R-2107B

Michael F. Easley, Governor
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Polly Lespinasse
,141v
1
oRQUgZ006 `-?
Ra,?yq? a
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
January 10, 2006
Subject: Comments on the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Proposed Widening of
NC 24-27 (East Main Street) from US 220A to I-73-74/US 220 in Biscoe, Montgomery
County, TIP R-210711, WBS Element No. 34373.1.1, State Project 6.559004T, DENR
Project No. 06-0211
This office has reviewed the referenced document. 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. The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
A) Based on the document, no jurisdictional streams and/or wetlands exist within the project area. If the
project limits change and jurisdictional streams and/or wetlands will be affected, a 401 Water Quality
Certification will be required. A 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water
quality to ensure that water quality standards are met. Final permit authorization will require the submittal
of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ.
B) A 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.
C) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
D) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
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 [phone].
cc: US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Office
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Chris Militscher, EPA
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ
File Copy
N e hCarohna
Noaturally
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]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
L
to Regions
TIP ScoDing'
Sue Homewood (WSRO): Div 7, O, 11.
>100, Polly Lespinasse (MRO): Div 8, 10912
FILE Copy
? -2(07
Title of Project:
County:
Date response due date: .-2v?? n?H ?i Z?
DENR Project review form and pre-application project
materials attached.
S r`s a r o?? jC e?? r t -,
c a
S Le>,J C c9 srp -e.1J
r
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs-
Project Review Form
,oject Number. Canty Date Received: Dale Response Due (firm deadline):
~ p - oa l ? MOO ?Gv Mcrty t /slob a / /off
as project is being reviewed as indicated below:

tcgional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
J Asheville %LAir o Soil & Water o Marine Fisheries
,'kFayetteviHe 19 Water ? Coastal Management
? Mooresviuc P Groundwater Wildlife ? Water Resources
TRAVIS l)lc_ ei-sJ
? Raleigh p Land Quality Engineer ? Environmental Health
? Washington' ? Recreational Consultant o Forest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt

? Wilmington ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem t tParks & Recreation ? Other
is Water Quality
z0h J N i5 pi 0 E
? Groundwater
:.: ? Air Quality
4
Manager Sign-omcgion:
pau: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
? No Comment
Ii Insuficient information to complete review
? Other (specify or attach comments)
W6 Gf,
VQ,s 4iVD 4,.I
r,.

RETURN TO:
Melba McGte
Environmental Coordinator
Office orItgislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
Biscoe
NC 24-27 (East Main Street)
From US 220A to I-73-74/US 220
Montgomery County
State Project 6.559004T
WBS Element 34373.1.1
TIP Project R-2107B
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS'
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
APPROVED:
a5-
ate Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Biscoe
NC 24-27 (East Main Street)
From US 220A to I-73-741US 220
Montgomery County
State Project 6.559004T
WBS Element 34373.1.1
TIP Project R-2107B
STATE FINDING OF N SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by. ??W'kk lI //,?
` kw
??
??????' • 3 ??a? 0
Josep tMler,'!?.E.
Project velopment ?6, d3S 'a :
Engi ? r:y01SS.??O?'.G
.1.0 "00
JaMes A. McInnis, Jr., P.
Project Engineer

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS .......................................................................i
I. TYPE OF ACTION ........................................................... -............................. .......1
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION .................................................................................1
III PROJECT STATUS AND SCHEDULE ................................................. 2
IV. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................................. 2
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................................. 2
.A. Distribution the of Environmental Assessment ....................................................... 2
B. Local Government Involvement ...........................................................:.................. 3
C. Comments on the Environmental Assessment ........................................................ 3
V. REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ....................................... 3
A. Revised Recommendation ....................................................................................... 3
B. Updated Cost Estimate ...................:........................................................................ 3
C. Protected Species ............................................................................ .4
VI. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ........................................................................... 4
A. Revised Project Committments ............................................................................... 4
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .................................... 4
TABLES
1. Anticipated Environmental Effects of Proposed Project ......................................1
2. Federally Protected Species in Montgomery County ........................................3
FIGURES
1. Project Vicinity Map
2. Typical Section
APPENDIX
Agency Comments on the Environmental Assessment
l
/:. '.
1

i J

?..`
V..
?.
,
V
. ? ` ..
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PREPARED BY THE
PROJECT DEVELOPEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a State Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
NCDOT has determined this project will not have any significant impact on the
human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment (EA), which
has been evaluated by the NCDOT and determined to adequately and accurately discuss
the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The EA provides sufficient
evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not
required. NCDOT takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the EA.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen NC 24-27
(East Main Street) from a three-lane to a five-lane undivided facility between US 220A
(North/South Main St.) and I-73-741US 220, a distance of approximately 0.9 mile.
The proposed project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of Way acquisition and construction are scheduled in
the 2006-2012 TIP for state fiscal years 2007 and 2009, respectively.
The 2006-2012 TIP includes an estimated right of way acquisition cost of
$2,125,000 and construction cost of $4,200,000. Total project cost included in the TIP is
$6,325,000.
The latest estimated costs for TIP Project R-2107B are as follows:
Right of Way Acquisition $2,125,000
Construction $4,200,000
Total Cost $6,325,000
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Table 1 below presents a summary of the environmental effects of the proposed
project. Estimated impacts are derived based on the project length of 0.9 mile and a right
of way width of approximately 100 feet.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
RESIDENTIAL RELOCATEES-
TOTAL(MINORITIES) 0(0)
BUSINESS RELOCA EES-TOTAL 3
OTHER RELOCATEES 0
WETLANDS AFFECTED (ACRES) 0
NUMBER OF STRE CROSSINGS 0
LENGTH STREAM RELOCATIONS (FEET) 0
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 0
HISTORIC RESOURCES 0
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Distribution of the Environmental Assessment
NCDOT approved the EA on September 30, 2004. The approved EA was
circulated to the following federal; state and local agencies for review and comments.
An asterisk (*) indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of
the correspondence received are included in the Appendix of this document.
.US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District)
*US Fish and Wildlife Service
NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Cultural Resources
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Montgomery County
*Town of Biscoe
2
B. Comments on the Environmental Assessment
Substantive comments on the environmental assessment are discussed below:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
COMMENT: "According to the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Management
Plan (NCDW.Q.1998), sedimentation from construction, urban development and
streambank erosion are the most widespread water quality problems identified for
the basin as a whole: Other concerns include growth management, urban and
industrial stormwater, nutrients in lakes, fecal coliform bacteria and oxygen-
consuming wastes. Therefore, NCDWQ recommends consideration at the
planning stage as to the handling of s ormwater runoff from this transportation
facility."
NCDOT RESPONSE: The proposed project is located in the Cape Fear River
Basin, with the exception of a small portion of the project west of US 220A. The
project is in a WS III water supply watershed, for which standard rules for erosion,
sedimentation and stormwater runoff are applicable. NCDOT will follow Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters during design and
construction of this project.
C. Public Involvement
Following circulation of the environmental assessment, an informal public
hearing was held at Biscoe Town Hall on March 21, 2005. Approximately 60 persons
attended the hearing.
The majority of comments at the hearing related to the typical section. At the
public hearing, a four-lane median divided facility was presented. Most of the citizens
commenting spoke against the proposed four-lane median divided typical section,
although there were a few citizens who commented in favor of it. Some citizens believed
the proposed median would make the facility less safe due to u-turns. Concerns were
also expressed regarding the ability of large trucks to make u-turns. Some feared trucks
would use neighborhood streets because they will not be able to make left turns onto NC
24-27 except at designated intersections. Citizens and town officials present at the
hearing also expressed concerns the proposed median would discourage commercial
development.
3
D. Other Agency Coordination
The Town of Biscoe expressed its opposition to the proposed median in a letter to
the Board of Transportation Member for their area (see Appendix).
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proposed Roadwav Typical Section
A five-lane undivided highway with a center turn lane and a four-lane divided
highway with a median were alternatives considered for the project (see Section IV-A of
the EA). The four-lane median divided facility was selected as the recommended
alternative in the environmental assessment (see Sections III-A and IV-A of the EA).
This alternative was presented to the public at the March 21, 2005 public hearing.
As discussed in Section IV-C, most citizens commenting at the public hearing
expressed opposition to the proposed median divided typical section. A number of
citizens and the Town of Biscoe requested NCDOT provide a five-lane undivided section
for the project.
Following the hearing, the decision was made to change the recommended typical
section for the project from a four-lane median divided facility to a five-lane undivided
facility. This decision was made based on the following factors:
• The amount of opposition to the median from both the public and the Town.
• The amount of residential development surrounding the road.
• The short length of this project (0.9 mile).
• The adjoining approximately 2.9 mile section of NC 24-27 to the west has a
five-lane typical section.
The proposed five-lane typical section is shown on Figure 2 of this document.
A median island will still be provided at major intersections along the project.
The now proposed five-lane typical section will result in essentially the same
environmental impacts as the previously recommended four-lane median divided typical
section. The proposed project will still require the relocation of three businesses.
4
B. Landscaping
Prior to completion of the environmental assessment, the Town of Biscoe had
requested landscaping in the proposed median (see Section III-M of the EA). The list of
project commitments in the environmental assessment included a commitment that
NCDOT would coordinate with the Town regarding their request at the end of the
construction phase of the project. Since a median is no longer proposed, no special
landscaping is proposed on the project.
C. Protected Species
Since completion of the environmental assessment, no changes have occurred
to the list of federally-protected species for Montgomery County. The following table
presents federally-protected species listed for Montgomery County as of October 13,
2005.'
Table 2
Federallv Protected Species in Montgomery County
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat? Biological Conclusion
Helianthus Schweinitz's E No No Effect
Schweinitzii Sunflower
Echinacea Smooth E No No Effect
Laevi ata Coneflower
Puma Concolor Eastern E No No Effect
Cougar Cougar
Picoides Red Cocked E No No Effect
Borealis Woodpecker
Haliaeetus Bald Eagle T* No No Effect
leucoce halus
"E"- Endangered species are ones that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
their range.
"T" - Threatened species are ones that are likely to become endangered within the near future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
"*" - Historic record indicating a species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
*Bald eagle is proposed for delisting.
No habitat for any federally-listed species were found during project
surveys. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species
and unique habitats in October 2003 indicated no known occurrences of any of
these species in this area. Therefore, it is anticipated the project will have "No
Effect" on any federally-protected species. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
concurred with this finding in a letter dated October 19, 2004 (See Appendix).
5
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project, and coordination with
appropriate state and local agencies and the general public, it is the finding of the
NCDOT that this project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the human or
natural environment. In view of the above evaluation, it has been determined that a
FONSI is applicable for this project. Therefore a State Environmental Impact Statement
is not required.
The following person may be contacted for additional information regarding this
proposal:
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental alysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone]
JBAVjhm
6
T - ,,
ao
1339 n I
I ;'

z I
I

i
m IS OE
I
i
' POP. 1,672
1338 C0 ENO ' PROJEC T
C m ?
BEGAN PROJECT a
24
' d Davis St
1
!
.
?e v 27 ?, i
24'

fD St.
E. Main
\
.21 0
58 0 \

w. Main St. 03 aw' .
0
m ?'
q \
\
1617 12
v, 14 church St. m
1577
m
\
Miller Pond Rd.
i \%
Hunsucker St ost Office Rd
- - - ,
- -?,?
I St ? i
.24
55
1503 1
1 .
1500 03
- I' II 1? $ 1500.

co I
1501 , AO
?fo
mS .63 Bruton St !

` ?Ra
220
220 I %
a vA
y A I
I
' 73 74
FEET
0 1000 2000
0 200 400 600
METERS
_ OF TRANSPORTATION- -
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 24-27 (East Main Street)
US 220A to I-73-74/US 220
Montgomery County
TIP Project R-21076
FIGURE I
TIP PROJECT R-2107B
TYPICAL SECTION
100' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
64'
10, (FACE TO FACE OF CURB) 10,
12' 12' 12' 12' 12'
2' 2'
w
WESTBOUND CENTER EASTBOUND
LANES TURNING LANES
LANE
NO SCALE
FIVE LANES WITH CURB AND GUTTER
FIGURE 2
APPENDIX
Agency Comments on the
Environmental Assessment
A

• 1i
o?CF w H r?9pG
r
? y
o ?
October 17,
MEMORANDUM
OCT 21. 2002
To: Gregory I Thorpe, Ph.D., Director NZO
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator axw Subject: Review of Scoping Sheets for NC 24-27 (East Main Street) from US 220A to I-73/I-
74/US 220, Montgomery County, TIP Project R-2107B.
This letter is in reply to your correspondence dated) October 11, 2002 (received October 16, 2002) in
which you requested comments for the above-referenced project. The purpose of this project is to add
additional lanes to the existing road in order to acc mmodate the current and projected traffic volumes as
well as improve safety. A preliminary analysis of he project reveals no potential for direct impacts to
perennial streams or jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. Lick Creek (hydrologic unit 030610;
stream index 17-26-5-3-1) is in the area and is clas ified as WS-III.
According to the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (NCDWQ. 1998),
sedimentation from construction, urban development and streambank erosion are the most widespread
water quality problems identified for the basin as a whole. Other concerns include growth management,
urban and industrial stormwater, nutrients in lakes, fecal coliform bacteria and oxygen-consuming wastes.
Therefore, NCDWQ recommends consideration at the planning stage as to the handling of stormwater
runoff from this transportation facility.
In the event that the project scope is amended, the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT send
notification of any proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. If you have any
questions, please call Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.733.5715.
pc: Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File Copy
AM
9M
N 'T
Q,, ---
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water 0.uaHtv
CEIV4r.
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), hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
October 19, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
CE1?
OCT In- ? 20'04
Hj?aNON OF
IRCVELOO
This letter is in response to your October 11, 2004 letter which requested comments from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed widening of NC
24-27 from US 220A to US 220 in Biscoe, Montgomery County (TIP No. R-2107B). These comments
are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen a 0.8 mile
portion of NC 24-27 from the existing three-lane facility to a four-lane, median-divided facility. The EA
states that no wetlands or streams will be affected by the project. Due to the suburban/residential nature
of the project area, impacts to fish and wildlife resources should be minimal. The EA states that, due to
the lack of habitat, the project will have no effect on the five federally listed species for Montgomery
County. The Service concurs with the "no effect" determination. We believe that the requirements of
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied f6r now. We remind you that obligations under section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that
may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
The Service believes that this EA adequately addresses the potential effects of this proposed project on
fish and wildlife resources and on waters and wetlands of the United States. The Service appreciates the
opportunity to review this project. if you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Si er ,
Pete enjiain in
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACOE, Wilmington, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
ToffW of BI.SCO
Mayor of bjs Board of Commissioners:
James E. Blake ?a t'0 Larry Preslar- Mayor Pro-Tem
Richaid Kissell
. Town Manager
Joshua W. Ray N? rwn saw c Michael Criscoe
Town Clerk Jerry Smith
Lisa L. Cagle cogpoR, ` John Beard
Town Attorney
Max Garner
31 August 2004
G.R. Kindley
NC Department of Transportation
Division 08
PO Box 280
Rockingham, NC 28380
Dear Mr. Kindley,
On Monday 30 August 2004, the Town of Biscoe Board of Commissioners held a
meeting to discuss the proposed plan for the widening of Highway 24/27 from US 73/74
to highway 220 Alt. This meeting was called in response to the meeting held on Thursday
19 August 2004 at Biscoe Town Hall in which local business owners expressed their
concerns about the plan.
Although the Board understands that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation is working to make North Carolina's highways a safer place for our citizens,
the Board voted 5-0 against the proposed plan that would include a median. All
members of the Board were active in this discussion and stated the following reasons why
this plan will not be efficient in the Town of Biscoe:
1. Increased traffic in residential neighborhoods
2. Negative impact on existing businesses along Highway 24/27
3. Negative impact on Future Commercial Development on the East end of Town
4. Vehicular safety with proposed U-turns
The Board completely understands the need to address the growing number of
vehicles that use Highway 24/27 on a daily basis and drive through the Town of Biscoe.
The Board also understands that the Town of Biscoe is experiencing a change in its general
composition. ?although Biscoe is a small rural town with 1,547 citizens, it has the potential
to offer services to a much larger population. The Board has begun to take measures that
will allow for future commercial development along the Highway 24/27 corridor throughout
the Town.
After careful consideration of our Economic Development goals, the well-being of
our citizens, and the future of this town, the Board of Commissioners would litre to request
110 West Main Street - P.O. Box 1228 • Biscoe, NC 27209
Phone [phone] - Fax [phone] • www.townofbiscoe.com
h
-2-
August 31,2004
that the North Carolina Department of Transportation revisit this proposal. the Board
feels that although a fifth turning lane. may not work in some communities, it will
serve as the avenue for growth and safety that the Town of Biscoe needs. The
construction of US 73/74 will lead to an increase of traffic through our area and the
availability of businesses to be accessible to interstate traffic will play an important role in
the Town's future growth.
We greatly appreciated all of the efforts that have gone into this plan thus far and
offer our assistance and cooperation for the Inal plan. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
James E. Blake
T
Mayor
Town of Biscoe
Joshua W. Ray
Town Manager
JWR
cc: US Representative Robin Haves
NC Senator Jerry Tillman
NC Representative Pryor Gibson
NC Representative-elect Melanie Goodwin

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
October 17, 2002
MEMORANDUM
To: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator WOW
Subject: Review of Scoping Sheets for NC 24-27 (East Main Street) from US 220A to I-73/I-
741US 220, Montgomery County, TIP Project R-2107B.
This letter is in reply to your correspondence dated October 11, 2002 (received October 16, 2002) in
which you requested comments for the above-referenced project. The purpose of this project is to add
additional lanes to the existing road in order to accommodate the current and projected traffic volumes as
well as improve safety. A preliminary analysis of the project reveals no potential for direct impacts to
perennial streams or jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. Lick Creek (hydrologic unit 030610;
stream index 17-26-5-3-1) is in the area and is classified as WS-III.
According to the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (NCDWQ 1998),
sedimentation from construction, urban development and streambank erosion are the most widespread
water quality problems identified for the basin as a whole. Other concerns include growth management,
urban and industrial stormwater, nutrients in lakes, fecal coliform bacteria and oxygen-consuming wastes.
Therefore, NCDWQ recommends consideration at the planning stage as to the handling of stormwater
runoff from this transportation facility.
In the event that the project scope is amended, the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT send
notification of any proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. If you have any
questions, please call Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.733.5715.
pc: Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File Copy
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.ric.us/ncwetlands/
4%
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP nwre
TO: - REF: NO. OR ROOM, BLDG. -
'wIL1 VON Y?
.PROM:.
-
REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG*
?c., ? OPSUA1,o
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND. RETURN TO ME ? PER. YOUR REQUEST
?-RETURN WITH- MORE' DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? -NOTE AND SEE ME- ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER FOR YOUR COMMENTS
?.PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
?.-TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. ?INVESTIGATE-AND REPORT
COMMENTS: '-- -

OCT 1 6

„a STATpq,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 11, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
FROM: u? Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.91400?
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for TIP Project R_-2107BLINC 24-27
(East Main Street), from US 220A (North/South Main Street) to
I-73-74/US 220, Montgomery County, Division 8
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject project
(see attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review
procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be
performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for Wednesday, Qg,Q bar 23 2. OQ? at 10:00 AM in the Project Development
and Environmental Analysis Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date (see page 4 of the scoping
sheets). Preliminary Engineering funds have been requested and the State Project Number will
be available at the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Ben Upshaw, Project Development
Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 252. Please include the TIP Project Number in all correspondence
and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment atzj
J; k CUeL (AU. 0 36 X010)
17-zo-5-3- t -
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
fig &,,,: '-du [&??
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP # R-2107 B
PROJECT #
F.A. PROJECT #
DIVISION: 8 COUNTY: Montgomery
ROUTE: NC 24-27
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Rural Minor Arterial
LENGTH: 0.8 miles
Date: October 10, 2002
Revision Date:
Project Development Stage
Programming
® Planning
F1 Design
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: The purpose of this project is to improve the safety of the
roadway and to provide additional lanes to accommodate current and projected traffic
volumes.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (INCLUDING SPECIFIC LIMITS) AND MAJOR
ELEMENTS OF WORK: It is proposed to widen the existing _3 Mane portion of NC 24-
27 from US 220A to I-73-74/US 220.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: State Environmental Assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SCHEDULE: EA-March 2004
FONSI-Dec. 2004
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? Yes F_? No
IF YES, BY WHOM AND AMOUNT: ($)N/A, or (%)
HOW AND WHEN WILL THIS BE PAID?
N/A
r?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL: Full ? Partial F? None
NUMBER OF: Interchanges Grade Separations Stream Crossings
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROADWAY:
Existing: 3-lane curb & gutter
Proposed: 5-lane curb & gutter
TRAFFIC (ADT): Current (2001): 11,000 (county traffic map)
Design Year (2022): requested*
*Traffic projections have been requested and are due to be completed in November 2002.
% TTST DUAL DHV
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE: AASHTO ? 3R ?
DESIGN SPEED: 50 mph (81 km/h)
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) ....................... $ 3,000,000
Right of Way Cost (including relocation,
utililities and acquisition) ...... ............ $ 200,000 (TIP)
Force Account Items ........................... $
Preliminary Engineering ......................... $
Total Cost ................................... $ 3,200,000
TIP COST ESTIMATE:
Construction .................................. $ 2,600,000
Right of Way......... ....................... $ 200,000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE .................. $ 2,800,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT, WHICH
COULD AFFECT COST OR SCHEDULE OF PROJECT:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
® Pavement:
®Surface ......................................... $ 633,660
?Base ........................................... $
? Milling & Recycling ............................... $
? Turnouts ....................................... $
? $
? Shoulders:
? Paved ...................................... .. $
? Earthern ........................................ $
® Earthwork ............................................ $ 180,840
Fine Grading ........................................... $
? Subsurface Items ....................................... $
® Subgrade and Stabilization ................................ $ 54,486
® Drainage (List any special items) ........................... $ 465,500
? Sub-Drainage ......................................... $
? Structures Width x Length
? Bridge Rehabilitation x .......... $
? New Bridge x .......... $
? New Bridge x .......... $
? New Bridge x .......... $
? Widen Bridge x .......... $
? Remove Bridge x .......... $
? New Culvert: Size Length .......... $
F_j Culvert Extension ................................. $
' ? Retaining Walls .................................. $
? Noise Walls ..................................... $
? Other Misc. Structures ............................. $
? $
® Concrete Curb & Gutter ................................. $ 154,000
? Concrete Sidewalk ..................................... $
? Guardrail........ .................................. $
? Fencing: W.W. ? and/or C.L.? .......................... $
® Erosion Control ................ $ 14,000
? Landscaping .......................................... $
? RR Detour Track $
? $
? $
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS COST
[:] Lighting ............................................. $
® Traffic Control ........................................ $ 66,500
Signing:
New .......................................... $
? Upgraded ....................................... $
Z Traffic Signals:
New .......................................... $
® Revised ........................................ $ 70,000
Upgrade $
RR Signals:
R New ........................................... $
Revised ......................................... $
With or Without Arms .............................. $
If 3R:
Drainage Safety Enhancement ........................ $
Roadside Safety Enhancement ........................ $
R Realignment for Safety Upgrade ....................... $
® Pavement Markings:
Paint .......................................... $
® Thermo ......................................... $ 29,260
R Markers ......................................... $
E $
Delineators ........................................... $
®Other clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc ...................... $ 941,000
Contract Cost Subtotal ................................ $ 2,609,246
Engineering & Contingencies ................................. $ 390,754
Preliminary Engineering Costs ................................ $
Force Account ............................................
9 $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: ..................... $ 3,000,000
Right of Way:
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: New Location
WILL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY CONTAIN IMPROVEMENTS?
Yes F-1 No
New Right of Way Needed: Width .......... $
Easements: Type Width .......... $
Utilities: ............................................ $
RIGHT OF WAY Subtotal: .................................. $ 200,000 (TIP)
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 3,200,000
Prepared By: ALJ Date: 9/10/02
THE ABOVE SCOPING INFORMATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED
BY:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Board of Tran. Member
Structure Dir. Plan. & Prog.
Design Services Dep. Admin.-Preconst.
Geotechnical Chief Engineer-Oper..
Hydraulics Secondary Roads Off.
Loc. & Surveys Construction Branch
Photogrammetry Roadside Environmental
Prel. Est. Engr. Maintenance Branch
Planning & Envir. Bridge Maintenance
Right of Way Statewide Planning
R/W Utilities Division Engineer
Traffic Engineering Bicycle Coordinator
Project Management Program Development
County Manager FHWA
City/Municipality Dept. of Cult. Res.
Others Dept. of EH & NR
Others Others
INIT. DATE
Scoping Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
IF YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING,
NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS BELOW AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER
COMMENTS.
. .
FEET
0 1000 2000
0 200 400 600
METERS
1618 1500
?-
i A
O
sfo

'
i; 220
i;" ? 917
3 74
7
`; OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
JNo2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
NC 24-27 (East Main Street)
US 220A to 1-73-74/US 220
Montgomery County
TIP Project R-21076
• 1339
z
d
1338 se
C
BEGIN PROJECT
.21
W. Main St. 03
i N
II St i '
1503
h
c
220
0i A
IS OE
POP. 1,672
d Davis St. 24
cn a o 27
E. Maine St.
n
.58 n
m o;
W N
1 Church St. y 1577
U
? N
R
Hunsucker St ost Office
-
55 I--- .2t
I
1500 I
I
I
I
1501
I
.63 Bruton St
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I i
1
END PROJEC T
i
?-- .24
\ 1617 12
\ Miller Pond Rd.
\ i
o
e MSfATE
01
y - ?
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1501
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
August 14, 2002
Mr. Dave Timpy
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Attention: Mr. Dave Timpy

Subject: As-Built Package for USMC Mitigation Site, Onslow County, TIP Project
Number.
Please find enclosed the As-Built Package for the above mentioned on-site mitigation in
Onslow County. The package includes as-built elevations and revised plan sheets per
construction of the site.
This package represents the final plan sheets with all the modification that were
encountered during the construction of the project. Site construction began on this
mitigation site in mid March, 2002 and was completed on mid May, 2002. Following
grading the site was planted in late May 2002.
If you should have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Randy Griffin at [phone] Ext. 294
Sincerely,
V. Ch les Bruton, Ph.D.
P -P
PDEA-Office of Natural
Environment
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
cc: Attachment
Mr. Doug Huggett, CAMA
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
w/out Attachment
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Scott McLendon, COE
Mr. Howard Hall, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
M.51'Ai? o
?trq ww
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION of HIGHWAYS LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 6, 2002
PROJECT NO.: 6.269010T (U-2107WM)
COUNTY: Onslow
DESCRIPTION: USMC Marsh Wetland Mitigation Site,
Clearing and Grading
MEMORANDUM TO: Charles Cox
Transportation Engineer
FROM: C.D. Moorefield, PE
Resident Engineer
BY: J. Zepeda
11
Assistant Resident Engineer
SUBJECT: U2107 WM As-Builts
Please find attached a drawing of the Mitigation site showing the contours as constructed in the
field.
If I can be of further assistance, please advise.
CDM/JZ:dtm
Attachment
cc: File w/att
299-A WILMINGTON HWY., JACKSONVILLE, NC 28540
TELEPHONE [phone]/FAX [phone]
i i
t3?i5Lltcift33
ii tiiitt 3 S iSOGNt33SiSSS3t 33ti3t
USEnL.""-I•icStit
a
n 3 ? Dz
N r- w ?
t0 M O
p G r O M
N -? O O '„
N
2? L oy?
s
o
NX
a
1 \ / ' 1 -335790 70S. I ay v
??' tl06?L2 1 • (• • • . • • • • • i .L r r r r ?u • • • ya, ? I ?? ? ? o m
,Z i} 1 • • • • • • - ? . f -s r ?' 31Qi30•??v I I I ???\ NOn
?" \ `.`JN • • • • • • r , , /,!-? I f?.St 6?}!1 =1'-" ?,- Q! 1.05'_ / '?. I I I I I ?o
01
_ '+ I
•-r\ ?° / X08 l85 J 1 - / -
3.V .65.905 i ?•.
4
IfI ` ' ?
O
4
7 9
N
? O
o• ?
0
(A
T n
r
n?
-o
9<7

0
z
>0
m H
zo
Ao
Z
0
0
I
r_
I
b
OO
0
rt
O
0
°o
li
I

It I
(0 M
ysa ? I ? t m
'gab-'• \ '% t. I (J , I ?

t`
`\ d m
I 1 I
` x0
? `r0
lax
V11,\ \f1o
I C' X .
,t1 ?, I \ 0 1
\ O
!y
?0
o
?sp
D
r
D
f?
Jb
\
i
I
O
0
W
?s
°a
X
0
0
v
0
30>
v
z
G?
z
l 1
N
m m
C7
0
z
Z3
At
n ?
Z
a
Z
0
z
Z

0
z
N
c
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
cr) a c -n m
D z
c 3 X) x
0
z 'n m
D ror-m
D m ?Q:()
r 3 o
-i m 0O ?
m 7 a
z D 0
z .. a
m c
cn m
0 7D m
x -- --I
D
_ m_ r
N 3?,15?90.40S
D Zg • • • • • ? • • • w,,. • i
CD A
LP m
`-' t1 -•i •.• U.. • ., • .... :..... :••MbYu
ISS O ^
n :: ?'•
m 1.0
N. • • ?. t' " v J? a
.q m. • ;w. ?' Og Z8 V A m
m ? N08.48'S3"E m u v
u
v
a r
?i . m 1105 S?
o i.
0
3„44.6£ .405 O
F y
Z?•
Z I / \
z u
y cn 6 CU ?? ''••. u .
j _D W fA rS
m
C ,
IA-
.A a
Ilk
?'''-A
s? `'?! n`: 1 x? l m# e9
' 1, '• ,`• ''•,. '•.,??? . : ? .... / o o ,/lam
J ?i N V i
e
b
4 .
K ?
a 8e
V
o C Ie _Ie
z eQ, S
Do ? A
mm
vn ?
m'
Z 0
m
0
Z 4
00 Z
O m
mc: O
?D W O
m
z
c?
m
0
z
m
m
0
z
m
m
4
May 17, 2001
U-2107 Jacksonville Bypass Update
Project History
- A United States Army Corps of Engineers Individual Permit was issued on March 9,
1998. A 401 Water Quality Certification was issued on May 1, 1997. A CAMA
permit was issued on August 12, 1997.
- These permits cover sections A,A, JA,,C, and D of TIP Project No. U-2107, but only
sections B, BA, and C were authorized for construction.
- These permits authorize NCDOT to place fill material into approximately 33.3 acres
of wetlands associated with various tributaries to the New River and Edwards Creek
(wetland impacts include A, B; $A,. and D sections).
- -Compensatory mitigation has been fulfilled for the B, BA, and C sections. Sections
A and D were not covered, which is why these sections were not authorized for ? r`5
construction.
- The Corps of Engineers Individual Permit expires on December 31, 2001
CAMA permit would have expired on December 31, 2000, but a renewal for this
permit was issued and it expires on December 31, 2002.
Current Status
At the time that the original permit application was sent (March 27, 1996), GPS was
not used to delineate wetland boundaries.
- Additionally, stream impacts were not considered, or mitigated for, at that time.
Since then, GPS has been used to delineate the wetland boundaries and stream
impacts have to be mitigated for. Consequently, wetland impacts have been altered.
We have new drawings for the A, D, and BC sections, including stream impacts.
A "BC" section was added after the permits were issued, and involves grading,
drainage, structure construction, and paving of the B, BA, and C sections.
- Impacts and mitigation needs for each section are included in the tables below.

Wetland Impacts
Section Existing Permit Impacts New Drawings Impacts &
Wetland Mitigation Needs
A 3.12 ac rbhf* 5.654 ac rbhf
D 2.89 ac rbhf 1:82 ac rbhf
3.64 ac mphf* 3.9 ac mphf
0.02 ac mhflat*
0.032 ac mhforest*
0.027 ac rssw*
BC 0.28 ac rssw
Total by Habitat 6.01 ac rbhf 7.474 ac rbhf
3.64 ac mphf 3.9 ac mphf
0.02 ac mhflat
0.032 mhforest
0.307 ac rssw
Total 9.65 ac 11.733 ac
-roni=riverme nouomiana narawooct
mphf=mixed pine-hardwood flat ?,?
mhflat=mixed hardwood flat
mhforest=mixed hardwood fores
rssw=riverine scrub-shrub wetland
U-2107D Bell Fork Road
?/1-i? ? o` llitlz?
- Two additional wetland sites on the D section could be impacted, depending on
whether NCDOT chooses to use a bridge or culvert.
- Alternate 1 involves using 2 long bridges and would cost $3,900,000.
- Alternate 2 involves using 2 short bridges, 1 stream culvert, and 1 pedestrian culvert
and would cost $2,600,000.
- If culverts are used, approximately I I5m of stream impacts will occur.
Stream Impacts
Section New Drawings Impacts
A 0.158 ac fsw* and 3,566 ft psi*
D 0.23 ac fsw and 6,685 ft psi ash
BC 0.19 ac fsw and 1,093 ft psi
Total 0.578 ac fsw and 11,344 ft psi
?isw=iil in surface waters cdaAce-
psi=permanent stream impacts
a`i dA ray
o 4- sf -r 'Oxr
. , . 14
Stream Mitigation
Section Stream mitigation needs
Mitigation Ratio
l:l 2:1
A 0.111 ac fsw and 2,735 ft
psi
D 0.18 ac fsw and 5,513 ft psi
BC 0.08 ac fsw and 671 ft psi 0.06 ac fsw and 275 ft psi
Total 0.26 ac fsw and 6,184 ft psi 0.171 ac fsw and 3,010 ft
psi
- `NCDOT anticipates using the Clayhill Farms Mitigation Site to compensate for some
of the wetland and stream impacts, and using WRP for the remainder of the impacts.
- The following table includes what is available at Clayhill Farms.

mitigation ratio would require two credits be debited from the bank for each acre of wetland impact).
No credit is being requested for the 44.1 acres of upland restoration or 57.9 acres of 'upland
preservation included in the Clayhill Farms Mitigation Bank. However, the existence of upland
communities on the site is integral to the successful functioning of the ecosystem and should be
considered when final credit determinations are made. Additionally, should water quality buffer rules
be enacted in the White Oak River Basin, opportunities exist on-site for vegetated buffer credits.
Table 1. Preliminary credit calculations for the Clayhill Farms Mitigation Bank.
Total Acres or Credit Total
Mitigation Type Linear Feet Ratio Credits
Non-Riverine Wetlands
' Non-riverine wet hardwood forest restoration 37.4 ac 0.85:1 44.0
Mesic pine flatwoods restoration 22.4 ac 0.85:1 26
4
Mixed mesic hardwood forest restoration 5.6 ac 0.85:1 .
6.6
' Mixed pine regeneration preservation 148.5 ac 5:1 29
7
-Mixed mesic hardwood forest preservation 3.6 ac 5:1
- - -----
-------- --- .
0
7
------------------
-
Total non-riverine wetland credits .
107.4

Riverine Wetlands
Streamhead Atlantic white-cedar forest restoration 32.3 ac 0.85:1 38
0
Coastal plain bottomland hardwood forest enhancement 1.8 ac .
0
9
Coastal plain bottomland hardwood_ forest preservation 2.0 ac 5:1 .
0
4
Total riverine wetland credits "-"-------------- .
-------
---
-
---
39
.
3

Stream
Perennial restoration 5,210 l.f. 1:1
' 5
210.0
Intermittent restoration 2,200 l.f. 1:1 ,
2
200.0
Perennial preservation 1,350 U. 2.5:1 ,
540
0
I Total stream credits .
7,950.0

3.9 Proposed Schedule for Bank Completion and Credit Release
The current implementation schedule for the Clayhill Farms Mitigation Bank is as follows.
August 2000 to November 2001 Final Design
June 2002 to December 2002 Site Construction
December 2002- March 2003 Planting
March 2003 - December 2008 Monitoring
The following credit release schedule is proposed for the Clayhill Farms Mitigation Bank:
December 2001 - 15 percent release, contingent upon approval of final design plans by the
MBRT, approval and signature of the MBI, recordation of the conservation easement, and
establishment of any required financial assurances;
December 2002 - 10 percent release, contingent upon completion of site construction;
Draft Clayhill Farms Mitigation Bank Prospectus April 2001
X C. Department of Transportation TIP :Vo. R-21056 V Page 8
. ' ? r
PROJECT SCHEDULES AND COSTS ARE ACCURATE AS OF DATE SHOWN

O
O S Z Z

O

W I

J
C
O

O
V
a 0 0 0 0 7c \ * O N \ a ~ W
a

J
v
0

r

2

N

? - ?
O
S
v
m
m
O
Q
n
0

O

-
r
,?
N
M
D .o W
H

?
H ?JeJ
W ?JOlO

O,

Ei
N
O R ??
a
E„sRd
?W a

C

M m
? 14
co
O

mmo.
? A
-
-
D T L
S ? C3 M

on

U-2107
0
m
In m
in m
In v
? v
A m
m m
m z
m ? r n v v ln r
v

a
a X
n 0
O 0
O 0
Z Cl
Z K
? ?
m Z
a p
C
y ?
O
m p
O
m -
1
D
m '
o

?
m O
Z N
m N
m y
\ p
\
I A O
? 1 S { n
H n
ti
?
\
o o v v v f ? m \ m Z 0 0
n A n m m D D z ? an i
c
H * m . _ 0 0 A V1 A m ti A
A Q - Z
n Z
p C
N C
c y O
Z 9
H B O Z
O
n N n - _ O O 2

°z
mo
Ao
=' ?
m
n
o Z cCi ? A
O ~
N
-i -,
o
C
M
:p Z n
O
Z
N
I ?
jV
?O
Q1 U y

?

N
N

N
;
O
0 A
2 0

m ;

?

C
p ? Z? I/I p y c RI N G
N IO m m

O
°
O O
OC
{
N
\ N
m
0
x Q
D
o o °m
N w sz
nn
N N
o a
7r.-
m

$

s

m
°, U
O
Z
m?
s

N
O
N y

V
w
N
?
m 2
r
C y
m
N
C

c ?
-
;I
o

In

`?

i ?o

x'r m

b vl

o N

o
4 m ,o ? \ oc n o
0
o a c N \ ul
X
?
m
v ^ ?a w ?-

00
z
m
m
O

r

O
C
O
n
m

M y N S Z D A v ? C
:? ..I N F ? R1 ? ? f m ? N
m F 0 M ' q
O O_ IO
a O
n y \ \ O
zz m ° m
S ., m ._
o - W o
x a
o S, w m K
m

c ?c
S
p
c
n
CI
7/ N m?

C O
a y O

N

?

O

w

N
O

?
?

r
N ?
?
?

V

RI

T

C
p ?
-
? 4
O
N m
N r
O L
N
o m T N
d \ ? z
N
? a a =n 0 . 0
-. ul w <
C
m N
? ?O
In i
N

N C

?_
ooZ
ill y

m

N
M N
;
Z Z A
00 !?I
G_
O : T ? lil y ? Z
yl N Ci
4 N {
c ? 0 0
z L 2
?m
\ OI
? N
o
w w
w \ \ a
0
p 0
0 u
iR U ?
Z y >0
S i v

y oz
O
a A
Z
x Z
N .I
°o z =?

D
SO
Z
01
Cc)
V D O
m/I
I mI
V A A m A < m 0 A A N i 0
'

-_?
;
-?
?
O
O
O_
z
?
a
9
m
Z
i

C O

m

Om

D
m

o
f o
m o
m x ? x -c ? n
m
o A
° i v
o \
o
m o r n o g m z H
? RI m D Z N O
m m A
N ti ti O H
C O CI ? ~ Z O D O
ma ?
-
? m
Z O .
?
? O
Z
m

A
m
S
a >

d
Z < OI

u t ; ?A Lso vl ol c
o T r r n v .
O
a K < ?
C m
VI i NZ
m m OI N

O
O
.a
N
\
\ O
N
< a

n b 0
?
_
° 0

^ o m
p0 v
? r
i
a x ?
O w l
l
?
a ys ?

p

: v
p
S
a
N
g UN1 0 N
N
a z o
-
T
C
m ? O
? ? N
a m - N 2 Se m ?
o 0
In
O
t+' ? \ \ o
r m
A
o m

0
z _ O

< 2
mo

?

?

o z .
w
w
an
< ; x

c75 c
n
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 19, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your October 11, 2004 letter which requested comments from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed widening of NC
24-27 from US 220A to US 220 in Biscoe, Montgomery County (TIP No. R-2107B). These comments
are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the EA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen a 0.8 mile
portion of NC 24-27 from the existing three-lane facility to a four-lane, median-divided facility. The EA
states that no wetlands or streams will be affected by the project. Due to the suburban/residential nature
of the project area, impacts to fish and wildlife resources should be minimal. The EA states that, due to
the lack of habitat, the project will have no effect on the five federally listed species for Montgomery
County. The Service concurs with the "no effect" determination. We believe that the requirements of
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for now. We remind you that obligations under section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that
may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
The Service believes that this EA adequately addresses the potential effects of this proposed project on
fish and wildlife resources and on waters and wetlands of the United States. The Service appreciates the
opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Si er ,
Pete enjamin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACOE, Wilmington, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
A X'5WA
741A_?.
ACDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
November 15, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Beth Haines Barnes, NCDOT Coordinator, 194l9
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for NC 24-27 (E st Maine Street), from US 220A to
I-73-74/US 220, Montgomery County,
Project Number: 05-0113
State Project 6.559004T
WSB Element No.: 34373. 1.1
TIP Project R-2107B
Division: 08.
In reply to your correspondence dated October 25, 2004 in which you requested comments for
the above referenced project. The purpose of this project is to add additional lanes to the existing
road to accommodate the current and projected traffic volumes as well as improve safety. A
preliminary analysis of the project indicates no potential for direct impacts to perennial streams
or jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. Lick Creek (hydrologic Unit 030610; stream index
17-26-5-3-1) is in the area and is classified as WS-III.
According to the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (NCDWQ 1998),
sedimentation from construction, urban development and streambank erosion, are the most
widespread water quality problems identified for the basin as a whole. Other concerns include
growth management, urban and industrial stormwater, nutrients in lakes, fecal coliform bacteria
and oxygen-consuming wastes. Therefore, NCDWQ recommends consideration at the planning
stage as to the handling of stormwater runoff from this transportation facility.
In the event that the project scope is amended, the Division of Water Quality requests the
NCDOT send notification of any proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding
mapping.
401 Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 One
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 NorthCarohna
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: httn://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Epual Opportunitv/Affirmative Action Emplover - 50% Recvcled/10% Post Consumer Paper "
R-2107B
Page 2
November 15, 2004
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 Beth Barnes at [phone].
pc: Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Chris N ilitscher, USEPA Region IV, Raleigh Field;Office
Central Files \\
File Copy
.? ?.
L _ ?. ?. -- ?? ar???. -
:-o t• .-?
r
__...._.__._....__?.__ ..__.._.??.m.?....p_._._...?.._?_ _._._._._.-__ _____?_? -.--____ _?
i
micnaei r. tasiey, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
June 5, 2003
McGee, Environmental Coordinator
'R Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
,a F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator (it>dCA)
w of Scoping Sheets for Biscoe, Widening of NC 24-27 (East Main Street) from US
to I-73/I-74/US 220, Montgomery County, TIP Project R-2107B. State
inghouse Project No. 03-0332.
to your correspondence dated May 21, 2003 (received May 27, 2003) in which you
for the above-referenced project. The purpose of this project is to add additional
,6 road in order to accommodate the current and projected traffic volumes as well as
A preliminary analysis of the project reveals no potential for direct impacts to perennial
:isdictional wetlands in the project area. Lick Creek (hydrologic unit 030610; stream index
,t) is in the area and is classified as WS-III.
According to the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (NCDWQ 1998),
sedimentation from construction, urban development and streambank erosion are the most widespread
water quality problems identified for the basin as a whole. Other concerns include growth management,
urban and industrial stormwater, nutrients in lakes, fecal coliform bacteria and oxygen-consuming wastes.
Therefore, NCDWQ recommends consideration at the planning stage as to the handling of stormwater
runoff from this transportation facility.
In the event that the project scope is amended, the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT send
notification of any proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. If you have any
questions, please call Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.733.5715.
pc: Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File Copy
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), hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 8, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
SUBJECT: Biscoe, Widening of NC 24-27 (East Main Street) from US 220A
to I-73-74/US 220, Montgomery County, State Project 6.559004T,
TIP Project R-2107B
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the
proposed it .-provements to NC 24-27 (East Main Street). The project is included in the 2004-
2010 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in
fiscal year 2006 and construction in fiscal year 2008.
The project proposed to widen NC 24-27 (East Main Street) from US 220A (North/South
Main Street) to I-73-74/US 220 through Biscoe in Montgomery County. A five-lane and a four-
lane divided facility each with curb and gutter are being considered for the proposed typical
section.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a State Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance
with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by
July 7, 2003 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Jay McInnis, Project
Development Unit Head, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 249. Please include the TIP
Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr

Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
?00?
lr
OQ
3
•? /,a ryS tr?aJ
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Attachment
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
1339 . 11
z
I
i
d IS E
1
POP. 1,672 1
1338 END PROJECT
C m 1
BEGIN P n
ROJECT
m d Davis St. 24 ( i
v, o a 27
o ? - .2¢
E. Main ° St.
21 v 58 a \
03 °' \\
W. Main St. 0
12
church St. N Q 1577 \ 1617
\ Miller Pond Rd.
Hunsucker St ost Office Rd V
I St ---??
1503 .55 i--- .24
1500 I 0,3
1618 1500
_ I
/ CO 1501 oS?o
.63 Bruton St
m I ;' a
? 22 I ?I % r, j 9p
220
? I 173 74
I i
FEET
0 1000 2000
0 200 400 600
METERS

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
,• .•.. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 24-27 (East Main Street)
US 220A to 1-73-74/US 220
Montgomery County
TIP Project R-2107B
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date Received: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
65-?<<3 ?a .mod 1???10?
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville *ir ? Soil & Water ? Marine Fisheries
ayetteville Water ? Coastal Management
? Mooresville Groundwater Water Resources
)6vildlife Al
? Raleigh `,Land Quality Engineer vironmental Health
i
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant Xyorest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wilmington ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
o Winston-Salem arks & Recreation ? Other
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
Manager Sign-OWRegion: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
E3 No Comment
O Insufficient information to complete review
? Other (specify or attach comments)
RL;?c?c?oeg
r= @
OCT 2 7 2004
WETLANDS AND STTORMWATERISRANCH
KLl U" IV:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator -
Oftice of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
r
Biscoe
NC 24-27 (East Main Street)
US 220A to I-73-74/US 220
Montgomery County
State Project 6.559004T
WBS Element 34373.1.1
TIP Project R-2107B
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSNfENT
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
APPROVED:
Date oAGregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Biscoe
NC 24-27 (East Main Street)
US 220A to I-73-74/US 220
Montgomery County
State Project 6.559004T
WBS Element 34373. 1.1
TIP Project R-2107B
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:
Michael S. Goins
Project Development Engineer
James A. McInnis, Jr., P.E.
Project Development Unit Head
Robert P. Hanson, P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
?•D?ZN CAROi; 04
SE AL
?20701?
,SCI NEE ?
4.Iyjc1N?••`
9/3o ?v?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS .............................................................................................. i
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ II
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ..........................................................1
A. PROJECT PURPOSE .................................................................................................... 1
B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 1
C. COST ESTIMATES ..................................................................................................... i
H. NEED FOR PROJECT ............................................................................................ 2
A. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITY ....................................................................... 2
B. DEFICIENCIES OF EXISTING FACILITY ...................................................................... 4
C. BENEFITS OF PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................ 5
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................ 7
A. ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION .................................................................................. 7
B. RIGHT OF WAY AND ACCESS CONTROL ................................................................... 7
C. SPEED LIMIT ............................................................................................................ 7
D. DESIGN SPEED ......................................................................................................... 7
E. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS ......................................................................... 7
F. INTERSECTIONS/INTERCHANGES .............................................................................. 7
G. MEDIAN CROSSOVERS ............................................................................................. 8
H. STRUCTURES ............................................................................................................ 8
I. BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS/SIDEWALKS ............................................................... 8
J. UTILITIES ................................................................................................................. 8
K. SERVICE ROADS ....................................................................................................... 8
L. RAILROAD CROSSINGS ............................................................................................. 9
M. LANDSCAPING ..........................................................................................................9
N. NOISE BARRIERS ...................................................................................................... 9
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................. 9
A. TYPICAL SECTION ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................... 9
B. "NO-BUILD" ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................... 9
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION...... 10
A. NATURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 10
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 14
C. SOCIAL EFFECTS .................................................................................................... 14
D. LAND USE .............................................................................................................. 15
E. TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 15
F. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................:...... 18
G. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................................... 19
H. GEODETIC SURVEY MARKERS ............................................................................... 19
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............................................................... 20
A. CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP ................................................................. 20
B. PUBLIC HEARING ................................................................................................... 20
C. -AGENCY COORDINATION ....................................................................................... 20
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of Project
Figure 3 2008/2028 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 Typical Section Alternatives
Figure 5 Water Resources in Project Area
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Comments Received
Appendix B - Relocation Reports
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1- Existing Bridge Structure .....................................................................................3
Table 2 - 2008/2028 Intersection Level of Service Without Project ...................................5
Table 3 - 2008/2028 Intersection Level of Service With Project ........................................6
Table 4 - Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ...............................................1 I
Table 5 - Federally-Protected Species for Montgomery County ......................................12
Table 6 - Federal Species of Concern for Montgomery County .......................................13
Table 7 - Underground Storage Facilities .........................................................................19
PROJECT COAEMaTIVIENTS
Biscoe
NC 24-27 (East Main. Street)
US 220A to I-73-74/US 220
• Montgomery County
State Project 6.559004T
WBS Element 34373.1.1
TIP Project R-2107B
Geotechnical Unit
Five sites potentially containing hazardous materials were identified in the project
area The project will likely require right of way from four of the potentially
contaminated sites. Preliminary site assessments to identify the nature and extent-of any
contamination will be performed on these sites prior to right of way acquisition.
Right of Way -Utilities Section
Brackets and power outlets for Christmas decorations are attached to every other
power pole along NC 24-27 in the project area The Town of Biscoe has asked these
brackets and outlets be reinstalled on any power poles to be relocated as a part of this
project NCDOT will coordinate with the Town regarding this request during preparation
of utility relocation plans for the project.
Roadside Environmental - Landscaping
The Town of Biscoe requested' landscaping in the median along the project area.
Funding in the amount of %2 of 1 % of the construction cost is available for landscaping.
NCDOT will coordinate with the Town regarding this request at the end of the
construction phase of the project.
Program Development Branch/Roadway Desian.Unit '
Sidewalks exist along both sides of NC 24-27 for the entire length of the project.
NCDOT will bear the full cost to replace sidewalks relocated by the project.
State Environmental Assessment - R-2107B Page 1 of 1
i
September 2,004
•
SUMMARY
1. Type of Action
This is a State Environmental Assessment.
2. Additional Information
The following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this
proposal and statement:
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
3. Project Purpose/Description of Action
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety and increase the
traffic carrying capacity of NC 24-27 through Biscoe.
The project involves widening NC 24-27 (East Main Street) to a four-lane curb
and gutter facility with a 20-foot raised median from US 220A (North/South Main Street)
to I-73-741US 220.
4. Summary of Environmental Effects
The proposed project will require the relocation of three businesses. No wetlands
or streams were found to exist in the project area. The proposed widening will result in
noise impacts to twelve homes and one church. The project will not affect any properties
or sites listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
5. Alternatives Considered
A five-lane undivided highway with a center turn lane, a four-lane divided
highway with a median, and the "no build" alternative were considered for this project.
6. Permits Required
Since this project will not effect any "Waters of the US," neither a Section 404
permit nor Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required.
ii
7. Coordination
The following federal, state and local officials were consulted regarding this
project:
US Department of the Army"- Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District)
US Fish and Wildlife Service
NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Montgomery County
Town of Biscoe
iii
Biscoe
NC 24-27 (East Main Street)
US 220A to I-73-74/US 220
Montgomery County
State Project 6.559004T
WBS Element 34373.1.1
TIP Project R-2107B
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Purpose
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety and increase the
traffic carrying capacity of NC 24-27 through Biscoe.
B. General Description
This project involves widening NC 24-27 (East Main Street) from a three-lane to
a four-lane divided facility. The project will widen NC 24-27 between US 220A
(North/South Main St.) and I-73-74/US 220, a distance of approximately 0.8 mile.
The project is scheduled for right of way acquisition in state fiscal year 2006 and
construction in state fiscal year 2007.
C. Cost Estimates
The project is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
The 2004-2010 TIP includes an estimated right of way acquisition cost of
$200,000 and construction cost of $3,000,000. Total project cost included in the TIP is
$3,200,000.
The latest estimated costs for TIP Project R-2107B are as follows:
Right of Way Acquisition $2,125,000
Construction $2,800,000
Total Cost $4,925,000
H. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Description of Existing Facility
The proposed project includes NC 24-27 from just west of US 220A to just east of
I-73-74/US 220.
1. Route Classification
NC 24-27 within the project limits is classified as a Rural Minor Arterial in the
North Carolina Functional Classification System.
2. Physical Description of Existing Facility
a. Roadway Typical Section
Existing NC 24-27 west of US 220A is a five-lane curb and gutter roadway with
sidewalks on both sides. Twelve-foot lanes with 5-foot sidewalks exist on this portion of
NC 24-27.
Existing NC 24-27 within the project limits is a three-lane curb and gutter
roadway with sidewalks on both sides. The roadway has 13-foot lanes, a 14-foot turn
lane, and 5-foot sidewalks.
Existing NC 24-27 east of I-73-74/US 220 has two 12-foot lanes with 12-foot
grassed shoulders.
b. Right of Way and Access Control
Approximately 100 feet of right of way exists along NC 24-27 within the project
limits. With the exception of immediately adjacent to the I-73-74/US.220 interchange,
no control of access exists along NC 24-27 in the project area.
c. Speed Limit
A 35 MPH speed limit exists along NC 24-27 within the project limits.
d. Intersections
At-grade intersections exist at all but one roadway crossing NC 24-27 within the
project limits. An interchange is provided between NC 24-27 and I-73-74/US 220. The
ramp terminals on NC 24-27 for this interchange are stop sign-controlled. The US 220A
2
intersection is the only existing signalized intersection along NC 24-27 in the project
limits. All other intersections along this section of NC 24-27 are unsignalized.
e. Railroad Crossings
The Aberdeen Carolina and Western (ACWR) runs north to south, parallel to and
west of US 220A, and crosses NC 24-27 at-grade approximately 73 feet west of the US
220A intersection. The at-grade crossing of the ACWR and NC 24-27 is identified as
crossing number 466216U.
This section of track carries 5 trains per day. The maximum train speed through
the project area is 25 mph. The ACWR owns a 100-foot wide right-of-way in the project
area.
Gates and lights exist at this crossing. The exposure index for the crossing will be
85,500 in the year 2008 and 148,500 in the year 2028.
E Structures
One bridge structure exists along NC 24-27 within the project limits. This bridge
carries NC 24-27 over I-73-741US 220. Information regarding this structure is presented
in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1
Existing Bridge Structure
Bridge Carries/ Clear Year Suff.
No. Crosses Roadway Width Length Built *Rt .
NC 24-27/
35 I-73-74/US 220 68.3 ft. 272.0 ft. 1977 100
*Sufficiency Rating (out of a possible 100 rating points).
g. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks
Sidewalks exist along both sides of NC 24-27 for the entire length of the project.
No special bicycle accommodations exist along NC 24-27 within the project limits.
h. Utilities
Overhead power and telephone lines run parallel to or cross NC 24-27 at several
locations within the project limits.
Waterlines run parallel to or cross NC 24-27 at several locations within the
project limits, as well.
3
3. Traffic Volumes
Traffic projections were prepared for the subject section of NC 24-27 for the
years 2008 and 2028. In the year 2008, average daily traffic along NC 24-27 in the
project limits will range between 11,600 to 13,800 vehicles per day. In 2028, average
daily traffic along NC 24-27 will range between 20,000 to 23,600 vehicles per day.
Figure 3 presents, traffic volumes along NC 24-27 and crossing roadways within the
project limits.
4. Degree of Roadside Interference
Numerous driveways exist along NC 24-27 within the project limits. At the
western end of the project, buildings are located within 15 feet of the edge of pavement.
Utility poles are generally located at the right of way line.
5. School Bus Usage
There are sixteen school bus trips per day along the subject section of NC 24-27.
6. Other Highway Proiects in the Area
One other highway project is immediately adjacent to the subject project. TIP
Project R-2528 involves widening NC 24-27 to multi-lanes from I-73-74/US 220 to the
Carthage Bypass. This project is unfunded in the 2004-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program. No decisions have been made regarding the typical section to be
used on this adjacent project.
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility
1. Traffic Carrying Caaacity
Highway capacity analyses were performed for existing NC 24-27 within the
project limits for the years 2008 and 2028. These analyses revealed, without the
proposed improvements, the entire section of NC 24-27 within the project limits would
operate at a level of service E in the year 2008 and level of service F in the year 2028*.
Capacity analyses were also performed for existing at-grade intersections along
the subject sections of NC 24-27. These analyses concluded, without the proposed
improvements, turning traffic at many of the at-grade intersections along NC 24-27
would experience excessive delay in the years 2008 and 2028.
The results of these analyses are presented in Table 2 below.
*Based on HCS two-lane analysis
4
TABLE 2
2008/2028 Intersection Level Of Service Without Proiect
Intersection 2008
LOS* 2028
LOS*
US 220** E F
Oak St. C F
Pine St. D F
Brendana Ct. C D
Maple St. C D
Cedar St. C D
McCaskill St. F F
I-73-74/US 220
Western Ramps B C
I-73-741US 220
Western Ramps D F
*Level of service presented for unsignalized intersections is for the minor street
approach with the worst level of service.
* * US 220 intersection is signalized. Level of service presented is for the entire
intersection.
2. Accident Record
An accident study was performed for NC 24-27 within the project limits for the
period between January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2001. During this time, 48 crashes
occurred along the subject section of NC 24-27. Of this total, 15 accidents resulted in
non-fatal injuries. There were no fatal accidents.
Left-turn accidents (19), rear-end collisions (9), and angle accidents (8) were the
most frequent types of accidents to occur along the subject section of NC 24-27 within
the study period.
The total crash rate for NC 24-27 within the project limits for the study period
was 640.86 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles. In comparison, the statewide crash
rate for rural two-lane NC routes between 1999-2001 was 240.33 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles.
As the above statistics show, the subject section of NC 24-27 has a significantly
higher total crash rate than the statewide average for similar routes.
C. Benefits of Proposed Proiect
1. Traffic Carrying Capacity
The proposed project will increase the traffic carrying capacity of the subject
section of NC 24-27. With the proposed project, NC 24-27 within the project limits will
operate at a level of service A in the year 2008 and level of service B in the year 2028*.
*Based on HCS multi-lane analysis
5
Highway capacity analyses were also performed for intersections along NC 24-27
with the proposed project for the years 2008 and 2028.
The results of these analyses are presented in Table 3 below.
TABLE 3
2008/2028 Intersection Level Of Service With Project
Intersection 2008
LOS* 2,028
LOS*
US 220** D F
Oak St. B B
Pine St. C F
Brendana Ct. B B
Maple St. B B
Cedar St. B B
McCaskill St. C C
I-73-74/US 220
Western Ramps B B
I-73-74/US 220
Western Ramps D F
*Level of service presented for unsignalized intersections is for the minor street
approach with the worst level of service.
** US 220 intersection is signalized. Level.of service presented is for the entire
intersection.
2. Safe
It is anticipated the proposed project will increase safety along the subject section
of NC 24-27. The proposed dual lanes in each direction will allow motorists to pass
slower moving vehicles without encroaching upon the opposing travel lane. The
proposed median will provide separation for opposing traffic, reducing the likelihood of
head-on collisions. The median will also limit the location of left turns. Turn lanes to be
provided as part of the project will allow turning vehicles to move out of the through
lanes, reducing the likelihood of rear-end collisions.
The total crash rate for NC 24-27 within the project limits for the study period
was 640.86 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles. In comparison, amulti-lane section
of NC 24-27 adjacent to the project has a total crash rate of 211.57 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles.
3. Other Benefits
Widening NC 24-27 within the project limits should result in reduced delay and
lower travel costs for users of the facility.
6
. The proposed four-lane facility should result in lower accident rates, as well.
These lower accident rates should lead to cost savings due to decreases in the number of
injuries and the amount of property damage occurring along this section of roadway.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway Typical Section
A four-lane median divided typical section with curb and gutter is recommended
for the project (see Figure 4). A twenty-foot median is proposed. Ten-foot berms and
five-foot sidewalks are proposed on both sides of NC 24-27.
B. Right of Way and Access Control
The proposed project will require the acquisition of additional right of way, for a
total of 160 feet. No control of access is proposed for the majority of the project. Near
the I-73-74/US 220 interchange, it is proposed to extend the existing control of access
approximately 350 feet westward on the north side of NC 24-27 and approximately 100
feet westward on the south side of NC 24-27. This will require relocating the driveway
for a shopping center located north of NC 24-27.
C. Speed Limit
project.
A speed limit of 35 MPH is anticipated for NC 24-27 throughout the length of the
D. Design Speed
The design speed for the proposed project is 50 MPH. This is consistent with the
anticipated 35 MPH speed limit.
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions
The proposed median crossovers at Pine Street and McCaskill Street do not meet
the minimum space criteria set in the median crossover guidelines. An exception to the
median crossover guidelines will need to be obtained in order to allow these median
crossovers.
F. Intersections/Interchanges
Turn lanes will be added along US 220A at the signalized intersection of
US 220A with NC 24-27. It is anticipated that the intersection of NC 24-27/ McCaskill
Street will be signalized as a part of this project. The intersections of the-US 220 ramp
terminals with NC 24-27 will likely not be signalized as a part of this project, but may
require signalization by the design year (2028). The potential for future signalization will
be considered in the design of these intersections.
7
G. Median Crossovers
Median crossovers are anticipated at Pine Street and McCaskill Street along the
subject section of NC 24-27. The proposed median crossovers at Pine Street and
McCaskill Street do not meet the minimum space criteria set in the median crossover
guidelines. An exception to the median crossover guidelines will need to be obtained in
order to allow these median crossovers.
H. Structures
The existing structure on NC 24-27 over US 220 provides sufficient horizontal
clearance for the proposed widening and will be retained. No new structures are
proposed as apart of this project.
1. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks
As discussed previously, sidewalks exist along both sides of NC 24-27 for the
entire length of the project. NCDOT will bear the full cost to replace sidewalks to be
relocated. The Town of Biscoe will be responsible for maintenance and liability of the
relocated sidewalks. A municipal agreement will be prepared prior to project
construction regarding sidewalk maintenance and liability.
No special bicycle accommodations are proposed.
J. Utilities
It is anticipated,the project will have a medium degree of utility conflict. Utilities
located within the construction limits of the project will be relocated prior to
construction. During construction, care will be taken to prevent damage to utilities
located along the project, especially waterlines running parallel to or crossing the project
and any utilities located along the proposed project.
Brackets and power outlets for Christmas decorations are attached to every other
power pole along NC 24-27 in the project area. The Town of Biscoe has asked these
brackets and outlets be reinstalled on any power poles to be relocated as a part of this
project. NCDOT will coordinate with the Town regarding this request during preparation
of utility relocation plans for the project.
K. Service Roads
No service roads are proposed to be constructed as apart of this project.
8
L. Railroad Crossings
As stated previously, the tracks for the Aberdeen Carolina and Western Railway
cross NC 24-27 west of the US 220A (North/South Main Street) intersection. While the
roadway improvements do not encounter the railroad tracks, there will be changes to the
signal phasing. The existing railroad gate and signal will need to be upgraded and
relocated as well.
The exposure index for the crossing will be 69,000 in the year 2008 and 118,000
in the year 2028. Although the exposure index for this crossing exceeds the warrant for a
grade separation, constructing a grade separation would be very expensive and very
disruptive to businesses near the crossing. Therefore, a grade separation is not feasible at
this location.
M. Landscaping
Disturbed areas along the project will be reseeded with grass. The Town of Biscoe
has requested landscaping in the median along the project area. Funding in the amount of
Y2 of I% of the construction cost is available for landscaping. NCDOT will coordinate
with the Town regarding this request at the end of the construction phase of the project.
N. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed along the project.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Typical Section Alternatives
Two typical sections were considered for this project. A five-lane typical section
with two travel lanes in each direction and a continuous two-way left turn lane in the
center (see Figure 4) and a four-lane divided typical section with a raised median (see
Figure 4) were both examined. Both alternatives would utilize curb and gutter.
The four-lane median divided typical section was chosen for the project because it
provides a higher level of safety and would operate more efficiently than a five-lane
undivided section would. The proposed median would also provide a refuge area for
pedestrians seeking to cross the roadway.
B. "No-Build" Alternative
The "no-build" alternative is the least expensive alternative from a construction
cost standpoint. The "no-build" alternative also avoids the anticipated effects on the
natural environment of the proposed project. However, if the "no-build" alternative were
9
chosen, none of the project's benefits would be realized. For this reason, the "no-build"
alternative- is not recommended.
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED
ACTION
A. Natural Resources
1. Water Resources
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments
The project is located within the Cape Fear River Basin, Subbasin 030610, eight-
digit HUC 03030003. The proposed widening will not cross any streams.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS I or
WS II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within one mile of the project
study area.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of
physical and chemical water quality data. The type of water quality data or parameters
that are collected is determined by the classification of the waterbody (freshwater or
saltwater) and corresponding water quality standards. There are no AMS stations located
near the project area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the NPDES Program. All dischargers are required to register for a permit. There are no
permitted NPDES dischargers located within one mile of the project area.
Non-point source pollution refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater flow or through no defined point of discharge. The non-point sources that
could be identified within the project vicinity were urban and road runoff and pastured
land.
b, Summary of Anticipated Effects
Aquatic communities are sensitive to changes in the environment. Activities that
affect water quality can adversely impact aquatic organisms. With proper sedimentation
and erosion controls, adverse impacts are minimized. Since this project is a widening and
does not cross any streams, effects will be minimal. No impacts to surface waters are
anticipated as a result of this project
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of the project.
10
2. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. These
classifications follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are
described and discussed.
Animals observed during the site visit are denoted by an asterisk (*). Published
range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be
present within the project area.
a. Biotic Communities
One biotic community, the maintained/disturbed community, was found within
the project study area. The maintained/disturbed area consists of frequently mowed and
infrequently maintained areas of low vegetation including former pasture land,
maintained yards and highway right of way. Species observed include various grasses
such as fescue, typical weedy roadside species including henbit, field garlic and
dandelion were found in the maintained yard and right of ways. Scattered clusters of
trees including loblolly pine, willow oak, flowering dogwood, tulip poplar, black cherry
and red maple were found, as well. Shrubs found include wax myrtle and elaeagnus.
Terrestrial fauna likely to occur throughout this community includes Virginia
opossum, eastern cottontail, raccoon, woodchuck, white tailed deer, eastern box turtle and
black rat snake.
Avian fauna likely to occur in this area includes permanent residents such as
rufous-sided towhee, northern cardinal*, robin*, blue jay, various sparrows, crow,
starling, and brown-headed cowbird.
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Project construction may result in clearing and degradation of portions of the
biotic community. Table 4 summarizes potential quantitative losses to this biotic
community resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire proposed right of way and subtracting the current road area.
Table 4
Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Community type Impacts
Maintained/Disturbed 2.4 acres
4.
11
3. Surface Waters and Wetlands
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Section
3283(a). Any action that proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
a. Wetlands
Surveys were conducted to determine whether jurisdictional wetlands exist in the
project area. There are no jurisdictional streams or wetlands in the project area.
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
The project will have no effect on any jurisdictional stream or wetlands.
c. Permit Requirements
Since this project will not effect any "Waters of the US," neither a Section 404
permit nor Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required.
4. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section
7 and Section 9 of the. 'Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. As of
February 25, 2003, the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists four federally protected species
for Montgomery County (see Table 5).
TABLE 5
Federally-Protected Species In Montgomery County

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat? Biological
Conclusion
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E No No Effect
smooth coneflower Echinacea laevi ata E No No Effect
eastern cougar Puma concolor cougar E No No Effect
red-cockaded
woodpecker Picoides borealis E No No Effect
bald eagle Haliaeetus
leucoce halus T* No No Effect
T-Threatened, E- Endangered
*Bald eagle is proposed for delisting.
12
No habitat for any federally-listed species was found during project
surveys which were conducted on October 28, 2003. A review of the NC Natural
Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats in October 2003
indicated no known occurrences of any of these species in this area. Therefore, it
is anticipated the project will have "No Effect" on any federally-protected species.
5. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
As of February 25, 2003, there are ten federal species of concern (FSC)
and one candidate species listed for Montgomery County. Federal Species of
Concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Organisms listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal
species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and
the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 6 lists the Federal Species of Concern for Montgomery County, the
species' state status and the presence of suitable habitat for each species in the
study area.
TABLE 6
Federal Species Of Concern/Candidate Species
In Montgomery County

Common Name
Scientific Name Federal
Status NC
Status `Habitat?
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis FSC SC No
Pinewoods darter Etheostoma mariae FSC SC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus FSC SC** No
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC T/PE No
Atlantic i oe Fusconaia masoni FSC T/PE No
Sandhills clubtail dragonfly hus arvidens carolinus FSC SR No
Sandhills Chub Semotilus lumbee FSC SC
Savannah lilli ut Toxolasma ullus FSC T/PE No
Carolina creekshell Villosa vau haniana FSC SC/PE No
Ravine sedge Carex im resinervia FSC C No
Bo s icebush Lindera subcoriacea FSC E No
Georgia Aster Aster eor ianus C 1
Yadkin River goldenrod Solids o lumosa FSC E* No
`B"-- Endangered species
"T"-- Threatened species
"SC"-- Special Concern species
"C"-- Candidate species
13
"SR"-- Significantly Rare species
"/P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the
listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare
species and unique habitats in October 2003 revealed no records of Federal
Species of Concern in or near the project study area. Surveys for the state listed
species were not conducted, nor were any of these species observed.
B. Cultural Resources
The proposed project is subject to North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a).
1. Historic Architectural Resources
A historic architectural survey of the project's area of potential effects was
conducted. There are no properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places within the project's area of potential effects. The State Historic
Preservation Office concurred with this finding on July 22, 2003. A copy of the
concurrence form is included in Appendix A.
2. Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office recommended that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with the project. A copy of the October 29,
2002 memorandum is included in Appendix A.
C. Social Effects
1. Neighborhoods/Communities
Homes and business are located along NC 24-27 in the project area. Businesses
and churches in the downtown area are located more on the US 220A (North/South Main
Street) side of the proposed project.
2. Relocation of Homes and Businesses
The proposed project will require the relocation of 3 businesses. The relocation
program 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/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5-through 133-
18). The NCDOT relocation program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. Appendix B
14
contains additional information regarding NCDOT relocation programs and includes
copies of the relocation reports prepared for the project.
3. MinoriWLow Income Populations
A citizens informational workshop was held for the project on March 27, 2003.
This workshop was advertised in local newspapers. Through the public involvement
program, citizens have been kept informed of the proposed project. No issues related to
environmental justice concerns have been discovered through the public involvement
process.
Three businesses will be relocated as a result of the project.
4. Public Facilities
The only public facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project are water lines.
Car, will be taken to minimize disruption to these utilities during project construction.
D. Land Use
1. Existing Land Use
The majority of land surrounding NC 24-27 in the project area is developed as
either business or residential. One industrial facility is located at the eastern end of the
project along McCaskill Street.
2. Flood Hazard Evaluation
The project does not cross any streams and is not located within any flood hazard
areas.
E. Traffic Noise Analysis
A traffic noise analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
project on noise levels in the immediate area of the roadway. This investigation included
an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of existing noise
levels in the study area. These ambient noise levels were compared with the predicted
future noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts will result from the proposed
project. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, alternative noise abatement measures for
reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered. An analysis was
performed considering the "no-build" alternative, as well.
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The
"worst-case" topographical and traffic volume conditions were assumed.
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are compatible with various land
uses, the Federal Highway Administration has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC)
15
and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement
criteria and procedures are set forth in Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain
a substantial noise increase. A substantial increase is defined as an increase in noise
levels of 15 dBA or greater for receptors with existing noise levels greater than 50 dBA.
1. Ambient Noise Levels
One ambient noise measurement was taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine existing noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this noise
level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base
for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level in the
project area as measured at 50 feet from the edge of pavement was 64.5 dBA. A
background noise level of 45 dBA was used for the project in areas where traffic noise
was not the predominant source.
2. Analysis Results
The analysis determined the proposed project would impact 12 residencies and 1
church due to highway traffic noise. The maximum extent of the 72 dBA noise level
contour is <58.0 feet from the center of the proposed roadway. The maximum extent of
the 67 dBA noise level contour is 77.1 feet from the center of the proposed roadway.
3. Noise Abatement Alternatives
Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts of the subject
project were considered. Noise abatement alternatives investigated for the project
include: highway alignment changes, traffic system management measures, and
construction of noise barriers.
Cost and environmental considerations make highway alignment changes an
impractical noise abatement measure for this project.
Traffic system management measures, which limit vehicle type, speed, volume
and time of operations, are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project,
traffic management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to
their effect on the capacity and level-of-service of the proposed facility.
Past project experience has shown that a reduction in the speed limit of 10 mph
would result in a noise level reduction of approximately 1 to 2 dBA. Because most
people cannot detect a noise reduction of up to 3 dBA and because reducing the speed
limit would reduce roadway capacity, it is not considered a viable noise abatement
measure. Businesses, churches, and other related establishments normally require ease of
accessibility and high visibility. Because of this fact, and the number of driveways
located along the project, noisewalls or other solid mass attenuable noise abatement
measures would not be acceptable.
16
Due to cost concerns, the acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones
to minimize noise impacts is not considered a viable alternative for the proposed project.
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative was also
considered. If the proposed widening did not occur, 5 receptors would be impacted by
traffic noise. Also, the receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior
noise levels of approximately 2.5 dBA increase.
4. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the
project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and from earth moving
equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term
nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these
impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to
moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
5. Summary
The predicted noise level increases for this project range up to +6 dBA. When
real-life noises are heard, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA.
A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
Traffic noise impacts are expected to result from this project. All traffic noise
impacts were considered for noise mitigation. Based on these preliminary studies, traffic
noise abatement is not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed.
This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part
772, and unless a major project change occurs, no additional noise reports will be
submitted for this project.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge
of the location of this proposed highway project will be the approval date of the final
environmental document (FONSI or ROD) or the Design Public Hearing, whichever
comes later. For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local
governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized
along the proposed facility.
17
F. Air Ouality Analysis
Automobiles are considered to be-the major source of CO in the project area. For
this reason, most of the analysis presented herein is concerned with determining expected
carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration near sensitive receptors.
Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the years 2010,
2015, and 2030 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors", and the
MOBILE5B mobile source emissions computer model.
1. Background CO Concentrations
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8
parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for
most suburban and rural areas.
2. Air Ouality Analysis Results
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be in the vicinity of the
intersection of US220A (South and North Main St.) and NC 24/27 (East Main St.). The
predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2010,
2015, and 2030 are 6.30, 6.70 and 8.10 ppm, respectively. Comparison of the predicted
CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period =
35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards.
Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis for the build scenario is less than 9
ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. .
3. Construction Air Ouality Effects
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be performed in accordance
with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the
dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents.
18
4. Summary
The project is located in Montgomery County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 and 93 is
not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project
is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and no additional reports are necessary.
G. Hazardous Materials
Five sites potentially containing hazardous materials were identified in the project
area. Three of these sites contain underground storage tanks and two are potentially
contaminated sites.
The project will likely require right of way from four of the potentially
contaminated sites. Preliminary site assessments to identify the nature and extent of any
contamination will be performed on these sites prior to right of way acquisition.
Based on the GIS search and the field reconnaissance, no potential RCRA or
CERCLA sites were identified within the project limits.
Table 7
Underground Storage Facilities ST
SITE
NO PROPERTY TYPE
FACILITY R/W'REQD. FROM
FACILITY?
1 Former uik Check #22 UST YES
2 McBride Auto Sales
former Red's Auto Sales
UST
YES
3 Quik Check#3 UST YES
4 Former Allen Motors Co. Other YES
5 Vernon's Automotive Other NO
H. Geodetic Survey Markers
If it is determined the project will impact any geodetic survey markers in the area,
the NC Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction in order to allow resetting
of monuments. Intentional destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of NC
General Statute 102-4.
19
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational Workshop
A citizens informational workshop was held March 27, 2003 at Biscoe Town Hall
located at 10 West Main Street. Approximately fifty citizens attended the workshop. An
aerial photograph showing the proposed project was displayed. Questions and comments
were received from those present.
Several businesses on the east side of the project expressed concerns regarding the
proposed median. The Citation Corporation, Food Lion, and Hardees expressed concerns
about ease of access to their respective businesses.
The majority of the comments concerned the potential relocation of elderly
citizens within the project area. Citizen comments and concerns have been taken into
consideration during the planning process for the subject project.
B. Public Hearin
A public hearing for the subject project will be held prior to the start of right of
way acquisition.
C. Azency Coordination
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has coordinated with
appropriate local, state, and federal agencies throughout this project study. Appropriate
coordination will continue throughout the design and construction phases of the project.
Comments have been requested from the agencies listed below. An asterisk
indicates a response was received (copies of responses are included in Appendix A).
*US Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District)
*US Fish and Wildlife Service
*Montgomery County
*Town of Biscoe
*NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
*NC Department of Cultural Resources
20
f
1339
z
o
' T-
1338 H
C
BEGIN PROJECT
.L1
W. Main St. I 03 x
I? Cn
I? ? w
1
I St
1503
co
ti
22
y
B I SCO E POP. 1.672
m
s
v_ C
CL
+ Davis St. 24
m ?. c 27
E. mains St.
.o s
.58
I
I
J/ END PROJECT
1
a a \ ?J
Church St. ?' \ 12
1577
Hunaudar St oat Office Rd /;
.55 I .24
1500 I •/
t
1 18
1501 I
.63 BfUtDfl $t
I /
1617
Miller Pond Rd.
1500
A?
220
FEET
0 1000 2000
0 200 400 600
METERS
ll?
r
N
Q

N (Si`9)

01 NCI SS

%0 00 00
__

1••1 N? '7

a
NJ
00 .h.
- M
N
O
10 PM 60 o M

Og
w U NI Wt) N
01 yid 09 4
00
?I
N NI N
C?
b
00 ?o ~I'" U
(1`Z)
U 09
10 PM 60 ot

CI NI N ?'--? 1
?
00
al ac ? i
I O
N (i`Z)
10 PM 60, Oi -W
(2'1) NI

b O??O
r

a cVlcn
_,_
N 00
cnI N
`
(1
Z)
01 W dl 09? V?
NI N
C?
C14
ool
N ?
10 PM 60 C141 (Z'O
(4,2) OI ilid 09
N
N
?
p? ?'
MIS + MIS
N
°?

I
? N
N
U
z
OTIhd SS ? A
(S 1 9)
A
O
A
eq
? o x
N ~
? W
A ?
1?1
W G
a+ A
00 W Z 00
NOI N
0
V

a v
O

w
O
O
z
?z
U
O
F"
U aW. A

A N
0
o
N11o
a .?
O d',

A Q
q
o

TIP PROJECT R-21078
TYPICAL SECTION
ALTERNATIVES
100' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
M1
64'
10' (FACE TO FACE OF CURB) 10'
12' 12' 12' 12' 12'
1-

WESTBOUND CENTER EASTBOUND
LANES TURNING LANES
LANE
FIVE LANES WITH CURB AND GUTTER NO SCALE
100' PROPOSED TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
FIGURE 4
r
LANES LANES
FOUR LANES WITH RAISED MEDIAN NO SCALE
AND CURB AND GUTTER*
(*SELECTED ALTERNATIVE)
^?`-': -?_i•%'! % _-`E ,'` T'-. _. ? r lr`i? !..-? _'i t, ?, ? I .i j'? r'" / i sw•- _ _' t i f _ "•" to .
CA U-
lzi "Now
} r /L i/ `?/r > k O
r t +, t J ei?+? t f??? u ®CV
rS#!f !- :=-, ??-? ^r yr. -' r..r••'..t?- \\ .•''? { _ 4. \?%J0 r1.44 / X0Eujh?. 4 N?U
21
+? •?: .mss ..:W r, lJ/J -`r'•'f Ff\??` /r?"-,
?Q O°[?M ::E_
?,?l?i sir`' t \'.`\L ?? ?j t 'i7t\? I Gte? ?? ?, ?' 0 --r
v
?•,r ?l ? ? C ?,?:.+•/ .??. ,} {,?^? ? _/r:-••.. ??'OCSIK ? Cad ,
a
l ? ` ^? ??•y_??? ?? Q .li 'i Lf`?'• ? .• ' j t ' fil (' ??LC?g ?Zd
i t 1 /j?sj ? .`- 1 ` 1rr f?f`-? r 7 • !Y ??. cl 3t t. zoatu? No
of /^ '""?? W ?,•'__ ruby v t v '' f / ? ,: ? i t ?\ ti• lc ? N
??? t i `' J-„iy -?'r""v, r? - ~:? _;T?-•.r`? r --•? _ t i t i 4,'~?,`
? ?? 1. `! ? __ t ?, ?i' .l? tee- -? I ^-: # ? i - - _
el.
IF , ::? i Y - ? ? ? ?•_?_ '. ? ? ' ., .,.? ?--? _ ' -.. t _
yo-
f ? /' j' ; ?,.i ?f- '4 u•7 ? 1?' _ t 's ? r - .- l t : j t ? u ?-::.? - ? - _? -', `` !
r f f? 1 J°?
?? i ??I.r J t• ?? r ?,.,•?`'l-.y ? .Y =?. ? r ? qtr , f? y `' i i_ t Lr4 ? ?rttt r ?j"J gu `. ?:,5; ?.l'.
II LJ/ r r `',. rI(Ij 'if .• s..J •?. ? ..? • r 1'`?'? •..t'>i °L o o ti '• ?,
f ]? ,y?l?,/•_'-?_-.?F' _i', ? ., rr i r l •r'• s. ?' r? 1 Ifs. -?•. _ a ?•t , 1 f?
iii ) ? ` x r` 1 i •. y .r '',?•w .. . t , t . a. ti
, r-'' ?•-' /rI ? ? .J?'?,_1f•,rr? .1.. 1 ? ? • .. ?a¦ '?.: ? ":C""? ,t ? ?• ' ? t \?, . 4\'-?,? ?? )?'•`^-^'J ' 1 E\-
J-Vl
y ? y ? f
.,'
o-?`? ?r ?rj Y? ` .?71 i ,l?}) F 'i ? t.` ?? i`''?i•. L.'? , \.!•.t I , :? `??` J ?rS
•+? 111 ` ? t 1
L ,j /,{1 _? r `-•4?' ,_ t ?Y,; v t'? -.?i?.__ - C: (,?.?.r= €?: ?i'?•?f'. `? ;' :,? ? ? - ti? it
Eih 1, ..+•" /S. , y- r ^ . Q ?"r. ?-^?' . ? r '3. aye .r 1 -,) - ? : t
l?.}r % ?'',y'? ? ? '" ;• .t __ ? ` `,/ rtr^?'' ? ?WW `??. / r+ Z / •i ?y y ?,?+?,?n ?_
r r ? : f ? ? >r, f r Q- 4 + r E ? f ?•`. ? ?:•' ?7'?t•?lE '? •i ? ?.j r ^_ + .. i ! _ `'p •Qa't \ i 1
t r J ? ''? i ??_ t y'' (a fy?? J; ?. "_.?', -- `?'`, i ._-2'.{_r!+ry'Cy_ (yam-? is,v '` ? ,,_ ?y'-?`?, g•.. ' t
,? E ? '?: I r l j ,if'*_ .. ^ ,i ? r ..,? ? W r r i,, ?. ? /9 ! ; J; J r- ? :'-?:; ~ .A' '. J ?\ z i .. , ",?#? t •_
\ \ .? ?A T ? ?'° ..{i• '[, ® J ,r:/,_..-r S •?.:.. .x?-r^? _ L \ ? i ... ? r •.W `,! e•?? ,??\ ? ?\ •
%
{ fL-,? T.i, :,. '? ?;.:. i .l 1 { J c„'•. ,r { Z r" t J __;,._,i ?.
J, t?~r //r' J r r-.i ifl I ?`i ti'-J n? _ ._ ?? Z a 7 ?,.i•?, f 1••1.
>. s
W Z
two
?.+ / ?? :r1 ` ??r ?-:<.- / _ •_••••-. mot` '? F •.?, lr /.. J 7••- Q ?,. ....I.'. y} r?+`_...f
La tuaj
r•- ? r .ljr
1r' rte. `i t l e-l f r .? .f ? #? 't` 'si G:.._ ~•i-- sr ~' ? r Z ? ?•?-.?
'7 ??";`.If('?"; r;, =t ?• , rti r/v1.1 ?_---? ?'.5i.? rt: O .?r-?,r r
?? + •.r i .r ?- , yri' /, l s
Z Emr- r? ?•\? X•wJ F? f/
w`'? '• T ti? t-/s / ? P. //. tTd? yy' `? ° '! '`'? --,-a `?h? `?i? y c? r i?Y ?1??
•-? i?% I r` jt ??? i / ',??r~ _ i i ^'rL 1? a ?J? ?•?l _"? Y# l//,t r a ti .: ?,i
'?' ?,' ,5 y, . C f 4 -_ ?r ??,J :•?-} ? r ? ?. "`: +: ? t :`?.?? ? I ? ?•-; !i; `?.,? i
I ?t`r\`\ Tf 7CT? ` j,. r?''? r/??t 1.:.3/ i ?.G: ! ?._J?..?.-?'?t ? 1.i #i ?7?/? -?? ? ''i? ?i?-`
?• ` ( ? / t ? ! ?,?'(f?i Z, 1J ?. f?YE.S?tr JL? t`.?k ~- J ,f ? ?...V.r _ ?•.
2 r;; f ? /? i i}'+ ? '! ??r??'\.I.,?j'.r?/ t/ f/ I F ;^?::? i L f '. ) J ??.,? ^. f 1 `/?.?•/ ? fi--•-? ,{?li? 7}--.y? t?'{T
?? r? ?--i--^? Ti-i??-''"?`.-',-?-t t l.l't:?. ?? `t ? ??JI) , ?''1? ?'• ,?? .-.> r ?_ -j ?jl Y. -.?? 1 ?-i =?=?%li/
r ?
,se ?i I` i yam/ _J ?`?,: i ? .r ?' I r ? ... ?{ r Tit ?•~? ??.? "--?' y~ 7'? 7/ /? t\ ? ? r ,?y l
1 ?r% r ' / : s ] 1 ?'°` f =?`+.S`Zl? ,I ?t ^ ?.?,. ? ?'S ?. ? _ ? i _?r? i{ I / j? J ?,' `f S ?6f
r•. t J..l ?? -_ 'r`te' - Jr r?\? { fr("??`" j ?! .l ./,/" / 1? t
P? t-'?•-"„ ) ?-,? •" ?. /rte ? r4? `\ ?`- t^•-?t ? ? , r'4 t ?'? _?r^y??7? ,; '???•.._.r}'+? ,-..1 J • ? jj ? (/ r ? ?rJIJ ?i-•-- > 1?Jrl? ?.
1 ?-?.m?-? f f _ ? r-J / 1 ? ??,???'r i.?? 1.r ?' '?•`C_.r ?. ~` J I.?J ' } ` ? rl lj l?r? 1, J ?+e?i ?? 7 {T'ar' Y ?" /' ::?i I r+ ?i
?} ?,•t? ?` ?'.!, ,1::°??}??`- / t ?yry/{` ? J'/' r I ?`? ?`?\ t+ - >:?;???rt+?\..••-'I H? ;r?? ?J1' ~v?Y`?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
CJ
?
Jethey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary October 29, 2002
?IE??IORANDL
'h•I
0??
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager o?
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch F e ?,?
15 NCDOT Division of Highways , ?`'?'2,`
'/`
FROM: David Brook ?"?
SUBJECT: Scopuig, NC 24-27 (East Mam Street), from L'S 21-OA (North 'South Main Street) to I-73-
74/US 220, R-2107B, Montgomery County, ER 02-11202
Thank you for your TMemorandum of October 11, 2002, concerning the above project.
On October 23, 2002, Sarah Davis McBride our preservation specialist for transportation projects met with
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the
above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and
resources along with our recommendations.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we offer our
preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the aerial photographs revealed the potential for historic
structures in the project area. In addition, Montgomery County has never been surveyed. Therefore, we
recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identih• and evaluate any structures
over fifty, years within the project area and report the finds to us
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our present knowledge
of the area, it is unlikelv that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion or
Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act and :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-Earlev, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
f communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
-- cc--iVlary--Porye-Farr - --- -
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 40 18 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801

63
? r
y
October 17, 2
MEMORANDUM
To: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.. Director
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator WOW
OCT 21 2002
cw OF
}lfCy5 ??ti
DEVEL04a
!TAL Atr
Subject: Review of Scoping Sheets for NC 24-27 (East Main Street) from US 220A to I-73/I-
74/US 220, Montgomery County, TIP Project R-2107B.
This letter is in reply to your correspondence dated October 11, 2002 (received October 16, 2002) in
which you requested comments for the above-referenced project. The purpose of this project is to add
additional lanes to the existing road in order to accommodate the current and projected traffic volumes as
well as improve safety. A preliminary analysis of the project reveals no potential for direct impacts to
perennial streams or jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. Lick Creek (hydrologic unit 030610;
stream index 17-26-5-3-1) is in the area and is classified as WS-III.
According to the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (NCDWQ 1998),
sedimentation from construction, urban development and streambank erosion are the most widespread
water quality problems identified for the basin as a whole. Other concerns include growth management.
urban and industrial stormwater, nutrients in lakes, fecal coliform bacteria and oxygen-consuming wastes.
Therefore, NCDWQ recommends consideration at the planning stage as to the handling of stormwater
runoff from this transportation facility.
In the event that the project scope is amended, the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT send
notification of any proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. If you have any
questions, please call Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.733.5715.
pc: Richard Spencer, USACE Wilmington Field Office
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File Copy
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/ncwedands/
North Carolina Department of Environment and Naturai Resources
- Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water QuatiLy
.- 4GEI VE,
UCDEN'
rutlerai.40 IP K I i073
L ollnty :1 it w4_10t11CrV
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
1
Project Description: .
On July 22, 2003, representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
® Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
? There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
® There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
® There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property (List Attached) they are considered not
eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
® There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
® All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
® There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
t??dl e_ G? v ?L F/Z 2-12 D O Z _
Representative, NCDOT Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or,
_? / zLle.3
Federal Agency
Representative, HPO
State Historic (reservation Officer

Date
Date
Date
(t :1 -mrvcy rcprnt i ? prep: rcd. a hilai .1,p ut thr. term and the :dLici:":d li 1 :•.1II dn. indtidcd
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
REVISED 919/04 North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT: 8.1560601 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
WBS: 34373.1.1 COUNTY Montgomery Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2107B F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 24/27 between US 220A and 1-73-74/US 220

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
Businesses 3 0 3 3 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING' AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-160 0 o-2oM 0 $ 0-150
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 160-250 0 2040M 5 160-250 3
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 15 260-400 10
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-603 0 70-100M 20 400-600 10
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 0 500 uP 0 100 up 10 600 up 5
displacement? TOTAL 0 0 50 28
X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS' (Respond by Number)
after project? 4.3 are unknown business trades but
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, They break down as follows: #1=1800 sf w/3 empl. (1 minority);
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. #2=14,000 sf w/10 empl. (4 minority); #3=2400 sf w/3 empl.
(1 minority).
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 11. Public housing is available in the county.
6. Source for available housing (list). 12. Replacement housing for sale was found available on
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? The Internet through Realtor.com
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 14. Replacement housing for rent was found available on
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. The Internet through Realtor.com
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12
Denise Thomsen - , 8/17/04
William Blair Scholl z 8/17/04 8-20-04
Right of Way Agent Relocation Coordinator Date
FRMISE Revised 09.02 Original & 1 Copy: Relocation Coordinator
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the
North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
• Relocation Assistance
• Relocation Moving Payments
• Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
As part of the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in case of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or
Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act
(GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The
NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and
sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after
NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas
not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent
and sale prices of replacement property will be within the financial means of the families
and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement
property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
(2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-
occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state and federal programs offering assistance to displaced
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to anew location.
W
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee
for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort
Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to
rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses,
on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the
state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state of
federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing
has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior
to displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social
Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is
not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate opportunities
for relocation within the area.