Local newspapers, rental agencies, real estate agencies.
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
' RELOCATION? 12 months

q-9
-d way R1 Agent Date ved b Date
' Form 15.4 ROHM 10/00
V„tyu,a, , wyr1 w"'. ,..,.......__....?_.._
2 Copy Qivision Right of Way
Office

L
L

r

Appendix G
Farmland Conversion Rating

' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106
Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev. 1-91)
' FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS

0

w

PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3. Date o Land Evaluation Reque t -
I-oS Shoot f of
1. Name of Project O I 1 _ ?? _ . f cl-?1?a
m 5. Federal Agency Involved
w
2. Type of Project I 1 S? o r M P?? v?M?? 6. County and State ?d? I I C? v N?--
PART 11 (To be completed by NRCS) 1. Date Request Received by NRCS
S i r s
2. Pe son omple Ing Form RC
?
3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland?
VES NO
?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form).
cres rrigate
4. A
Average arm ze
/
(O aC1os•
5. Major Crop(s)
CO? h 6- Farmable Land In Government Jurisdiction
Acres: 3 L/ 7 % 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined In FPPA
Acres: 1? 9 1-I 6-p- D %77/•9
8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
PLe(I 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System
-- /?atiP --- 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
0S-/17pa5-

PART III (To be com
leted b
Fed
l A Alternative Corridor For Segment
p
y
era
gency) Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly -A-p
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services -:?- -:) O
C. Total Acres In Corridor 111540 0 0 0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 27
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted --0-1-0/5
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 7
PART V (ro be completed by NRCS) Land Evaweflon Mlonnatlon Dftdcn Relative
value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted Scale of 0 - 100 Points
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor
Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained In 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Maximum
Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use 15
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10
3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 D
5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 l
6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 I
7. Availablilit Of Farm Support Services 5
8. On-Farm Investments 20
9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 Q
10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 p
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 y 0 0 0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 ?-
Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site
assessment)
160 ?y
(+ O
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 O S 0 0 0
1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be
Converted by Project:
3 3 3. Date Of Selection:

o??a? (o s 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES ? NO ?/
5. Heason t-or beiecuon:
/
U(.=, - o) - '2 cc)_,
bfgnature of Ferson completing thPS Fart: I DATE
NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor
CC.1-? r
V,
. t
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
dM ?q ?D
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
April 3, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Lyndo Tippett
FROM: Jamille A. Robbin
Senior Public Heari Kgficer
Human Environment Unit
S9yO ?qT O
qp s; .
??9 Farr
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
RE: Notice of a Combined Public Hearing for the I-40/I-77 Interchange Area
Improvements
TIP Project No. I-3819, Iredell County
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
I-3819 This project proposes to improve the I-40/1-77 Interchange area.
JAR/cdh
Attachment
cc: Mr. Robert A. Collier, Jr., Board of Transportation Member- Div. 12
Mr. Steve Varnedoe, P.E.
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Ms. Deborah M. Barbour, P.E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. Majed Al-Ghandour, P.E.
Mr. Bill Rosser
Mr. Greg Thorpe
Mr. Rob Hanson, P.E.
Ms. Teresa Hart, P.E.
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E.
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E.
Mr. J. Victor Barbour, P.E.
Mr. Kevin Lacy, P.E.
Ms. Sharon Lipscomb
Ms. Tammy Denning
Mr. Everett Ward
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
.WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
RALEIGH NC

NOTICE OF A COMBINED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE
PROPOSED 1-40/1-77 INTERCHANGE AREA IMPROVEMENTS
TIP Project No. 1-3819
Iredell County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a Pre-
Hearing Open House and a Combined Public Hearing on Thursday, May 10, 2007 in the
Ballroom of the Holiday Inn located at 1215 Garner Bagnal Boulevard, Statesville.
NCDOT representatives will be available at the Pre-Hearing Open House
between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. to answer questions and receive
comments relative to the proposed project. The opportunity to submit written comments
or questions will also be provided. Interested citizens may attend at any time during the
above mentioned hours.
A formal presentation will begin at 7:00 p.m. The presentation will consist of an
explanation of the proposed location, design, the state - federal relationship, and right of
way and relocation requirements and procedures. The hearing will be open to those
present for statements, questions and comments. The presentation and comments will
be recorded and a transcript will be prepared.
NCDOT proposes to widen 1-40 and 1-77 to eight-lanes and, as a result, improve
the 1-40/1-77 interchange from the current two-level full cloverleaf interchange to a four-
level offset interchange by replacing three of the four existing loops with directional
ramps. The four existing one-lane ramps will be shifted outward to allow for the new two-
lane directional ramps. The improvements on 1-40 will begin just west of SR 2003 (Radio
Road), continuing east to SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road). Improvements to 1-77 begin
just north of SR 2157 (Salisbury Road) and heads north to slightly south of SR 2171
(Jane Sowers Road). In addition, improvements will be made to the 1-40/US 21
interchange, the 1-40/SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road) interchange as well as the 1-77/SR
2321 (East Broad Street) interchange. The US 64/1-40 partial interchange will be
removed as part of this project. The purpose of the project is to improve mobility and
connectivity within the project study area. Additional right of way and the relocation of
homes and businesses will be required for this project.
A map displaying the location and design of the project and a copy of the
environmental document - Environmental Assessment (EA) - are available for public
review at the City of Statesville, City Manager's Office, 301 South Center Street,
Statesville, 28677 and at the NCDOT District Engineer's Office located at 124 Prison
Camp Road, Statesville, 28625.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. Jamille Robbins,
NCDOT-Human Environment Unit at 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699,
phone [phone], or email *arobbins(a.dot.state. nc.us. Additional material may be
submitted until June 11, 2007.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with
Disabilities Act for disabled persons who wish to participate in this hearing. Anyone
requiring special services should contact Mr. Robbins as early as possible so that
arrangements can be made.