R2101B

4
y' y 51?AT? ry?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
November 25, 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: Alan Clark
From: Ron Ferrell/ ((?
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
Subject: EA for NC 18 from Caldwell/Wilkes County line to NC 16
State Project No. 6.761010, TIP #R-2101B
Wilkes County
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The
Division of Environmental Management is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the
EA prepared for this project which will impact 4.07 acres of
wetlands.
1. NCDOT should require that the contractor not impact
additional wetland areas due to the disposal of excavated
spoil material, as a source of borrow material or other
construction related activities.
2. As stated above, a 401 Water Quality Certification will
be required for this project.
3. The rechannelization of Beaver Creek and Blood Creek
will result in the potential loss of 520 feet of stream
classified as Trout waters. Please document how this
habitat will be protected and/or restored during and
after project construction.
4. The location and type of each wetland to be impacted by
this project should be identified.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

4 #10-
5. The mitigation proposal should address all wetland
impacts and not be restricted to those wetland areas
requiring an individual 404 permit. The mitigation
efforts should focus on the restoration of those areas
identified as disturbed wetlands.
6. Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial
of the 401 Certification upon application if wetland
impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed
to Ron Ferrell in DEM's Water Quality Planning Branch.
NC18.EA/REF1
cc: Ron Ferrell

Department of r_nYtrumnent, Healtn, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
3 gs7
? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Number. County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
qa D3,Q ry ? CAS
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas 'it Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ?Alr ?Coastal Management Water Planning

? Mooresville ? Water ? Water Resources Environmental Health

? Raleigh ? Groundwater

? Land Quality Engineer
ildlife Solid Waste Management
orest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant IFLand Resources avid Foster

? Wilmington ? Coastal Management Consultant TEl- arks and Recreation ther (specify)
_---

? Winston-S
l r Environmental Management l
a
em
'A
te' ?
r
? .:
NOV 8 1991
Manager Sign-Off/Region: 6,;'r? r • i t .`. I,? `i p te; In-Hole Reviewer/Agency:

-? Response (check all applicable) c€ JJ I
Regional Office response to be compiled and c letf?;?(?gional
...
C(
? No objection to project as proposed
G?d? LG 4( ?i
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PS 104
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
? NE?PA and SEPA
1:9- they (specify and attach comments)
Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
do•SATpo RECEIke?
AVG 14 1997:
ENy110NA19RAI?CIEN S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 12, 1997
County: Wilkes
State Project: 8.1761201
F.A. Project: STP-18(5)
Description: NC 18 from Finley Avenue to SR 1531 (Foster Road)
in No f:IVillkesboro
Memorandum To: Mr. Carl McCann, P.E.
Division Operations Engineer
From: Mr. R. C. Henegar, P.E.
Hydraulics Project Manager
Subject: Stormwater Impacts to the West Side of NC 18
The drainage design for R-2517 has been reviewed in regard to our attempts to minimize
impacts to the west side of NC 18 (i.e. Hooper's Branch, Reddies River).. We recommend
retaining the proposed hydraulic design based on the following:
- It is the policy of the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit to avoid diverting drainage from its
natural boundaries if at all practicable due to liability concerns. Therefore, our
design attempted to maintain drainage along its existing drainage routes while allowing
as much drainage as possible to drain to the east side of NC 18.
- Drainage to the east side of NC 18 was not practical at certain locations due to
superelevation and the absence of sufficient outlet channels/ditches.
- Hazardous Spill Basins were not recommended since the project area is not within the
half-mile "critical zone".
- Some of the outlets used on the west side of NC 18 are characterized as grass outlets.
(See Planning Report, Page 17)

Cyndi Bell (DEHNR) was contacted about your concerns. She agrees with the design as
proposed.
If you have any concerns or questions I can be reached at [phone].
Sincerely,
Mr. Randall C. Wenegar, P.E.
RCH/wgc
cc: Wade Hoke, P.E.
Brent Edmiston
Cyndi Bell
r,
NC 18
From the Caldwell-Wilkes County Line
to NC 16 at Moravian Falls
Wilkes County
State Project 6.761010
T. I. P. IR-2101B
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
State Environmental Assessment
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of. Highways
in Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611

APPROVED:
to . Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, N000T
NC 18
From the Caldwell-Wilkes County Line
to NC 16 at Moravian Falls
Wilkes County
State Project 6.761010
T. I. P. #fR-21016
State Environmental Assessment
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
William T. Goo win r.
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone .••'14 CAROI,,
Urban Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head ?'O ESSJp
SEAL
7754
I ix
Planning and Environment Branch, NCDOT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY
i
I. BASIS FOR PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Length of Studied Section . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Functional Classification . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Right-of-Nay . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-. Speed Zones . . .
7. Type of Roadside Development
8. Structures . . . . . . . . . .
9. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control . . . . .
10. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12. Geodetic Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13. School Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Anticipated Safety Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community . . . . . 3
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
8. Historical Resume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Recommended Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Length of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Project Termini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Proposed Typical Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Proposed Right-of-Way Width
and Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Required Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Proposed Intersection Treatment . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Recommended Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B. Other Improvements Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
C. Public Transportation Alternative . . . . . . . . . . 7
D. "No-Build" Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IV. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Social and Economic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Neighborhood Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Relocation Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Economic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Land Use Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Scope and Status of Planning . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Future Land Use . . . . . . . 10
5. Project Compatibility with
Area Planning Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
0. Ecological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
1. Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
a. Man-Dominated Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 12
b. Uplands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
c. Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
d. Summary of Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. Animal Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
a. Terrestrial Communities ... . . . . . . . . 15
b. Aquatic Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
c. Summary of Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
a. Summary of Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
` S. Jurisdictional Wetlands . . . . . . . . 19
a. Summary of Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
b. Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
c. Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
a. Federally Protected Species . . . . . . . . 22
b. State Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . 23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Floodplain Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Highway Traffic Noise Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Contaminated Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

NC 18
From the Caldwell-Wilkes County Line
to NC 16 at Moravian Falls
Wilkes County
State Project 6.761010
T.I.P. #R-2101B
SUMMARY

1.
2.
Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCOOT),
Division of Highways, proposes to improve and upgrade, with some
relocation, NC 18 from the Caldwell-Wilkes County Line to NC 16 at
Moravian Falls (See Figures 1 & 2). The proposed improvements
consist of widening the existing 20-foot wide roadway to 28 feet. The
total length of the project improvements is approximately 11.8 miles.
The estimated total cost of the project is $15,177,000.
This project is included in the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) for 1991-1997. In the TIP, the proposed improvements
are a portion of a larger project, R-2101; which is improving NC 18
from NC 90 at Lenoir to NC 16 at Moravian Falls in Caldwell and
Wilkes Counties. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled for fiscal
years 1992, and 1993. Construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal
year 1992 and be completed in fiscal year 1995. The estimated cost
in the TIP is $23,767,000, including $250,000 spent in prior years
($5,867,000 for right-of-way and $17,650,000 for construction). The
current schedule for R-21018 calls for right-of-way to begin in
fiscal year 1992 and construction to begin in fiscal year 1994.
Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will have an overall positive impact on the
general area. Positive impacts include improving traffic operations
and access to most properties. The proposed improvements will also
increase safety for motorist using the facility.
The project will require the relocation of 27 residences and 4
businesses. The Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance
Program to help minimize the effects of relocation. Traffic noise
levels will increase no more than +9 dBA. This is a result of normal
traffic increase rather than the proposed improvements. No special
noise abatement measures are proposed. Another impact is the loss of
wetlands (approximately 4.1 acres). The NCDOT will use "best
management practices" during construction of the project. At least
one individual permit may be required, and may require some form of
mitigation as part of that permit. (See section IV.D.5.b. for more
details) Other impacts include erosion and siltation of local
drainage ditches and the delay and inconvenience to motorists during
construction of the project. However, these effects will be
short-term in nature. No significant effects to animal or plant life
are expected and no recreation facilities will be involved. No
structures of historical or architectural importance will be affected
by the project nor will the proposed improvements have an effect upon
archaeological resources.

3.
4.
Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of this project, the widening of an existing
segment of roadway, no alternative corridor alignments were
considered. However, minor shifts in alignment will be necessary to
provide a 50 mph design speed.
The "do-nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected
because the existing roadway cannot adequately handle the existing or
projected traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service.
Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies were requested
to comment on the project during the preparation of this
Environmental Assessment. An asterisk (*) denotes agencies from
which written comments were received:
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
*Soil Conservation Service (U. S. Dept. of Agriculture)
*N. C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Human Resources
*N. C. Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N. C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
*Region D Council of Governments
Wilkes County Board of Commissioners
City of Wilkesboro
Copies of the comments are included in the Appendix.
L
I.
A. Existing Conditions
BASIS FOR PROPOSED ACTION
1. Length of Studied Section
11.8 miles.
2. Functional Classification
In the Statewide Functional Classification System, the studied
portion of NC 18 is classified as an Rural Major Collector. It is a
part of the Federal-Aid System (FAS 9650).
3. Existing Cross Section
NC 18 is generally a 2-lane, 20-foot wide roadway with 3-7 feet
of unpaved shoulder from the Caldwell-Wilkes County Line to SR 1194
(Old NC 18). Between SR 1194 and NC 16, the roadway width is 24 feet
with 10 feet of shoulder (4 feet of paved shoulder).
4. Right-of-Way
.The claimed right-of-way width, symmetrical about the existing
roadway, varies from 30 feet to 60 feet from the Caldwell-Wilkes
County Line to SR 1194 (Old NC 18). From SR 1194 to NC 16, the
claimed right-of-way width is 100 feet.
5. Alignment
The existing roadway alignment contains vertical grades up to 7
percent and curves up to 10 degrees. At the intersection with Old
NC 18 the curve is 20 degrees.
6. Speed Zones
The speed limit on NC 18 is posted at 55 mile per hour (mph)
from the Caldwell-Wilkes County Line to approximately 0.9 mile west
of SR 1108. Between 0.9 mile west of SR 1108 and SR 1108, the posted
speed limit is 45 mph. The posted speed limit in the last section
from SR 1108 to NC 16 is 35 mph.
7. Type of Roadside Development
Y Roadside development consists of a mixture of farmland,
woodland, light density rural residential sites, and small commercial
sites. Recreational (Boomer Community Center) and institutional
(Moravian Falls School) sites are also located along the roadway.
Churches in the area of the project include Hollow Springs Baptist,
Little Rock Baptist, Piney Grove Baptist, Zion Baptist, and Mt.
Carmel Baptist Church. Two fire departments serve the project area:
Boomer Fire Department and Moravian Falls Volunteer Fire Department.
Fa
8. Structures
Major structures include two reinforced concrete box culverts
(RCBC). The first RCBC (#C6) is located approximately 100 feet south
of the junction with SR 1129 in Beaver Creek. It is a triple 8-foot
by 16-foot RCBC, 38 feet long with a sufficiency rating of 97.1 and
an estimated life of 12 years.
The second RCBC (#C13) is located approximately 1.4 miles west
of the NC 16 junction with NC 18. The triple 12-foot by 14-foot RCBC
is located in Moravian Creek and is approximately 102 feet long. It
has a sufficiency rating of 98.6 and an estimated life of 36 years.
9. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
All roads intersecting NC 18 within the project limits are
at-grade and stop sign controlled.
10. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
11. Utilities
Water, electric, cable television, and telephone lines are
located along the project.
12. Geodetic Markers
Seven geodetic survey markers are located along the studied
section and may be impacted by the construction activities. The
North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to
construction.
13. School Buses
A total of 4 school buses use the studied section of NC 18. Two
of the school buses travel the entire length of the project (4 trips
per day). One school bus serves the project area between the
Caldwell-Wilkes County Line and Boomer and one serves the project
area between Boomer and NC 16. Each of these two buses make 2 trips
per day.
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
The minimum/maximum estimated 1990 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of
2300/5100 vehicles per day (vpd), is expected to grow to 4300/8800 vpd by
the year 2010 (See Figure 3). The estimated traffic volumes include 4%
dual-tired vehicles and 3% truck-tractor semi-trailers. The appropriate
design hourly volume for NC 18 is estimated to be 13% of the ADT.
3
The 1990 design year free flow Level Of Service (LOS) for NC 18 is C
or better. For the 2010 design year, the level of service drops to D or
better. For the intersection of NC 18, SR 1194, and SR 2483, the 1990
design year unsignalized LOS is D. For design year 2010, the LOS drops to
F.
C. Anticipated Safetv Benefits
An accident study of the subject section of NC 18 was conducted by
the Traffic Studies Section of the Traffic Engineering Branch of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation for the time period May 1, 1987
through April 30, 1990. During this period, a total of 103 accidents were
reported to have occurred on the studied section of NC 18. None of these
accidents involved a fatality. The resulting total accident rate is
256.47 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100 mvm), higher than
the statewide three-year average total accident rate for similar routes of
216.3 acc/100 mvm. For more information on accident rates and types see
Figures 5 & 6, in the appendix.
0. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community
The proposed improvements should relieve the frequent delays
experienced by area residents and through motorists due to slow moving
vehicles and restricted passing sight distances. Additionally, the safety
of the road should be enhanced by the improvements.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve
NC 18 in Wilkes County from the Caldwell-Wilkes County Line to NC 16 at
Moravian Falls. The length of the project improvements is 11.8 miles.
The existing 20-foot wide pavement between the Caldwell-Wilkes County Line
and NC 16 is to be widened to 28 feet with minor realignments. The new
pavement will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with 2-foot paved
shoulders. Improvements to NC 18 will be contained within 90 feet of
right-of-way where possible. Additional right-of-way and easements will
be required in several locations due to the rolling terrain of the project
area.
B. Historical Resume
The studied portion of NC 18 was constructed in the late twenties.
In 1976, NC 18 between the Caldwell-Wilkes County Line and SR 1194 (Old
NC 18) was widened from 18 to 20 feet of pavement and resurfaced. In
1967, NC 18 between SR 1194 and NC 16 was widened from 18 to 24 feet of
pavement and resurfaced in 1984.
This project is part of project R-2101 as included in the 1991-1997
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). TIP project R-2101 consists of
improving NC 18 between NC 90 at Lenoir to NC 16 at Moravian Falls in
4
Caldwell and Wilkes Counties. Construction was scheduled to begin in
fiscal year 1992 at an estimated cost of $19,550,000. Right-of-way was
scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1991 at an estimated cost of $5,084,000.
The TIP estimate is $25,930,000
Subsequently, NCOOT decided to divide TIP R-2101 into 2 projects;
R-2101A which consists of improving NC 18 between SR 1709 and the
Caldwell-Wilkes County Line, a distance of approximately 11.6 miles, and
R-21016, the subject of this assessment, which consists of improving NC 18
between the Caldwell-Wilkes County Line and NC 16 at Moravian Falls, a
distance of approximately 11.2 miles. Initially, the typical section was
to be a 4-lane divided roadway, but traffic estimates could not justify
such a facility. The proposed improvements have been reduced to widening
the existing 20-foot wide pavement to 28 feet and altering the roadway
alignment to reflect a 50 miles per hour design speed.
C. Recommended Improvements
1. Length of Project
The project is 11.8 miles long.
2. Project Termini
The project's south terminal is 0.5 miles west of the
Caldwell-Wilkes County Line.
The project's north terminal is NC 16 at Moravian Falls.
3. Proposed Tvoical Section
The proposed typical section is comprised of a 24-foot pavement
with 2 feet of paved shoulder on each side, for a total pavement
width of 28-feet. Grassed shoulders will be a 5 feet minimum in fill
sections and 3 feet minimum in cut sections (See Figure 4). The
proposed 24-foot pavement is to be marked as two 12-foot lanes, one
in each direction of travel.
4. Proposed Right-of-Way Width and Access Control
For the portion of the project along the existing alignment, the
proposed right-of-way width is 90 feet symmetrical about the
centerline of the proposed roadway. Drainage and temporary
construction easements will be required in some locations which
extend outside the proposed right-of-way limits. For the portion of
the project on new location, the proposed right-of-way width is 90
feet. Temporary construction easements will be required in some
locations. The new right-of-way will also be symmetrical about the
centerline of the proposed roadway.
No control of access to abutting properties is proposed for this
project.
5
5. Required Structures
The culvert at Beaver Creek will be replaced with a new
reinforced concrete box culvert upstream of the existing culvert.
The culvert at Moravain Creek will be extended approximately 10 feet
on each end.
6. Design Speed
R The proposed roadway section will be designed for 50 mph. The
posted speed limit will be determined by the Division Traffic
Engineer.
7. Proposed Intersection Treatment
All intersections with NC 18 on the studied section are to be
at-grade and stop sign controlled.
8. Cost Estimate
The estimated cost of the proposed improvements in 1990 dollars
is as follows:
Roadway Constructional) $11,200,000
Right-of-Way & Utilities") S 3,977,000
Total Cost of Project $15,177,000
(1) Includes 15% for engineering and contingencies.
(2) Includes acquisition cost.
9. Permits
It is anticipated that the Nationwide Section 404 Permit
provisions of 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26) are applicable, and the provisions
of 330.5(b) and 330.6 will be followed. However, an individual
Section 404 permit may be required at one or more locations.
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Recommended Improvements
It is recommended that the existing pavement (See Section I.A.3.) be
widened to a 28-foot pavement with 5-foot fill shoulders or 3-foot cut
shoulders between the Caldwell-Wilkes County Line and NC 16 at Moravian
Falls in Wilkes County. The 28-foot wide section will accommodate two 12-
foot lanes, one per direction of travel, and two 2-foot paved shoulders,
one on each side.
6
The proposed construction will require additional right-of-way
throughout the length of the proposed project. The proposed right of way
width for the project is 90 feet. Areas of increased right of way width
will be required due to roadway relocation and/or increased construction
limits. Construction and/or drainage easements will be required in some
locations.
The proposed alignment
existing roadway centerline.
to attain the desired 50 mph
alignment will be shifted off
From
Caldwell-Wilkes County Line
0.1 mile northeast of SR 1125
0.2 mile west of SR 1114
from 0.1 mile east of SR 1184
0.3 mile east of SR 1106
0.6 mile west of SR 1108
SR 1108 east
will typically be symmetrical about the
However, some realignment will be necessary
design speed. In the following areas the
the existing roadway.
To
0.1 mile southwest of SR 1125
(3.3 miles)
0.2 mile east of SR 1123
(1.2 miles)
0.1 mile east of SR 1114
(0.3 mile)
0.1 mile east of SR 1107
(1.0 mile)
0.7 mile east of SR 1106
(0.4 mile)
0.3 mile west of SR 1108
(0.3 mile)
0.1 mile west of NC 16
(0.3 mile)
In the area of SR 1114, in the community of Boomer, a number of
relocation options were explored in an effort to improve the sight
distances and safety of the intersection of SR 1114 with NC 18. The three
main options included improvements to the existing alignment, relocation
of NC 18 to the north of existing NC 18, and relocation of NC 18 to the
south of existing NC 18. The latter is the preferred option.
Improving the existing alignment was ruled out due to the need to
maintain traffic on the section while construction was underway. This
would be difficult because the vertical grade would need to be lowered to
improve the current situation. The option to the north has an estimated
additional cost of $322,000 over improving the existing alignment. The
southern option would cost $142,000 more, while providing a better
intersection. The north option would impact the Boomer Post Office.
Environmental impacts of the two relocation options are essentially the
same. Most of the areas effected are classified as Man-Dominated
Communities. (See Section IV.D.1.a. for details) For these reasons, the
southern option is recommended.
The project improvements will result in 27 residential and 4
commercial relocations.
7
B. Other Improvements Considered
Due to the nature of this project, the widening of an existing
segment of roadway, no alternative corridor alignments were considered.
C. Public Transportation Alternative
The major constituent of traffic using NC 18 is through trips, and
development in the area is mainly rural and of low density which does not
lend itself to a public transportation system. Public transportation is
not a viable alternative to the proposed improvements.
0. "No-Build" Alternative
Without implementing the proposed improvements, the level of traffic
service will not appreciably be affected by the roadway widening. The
predicted level-of-service by the year 2010 will be C on the lightest
traveled section of NC 18 and E on the heaviest traveled section of NC 18.
However, the improvements should increase safety on the studied portion of
NC 18. Therefore, due to increased safety, the "No-Build" Alternative has
been rejected.
IV. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social and Economic Environment
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Wilkes County is in the northwestern section of the state and is
bounded by Yadkin, Iredell, Alexander, Caldwell, Watauga, Ashe,
Alleghany, and Surry Counties.
Wilkes County has an estimated population of 62,202. The North
Wilkesboro/Wilkesboro urban area, which is the largest urban area in
the county has an estimated population of over 8,000.
Throughout the length of the proposed project, the area is
basically rural farm and rural non-farm. There are residential
clusters within rural neighborhoods throughout the proposed project.
Homes along the proposed project consist of a mixture of
structures, sizes, and types. There are institutional and commercial
developments situated at various intervals along the proposed
project. The commercial establishments are basically small family
type businesses. The bulk of these businesses are a combination of
convenient stores and service stations.
2. Public Facilities
Public facilities and services in the area of the proposed
project consist of Little Rock Baptist Church, Boomer Fire
Department, Wilkes Telephone Membership Corporation, Boomer Post
8
Office, Boomer Community Center, Zion Hill Baptist Church, Piney
Grove Baptist Church, Mt. Carmel Baptist Church, Jesus Life
Tabernacle Campground, and the Moravian Falls Fire Department.
None of the public facilities will be adversely impacted by the
proposed action.
3. Relocation Impacts
The recommended project improvements will require the relocation
of 27 residences and 4 businesses (See Appendix). These relocations
are not expected to cause a breakup of a community, nor the
disruption of
services. It is anticipated that adequate replacement properties
will be available for the relocatees. All relocations will be in
accordance with the revised North Carolina General Statutes Chapter
133. A relocation report is included in the Appendix to this
document.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state
and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina
Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize
the inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent
Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff
will be available to assist displacees with information such as
availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale
or rent and financing of other housing programs. The Relocation
Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will
force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost
or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership),
the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
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
9
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 organization, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced
will receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as
(1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement
housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing
owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation
officer will also supply information concerning other state or
federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will
provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate
the displacee for the costs of moving personal property from. homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired
for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners,
NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for
replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any
increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement
to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increase
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.
41 It is a policy of the State that no person will be displaced by
the NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless
and until comparable or adequate 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.
10
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 appears to be adequate opportunities for
relocation within the area.
4. Economic Environment
According to recent data (August 1990), Wilkes County has a
labor force of 32,230. Of this total 31,150 persons were employed.
This left an unemployment total of 1,080, or 3.4 percent.
The project will have a positive influence on the area economy
by improving accessibility to the various businesses in the proposed
project area.
B. Land Use Planning
1. Scope and Status of Planning
The area of the proposed improvement is located in the planning
and zoning jurisdiction of Wilkes County. The County completed its
Land Development Plan in 1987.
2. Existing Zoning
Only 15 to 20 percent of Wilkes County has been zoned. None of
the land impacted by the proposed improvements is zoned.
3. Existing Land Use
The project location is typical of rural areas in the North
Carolina mountains. Sparse, linear residential development,
intersperse with farms, woodlands, and small businesses occurs along
the existing roadway. The businesses are usually located at
intersections of various state routes and NC 18. The commercial land
. uses include convenience-type grocery stores and service stations,
auto parts dealers, and a lumber mill. Two chicken farms are also
located in the area.
4. Future Land Use
The Land Development Plan classifies the Boomer and Moravian
Falls areas as "Community". The Community designation applies to
areas where development has grown up around rural crossroads. Most of
this development is residential, though some businesses, schools, and
limited employment opportunities may also occur.
11
The area in the vicinity,of NC 18 east of SR 1106 to Moravian
Falls is classified as Transition - 20 Years. This includes areas
that are likely to develop within the next twenty years, including a
full range of public services. Land use densities are expected to be
moderate to high.
Most of the land in the southweastern portion of the county
excluding those already discussed is classified as Rural. This
applies to areas where development is not expected and the dominant
land uses will include farming and forestry.
The Boomer township is one of the fastest growing townships in
the County. It experienced a 31.2 percent increase in population
between 1970 and 1980. This relatively high rate of growth is
expected to continue through 2010.
The Moravian Falls township experienced moderate growth during
the same period. Its. population increased by 10.7 percent between
1970 and 1980. This rate of growth is also expected to continue.
5. Project Compatibility with Area Planning Efforts
Improved transportation facilities was an issue discussed in the
Land Development Plana Although this roadway was not specifically
discussed, it is clear that the improvements to its capacity and
safety are in keeping with the policies described in the plan.
Although the improvements may be disruptive to certain residences and
businesses, it will not have a detrimental effect on the character of
the area as a whole.
C. Cultural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requested in a
memorandum dated September 18,. 1990 (See Appendix), that "the Department
of Transportation architectural historian survey the area of potential
environmental effect for significant historical structures" and submit the
results to SHPO for review. In a memorandum from SHPO dated August 3,
1989, the SHPO concurred that "there are no properties listed in the
National Register of Historic Places within the area of potential effect
of this project.
In the SHPO's memorandum of September 269 1988, they requested "the
project area be surveZed for archaeological resources prior to
construction activities and submit the findings to SHPO for review.
Seven archaeological sites in Wilkes County were identified by the staff
DOT archaeologist and determined to be insignificant and recommended no
further work. The SHPO concurred that "no further archaeological
investigations are necessary for this project."
12
0. Ecological Analysis
1. Natural Resources
a. Man-Dominated Systems
Agricultural fields and pastures, utility lines, commercial
and residential sites are the man-dominated communities likely
to be impacted by the project. These communities are disturbed
from clearing activities and maintained in low growing
condition. Disturbed, forested sites were damaged by Hurricane
Hugo. Since that time many of the trees have been cut and
removed from hurricane impacted areas.
Dominants in agricultural communities tend to be herbaceous
and include henbit (Lamium uur ureum), bitter-cress (Cardamine
hirsuta), dandelion Taraxacum ficinale), clover Try o ium
sp. , wild onion (Allium sp. an grasses. These communities
are located throughout the entire length of the project. Smooth
sumac (Rhus labra) is common at the edges of fields.
Shrubby growth of trees, shrubs, and vines is common along
utility corridors and in disturbed forested sites and includes
such species as scrub pine Pinus vir iniana), red cedar
(Juni erus vir i ni ana) , blackberry (R?ububus sp. , American holly
(Ilex o aca , Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera 'a onica), smooth
sumac R us lg abra), rose (Rosa sp. an privet LLigus_tr_um
sinense). Common ground cover species noted were Arthraxon
Art Rion his idus) and broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus).
b. Uplands
Uplands impacted by the proposed project are dominated by a
mixture of hardwoods and pines. Stand dominance varies widely
along the project, ranging from a pine dominated canopy to a
hardwood dominated canopy. Mixed hardwood-pine stands are the
most common in the project area. Two upland plant communities
were identified in the study area from field investigations; the
Dry-Oak Hickory Forest and the Pine Mixed Hardwood Community.
Both communities are described below.
Dry-Oak Hickory Forest
The Dry-Oak Hickory forest description by Schafale and
Weakley (1990) closely matches the vegetation found in this
community during field investigations. Canopy dominants include
hardwoods such as tulip poplar (Liriodendron tuli ifera), red
maple (Acer rubrum), and scrub pine. A variety o other
species, not as common as the ones above, occur in this
community and include white oak ( uercus alba), northern red oak
( uercus rubra), scarlet oak ( uercus coccinea), black oak
( uuercus el uina), post oak ( uercus ste lata sweet pignut
hickory (Ca-rya ovalis) and blac wa nut Jug anS ni ra).
13
American Beech is present, but not very common as a canopy
species. The understory ranged widely in density and
composition. Common species encountered include American beech
(Fa us randifolia), American holly, and flowering dogwood
( ornus on a . Another member of the pine family, the
Carolina tFemTock (Tsu a caroliniana) was observed at a few
locations. Spicebuslrn era enzoin) is a common shrub in
this community. Catbrier mi ax sp. was present but not very
common. Ground cover species were seasonally absent, but a few
plants of Christmas fern (Poiystichum acrostichoides) were
observed.
Pine Mixed Hardwood Community
This community occurs on moderate slopes, but is more
common in the project area than the Dry-Oak Hickory forest. The
canopy is dominated by white pine (Pinus strobus), or scrub
pine, with lesser amounts of tulip poplar, rye maple, northern
red oak and southern red oak (uercus falcata . Scrub pine and
American beech are present but sparse in areas dominated by
white pine. In some cases scrub pine is dominant and few white
pines are present. Also, immature stands of scrub pine were
noted.
Sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum) and red maple are common
understory components. The nFr-u6 layer is sparse except for
patches of rosebay (Rhododendron maximum), flowering dogwood and
small American holly trees. T e ground cover is seasonally
absent, except for Christmas fern, crane fly orchid (Ti ularia
discolor) and partridge berry (Mitchella re ens). Poison ivy
vines Toxicodendron radicans were oberv tree trunks in
small amounts.
c. Wetlands
Wetland impacts along NC 18 are adjacent to streams or
creeks and in broad, flat spots. Each wetland is not very large
in size, but there were many wetlands identified along the
project.
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
This plant community is best classified as a Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The
community is supported by species typical of the mountains and
coastal plain. Canopy species include sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum), and tulip poplar
L?rio en ron tuli ifera . T canopy dominants vary from site
to site, ut generally is composed of one of the three species
listed above. Understory species also vary at each site. Tag
alder (Alnus serrulata), musclewood (Ca inusnus carolinana),
privet Ligustrum si nse) and black wi`TTow (Salix ni ra are
common components. Disturbed sites are general s composed of
14
sycamore, tag alder and black willow. Shrubby invasions of
blackberry (Rubus sp.) and rose (Rosa sp.) are typical in
heavily disturbed wetland sites. Honeysuckle vines were noted in
many areas. Ground cover dominants vary greatly by site and
even within sites. Dominant species include Arthraxon,
yellowroot Xanthorhiza sim iicissima), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostic hi es an rush Juncus sp.).
Riparian Wetlands
Identified riparian wetlands have little vegetation and-are
located along stream banks. This community is located in areas
with strongly sloping topography. Banks above small streams and
tributaries generally fit this category. These areas are not
disturbed by man, but are eroded. Christmas fern predominated.
In some sites, scattered sycamore, tulip poplar, tag alder and
black willow tree species are present.
d. Summary of Impacts
Wetland and upland impacts are anticipated along this
project. Wetland impacts are generally small for each crossing,
but larger impacts are anticipated where streams cross and then
parallel the existing roadway. Large upland impacts are
anticipated due to the amount of new location sections and the
length of the project. Most of the upland impacts are asso-
ciated with agricultural areas, other disturbed sites and
forested areas. An acreage impact summary is presented in
Table 1.
Tabled. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Plant Community -
Uplands
Man-Dominated Communities
Dry-Oak Hickory Forest
Pine-Mixed Hardwood. Forest
Wetlands
Piedmont/Low Mountain
Disturbed Wetlands
Riparian Wetlands
Alluvial Forest
Total
Acreage Impacts
108.0-
13.0
47.0
2.1?.\
1.7
172.1
Note: Calculations of impacts are based on a
90 ' right of way width
except for new location sections
15
Wetlands associated with stream crossings are small, but
the total amount of wetland impacts is substantial. A breakdown
of wetland impacts by stream system are given in Table 4 on page
20 of this document. The project will also impact a large
acreage of uplands. Remaining close to the existing alignment
will reduce both upland and wetland community impacts. New
location sections should be minimized, as much as possible, to
reduce impacts. Placement of fill material, especially in
strongly sloping areas, should be designed to limit plant
community impacts. Strict erosion control measures should be
enforced to minimize washout and siltation on communities
located in strongly sloping areas. Efforts should be made to
minimize any clearing of vegetation and disturbed areas should
be revegetated as quickly as possible to prevent further
erosion.
2. Animal Communities
The proposed project will impact upland and wetland wildlife
communities. The man-dominated upland community, the Dry-Oak Hickory
forest and the Pine-Mixed Hardwood forest are discussed in the
terrestrial wildlife community description. Wildlife in streams and
rivers is described in the aquatic community section.
a. Terrestrial communities
Mammalian fauna anticipated in man-dominated terrestrial
communities such as open fields and roadsides include eastern
mole, eastern cottontail, woodchuck, cotton rat Si odon
his id us), pine vole (Microtus inetorium), red fox Vu es
u va and white-tailed deer. Avian fauna observed in open
1e includes robin (Turdus mi ratorius), cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis , common crow (Corvus rac yrhynchos) and bluebird
is is sialis .
Upland forested communities such as the Dry- Oak Hickory --
forest and the Pine-Mixed Hardwood forest support a variety of
mammals that feed on acorns and hickory nuts. White-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) scat and tracks were observed in the
impact area. An opossum (Didel his virginiana) was observed
crossing a field near NC 18. Otter typical animal species in
this area include short-tailed shrew Blariaa brevicauda),
eastern mole (Scalo us a uaticus , eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus flora anus , eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus),
gray squirreciurus carolinensis southe_rn_7f ing- 'squirrel
(Glauc s volans , w ite- note mouse (_Peromyscus leuco us),
raccoon (Procyon _ lo or), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and
bobcat (LYnz rufus).
Avian fauna is present throughout the terrestrial habitat
in the study area. A Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus)
was heard in forested areas. Other species that may inha it
forested areas include whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus),
16
red-bellied woodpecker (Melane es carolinus), common flicker
(Cola tes auratus), blue day Cyanocit- t?istata), red-eyed
vireo Vireo f vaceus), scarlet tanager (? olivacea and
summer tanager Piranga rubra).
A large number of amphibians and reptiles may inhabit
forested sites within the study area. Salamanders such as the
eastern newt (Noto hthalmus viridescens), marbled salamander
(Amb stoma o acum , s imy salaman er P ethodon lutinosus) and
re salamander Pseudotriton ruber occur under rocks an logs
in forested terrestrial a Mats. The American toad Bufo
americanus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), northern cricket
frog Acris cre Mans) and sp nir g peepers Hyla crucifer) occur
in terrestrial areas at edges of streams or open grassy margins
of streams in the project vicinity. The eastern fence lizard
(Scelo orus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) and
broa ea skin umeces latice s) may inha it t e study area in
either open or forested areas. A number of snakes are possible
in terrestrial areas of Wilkes County: the worm snake
(Carphophi-s amoenus), black racer (Coluber constrictor),
r n? gne- ckk sna a Diado his unctatus), corn snake E aphe
fletero ttata), rat sna e E a e o so eta), eastern hognose snake
d on lap tyrhinos eastern Tcingsnake (Lam ro eltis
etu us , eastern milksnake (Lam ro eltis triangu um , rough
green snake 0 heod s aestivus , queen snake (Regina
se temvittata), rown snake Storeria dekayi), redb_e7ly snake
Storeria occipitomaculata , eastern garter snake (Thamno his
sirta is , copperhead A kistrodon contortrix) and 'timber
rattlesnake (Crotalus horri us .
b. Aquatic Communities
The following aquatic species are anticipated in the
streams and rivers that cross the study area: northern dusky
salamander (Desmo nathus fuscus), blackbelly salamander
(Desmo nathus ua ramaculatus , two-lined salamander (Eurycea
bis ineata and three-lined salamander (Eur cea uttolineata).
TRe green frog (Rana ciamitans), pickerel frog Rana Pa ust?ris),
snapping turtle CTe ra se entina , eastern musk turtle
(S -s odoratus , painted turtle (ChrysemysQ'cta),
northern water sna a Nerodia sipedon) and eastern ribbon snake
(Thamnophis sauritus) may also inhabit the study area.
Fish species likely to occur in Beaver Creek include
warmouth (Le omis u1g_osus), rock. bass (Ambloplites ru estris),
suckers an roin. Moravian Creek may support such is species
as creek chubs (Semotilus atromaculatus) and robin. Smallmouth
bass (Micropterus o omieui an w ate bass (Morone chrysops)
may occur in any o the streams or creeks. Streams and rivers
in the project area do not support fish species of high
commercial importance.
17
C. Summary of Impacts
Construction concerns as stated in the plant community
summary are applicable to the animal communities as well.
Minimizing habitat loss along the new location sections will
reduce wildlife habitat loss and strict erosion controls should
be adhered to during construction to reduce siltation. Also,
water flow should not be restricted to permit normal fish
migrations.
Construction at all water crossings should not restrict
water flow especially during spawning. The white bass spawns
during the spring months from March through April in the
tributaries of the Yadkin River and W. Kerr Scott Reservoir.
3. Soils
Soils information was obtained from the local Soil Conservation
Office for Wilkes County since the Soil Survey is unpublished. One
section of the project, approximately 0.75 miles long, has not been
mapped at the current time. The Caldwell County Soil Survey (SCS) is
published. The following table summarizes mapped soil types along
the project.
Table 2
Soil Type Summary
Symbol Soil Type Slope
Wilkes County
Co Toccoa sandy loam 15-25 %
Cw Chewacla loam 0- 2 %
MaB Masada sandy clay loam 2- 8 %
MaD Masada sandy clay loam 8-15 %
PaE Pacolet sandy loam 15-25 %
PeB Pacolet sandy clay loam 2- 8 %
Pe0 Pacolet sandy clay loam 8-15 %
PuC Pacolet-Urban land complex 2-15 %
RnF Rion fine sandy loam 25-60 %
Caldwell Cou nty
Co Congaree fine sandy loam -
CeB2 Cecil sandy loam 2- 8 %
Ce02 Cecil sandy loam 8-15 %
PaE Pacolet fine sandy loam 15-25 %
Notes
occ. flooded
freq. flooded
eroded
eroded
eroded
eroded
eroded
occ. flooded
eroded
eroded
Chewacla loam and Toccoa sandy loam are listed as soils with
hydric inclusions for Wilkes County. Pacolet sandy loam soils are
found in association with small streams. The remainder of soils are
well drained and located in upland areas. Soils of the Pacolet
series are mapped over a large percentage of the project area.
18
4. Water Quality
The project is located in the Yadkin River Basin. Beaver Creek,
Little and Big Warrior Creeks, Blood Creek, Moravian Creek and
numerous unnamed streams are crossed by the project. The Yadkin
River and the W. Kerr Scott Reservoir are located north of the
project. Beaver Creek and Moravian Creek are tributaries of the
Yadkin River and are of limited fishing importance.due to excessive
siltation (Fish, 1968). Blood Creek and Big and Little Warrior
Creeks are tributaries of the W. Kerr Scott-Reservoir. The reservoir
is a flooded portion of the Yadkin River. Streams crossed by the
project are fairly small in size, averaging between 10' and 20' in
width. The substrate ranges from a sandy texture to a rocky boulder
composition. Table 3 lists the water quality classifications of
these streams.
Table 3 Summary of Water Quality Classifications
Creek Name
Beaver Creek
Little Warrior Creek
Big Warrior Creek
Blood Creek
Moravian-Creek
Classification
C,Tr,
C?
_C--.
'.B Tr
Best usage recommendations for Class C waters include aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife secondary recreation
and agriculture. Class B indicates a waters suitable for primary
recreation and other usage specified by the "C" classification.
Trout Waters (Tr) indicates waters suitable for natural trout
propagation and maintenance of stocked trout and does not carry any
jurisdictional significance. None of the creeks in the study area
are classified a Wild or Scenic River by the federal government nor
are they designated a state Natural, Scenic or Recreational river
area. Also, none of the creeks in the study area are classified, nor
do they flow into, High quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW). Benthic macro invertebrate data is not available for
any of the creeks.
a. Summary of Impacts
Construction near waterways should conform to strict
erosion control measures to prevent erosion and siltation.
Heavy siltation reduces water clarity, light incidence and may
reduce the number of sensitive species. Off site sedimentation
should be kept to a minimum. Construction at each stream should
span the crossing to allow for adequate water flow. Also,
19
bridge or culvert design should allow for maximum light
intensity and minimum sediment disturbances. Bridges that span
the entire creek and allow adequate light are recommended.
Portions of Big Warrior Creek, Little Warrior Creek, Beaver
Creek and their tributaries meander throughout the project area
and some areas will require rechannel ization because they
parallel the existing roadway. Stream rechannelization will be
kept to a minimum to reduce disturbances, such as sediment and
light, to these waters. Where stream rechannel ization is
necessary, consultation with the appropriate agencies is
required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 USC et seq). None of these streams, nor
their tributaries are Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters.
Some rechannel ization will be required along Beaver Creek
south of SR 1129, along Blood Creek north of SR 1114, and along
Little Warrior Creek north of SR 1126. The first location will
require approximately 225 feet of Beaver Creek to be
rechannelized. In the second location two sections of Blood
Creek will need to be rechannelized. They will be approximately
170 and 125 feet in length. Along Little Warrior Creek two
sections will require rechannel ization. The first will be
approximately 170 feet in length and the second will be
approximately 140 feet in length.
5. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands as defined by 33 CFR 328.3 are those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions. Criteria for wetland
determinations are described in the "Federal Manual For Identifying
and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" (Federal Interagency
Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). Any action which proposes
to place f i l l into these areas falls under jurisdiction of the US
Army Corps of Engineers under the provisions of the Clean Water Act.
a. Summary of Impacts
In general, broad, flat areas associated with larger creeks
such as Big Warrior Creek and Moravian Creek were classified as
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest wetlands. Vegetation was
hydrophytic and included sycamore, and river birch. These
species are classified as facultative wet (FACW), which is
defined as a plant that usually occurs in wetlands (estimated
probability 67 to 99 percent). Soils in these areas are
classified as map units with inclusions of hydric soils or wet
spots. On-site wetland hydrology evidence includes scattered
plant debris above the water line and matted vegetation.
20

Disturbed wetlands were identified in all stream systems
except the unnamed stream. Little remnant vegetation is
present; but contains hydrophytic species such as river birch,
sycamore and tag alder. These species are classified as FACW
plants, with the same definition as stated above. Soils ranged
in color. Lighter soils tended to have fluvial sediments which
met the hydric soil composition and darker soils met the hydric
soil color criteria. Hydrological wetland evidence sited
included the same criteria stated above.
Smaller stream crossings were classified as riparian
wetlands judging from fluvial soil composition and soil color.
Vegetation was minimal in these areas since they were strongly
sloping. Hydrological characteristics such as scattered debris
(wrack) at the high water line and matted vegetation were used
to determine wetland boundaries. Table 4 summarizes wetland
impacts.
Table 4 Summary of Wetland Impacts
Creek System
Beaver 1c
Little Warrior
Unnamed stream
Big Warrior
Impoundment
Blood '17c
Moravian
Totals
Site I Wetland Type Total
PLMAF
- DW
1
20" RW
12
0
32
C
1-3 . . .
4 - 0.23 -1.01 1.24
5 - - 10.5 0.55
6-10 0.16. 0.40 f_ 0.56
11 - 0.07 - 0.07
13 - 0.02 - 0.02
15-18 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.31
0.29 2.04 1.74 4.07
Note: Values reported are in acres
PLMAF Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
DW Disturbed Wetlands
RW Riparian wetlands
Total wetland impacts are based on more.than one site since
many of the identified wetlands in the study area are connected.
Streams in the study area tend to meander and cross the project
more than once. Each creek system is discussed below.
Beaver Creek crosses NC 18 in two different locations and
three small tributaries flow into it. One tributary parallels
the existing roadway. Impacts associated with Beaver Creek are
disturbed along many of the sites.
21
Little Warrior Creek parallels NC 18 and has three
tributaries. The creek also crosses the existing roadway.
Wetland impacts fall under the riparian and disturbed
categories. Big Warrior Creek meanders to the southeast of
NC 18. It has three tributaries, one of which forms a small
wetland. It crosses NC 18 twice.
The Moravian Creek system first parallels NC 18, meanders
away from the roadway and then crosses NC 18. Two small
tributaries were identified. Hurricane damage and logging
activities are sources of recent disturbances in these wetland
communities. At the Moravian Creek crossing, clearing
activities were in progress at the time of the field survey.
b. Permits
For discharges of fill which cause adverse modification of
one to ten acres of wetlands such as Beaver Creek and Little
Warrior Creek, notification to the district engineer is required
in accordance to section 330 CFR 330.7. The US Army Corps of
Engineers reviews all pertinent information and may determine if
an Individual Section 404 Permit under the provisions of the
Clean Water Act may be required.
If the stream flow exceeds 5 CFS in creeks such as Moravian
Creek and parts of Big Warrior Creek, an Individual Section 404
Permit may be applicable. Final permit decisions can be made
when stream flow data are available.
Nationwide Permits # 14 and # 26 [33 CFR 330.5 (a)-
(14)/(26)] are likely to be applicable. Nationwide Permit #14 is
titled the "minor road crossing fill" permit. This permit is
defined as any crossing that involves 1) the discharge of less
than 200 cubic yards of fill material below the ordinary high
water mark, 2) discharges do not extend more than 100' on either
side of the ordinary high water mark and 3) the crossing is
designed to prevent the restriction of and to withstand,
expected high flows. This permit is likely to be applicable in
wetlands such as Blood Creek.
Nationwide permit 126 is titled "the above headwaters"
permit. This permit is defined as the discharge of fill
material of one acre or less in nontidal waters and wetlands
that are above the headwaters of streams. Above headwaters
refers to nontidal rivers, streams and their lakes and
impoundments, including adjacent wetlands above which the annual
flow is less than 5 cubic feet per second (CFS). Nationwide
permit #26 may be applicable in creek systems such as the
unnamed creek.
C. Mitigation
Projects that require an Individual Section 404 Permit are
mitigated in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental
22
Protection Agency. The type and level of wetland mitigation
will be determined in compliance with Section 404 (b) (1)
guidelines of the Clean Water Act. Proposed mitigation may
include restoration of disturbed wetlands adjacent to areas such
as Big Warrior Creek, Beaver Creek and Moravian Creek. Final
wetland mitigation procedures are subject to the discretionary
authority of the Corps of Engineers.
Projects that fall under a Nationwide permit and have less
than one acre of impacted wetlands are generally not mitigated
according to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
Environmental Protection Agency and the US Army Corps of
Engineers (1989).
6. Protected Species
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the US
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were contacted to obtain
information on occurrences of protected species in the study area.
a. Federally Protected Species
The purpose of the Endangered species Act of 1973 (USFWS),
as proposed, is to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon
which endangered species and threatened species depend may be
conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such
endangered species and to take steps as may be appropriate to
achieve the purposes and conventions set forth in section 2(a).
Three federally protected species are listed for Caldwell
County: Blue ridge goldenrod (S_oli?dsgo? spithamaea), Heller's
blazing star (Liatris helleri) a spreading avens (Geum
radiatum). Only one rally protected species is listed for
WiTTEes County: American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus).
The NCNHP does not list any federally protecteespecies in the
study area.
Blue Ridge Goldenrod Federally Threatened
The blue ridge goldenrod is a short, erect, rhizomatous
plant in the Composite family. It is sparsely to densely
pubescent, 1 to 3 dm tall and blooms in compact heads of yellow
flowers. Flowering period is from July through August. It
inhabits high elevation rocky summits and balds at above
approximately 3500 feet in elevation. It ranges through the
southern Appalachian Mountains of Tennessee and North Carolina.
Since the project area does not support habitat suitable for
this plant, no impacts are anticipated.
Heller's Blazing Star Federally Threatened
Heller's blazing star is a perennial herb in the composite
family. It has alternate leaves that are usually crowded and
decrease in size upward on the stem. It inhabits a habitat
23
similar to the plant above, high elevation rocky summits and
cliffs. It prefers drier locations of weathered granite usually
above 3500 feet in elevation and is located on the edge of
rocks. Since the project does not support habitat suitable for
this species, no impacts to the plant are anticipated.
Spreading Avens Federally Endangered
This perennial herb is 2 to 5 dm tall with a basal rosette
of leaves. It has 2 to 5 rounded leaves and blooms from June
through August. The flowers are a bright yellow. The plant
inhabits high elevation rocky summits (approximately 3500 feet
in elevation) that are damp and usually north facing. Tops of
mountains are typical locations of this plant. Since the
project does not support suitable habitat for this species, no
impacts to the plant are anticipated.
American Peregrine Falcon Federally Endangered
The American peregrine falcon is a raptor. The bird nests
on high ledges with a view of the surrounding countryside.
Reported nesting sites are on cliffs or historically nests sites
have been reported in tops of trees in the eastern deciduous
forest. The project impact area-does not support a cliff top
habitat. No nesting trees were observed along the project
corridor. The area is open however, and may be suitable for
foraging. No impacts to nesting sites are anticipated. Project
construction may impact suitable foraging habitat.
The following species are under status review by the USFWS
for Caldwell county: bent avens (Geum eg_niculatum) and roseroot
(Sedum rosea var. roanensis). Tie bog tine (Clemmys
mu renber i is under status review for Wilkes County. Status
review species are currently under study and may receive federal
protection in the future.
b. State Protected Species
The Natural Heritage Program files did not show any state
protected species listed in the project impact area.
E. Floodplain Involvement
The project encroaches on the floodplain of Big Warrior Creek three
times, and crosses the floodplain of Moravian Creek once. NC 18 parallels
Big Warrior Creek for a short distance, just south of SR 1124, the roadway
is in the floodplain in this area. NC 18 crosses the creek at two other
locations. NC 18 also crosses Moravian Creek at one location. However, all
floodplain encroachments will be evaluated and designed so as not to cause
a significant increase in flood heights or hazards.
24
F. Hiohwav Traffic Noise Analysis
The project will not substantially increase traffic volume since the
only improvements will consist of widening existing NC 18 from 20 to 28
feet. The 28 feet includes two 12-foot travel lanes plus 2 feet of paved
shoulder on each side of the proposed roadway. Some minor shifts in the
horizontal alignment (relocated roadway) will be necessary to maintain the
project's design speed. Even with these relocated sections of NC 18, the
project's noise level impacts will be insignificant. In addition, there
is no proposed access control along this project which effectively
eliminates the use of noise abatement. Noise levels could increase during
construction but will be temporary.
G. Air Quality Analysis
The project is located within the Eastern Mountain Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Wilkes County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this
project.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
H. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction, the
following measures, along with those already mentioned will be utilized
during the construction phase.
1. Solid wastes created as a result of highway construction, will
be disposed of in accordance with Section 802 of the NCDOT
Standard Specifications.
2. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible
to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes and care will be
taken not to block existing ditches.
3. An extensive rodent control program will be established where
structures are to be removed or demolished in order to prevent
the migration of rodents into surrounding areas.
4. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and ordinances, along with regulations of the North
Carolina Plan for Implementing National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. burning will be done only on the right of way, under
constant surveillance, with good atmospheric conditions, as
remote from dwellings as possible.
25
5. Precautions are to be taken to prevent waterlines along the
project from being damaged and to minimize disruption of water
service. The contractor is to prepare a work schedule which
will minimize possible impacts on water service.
6. The contractor shall maintain the earth surface of all waste
areas, both during the work and until the completion of all
seeding and mulching or other erosion control measures
specified, in a manner which will effectively control erosion
and siltation.
7. Traffic services in the immediate area may be subjected to brief
disruption during construction of the project. Every endeavor
will be made to insure that the transportation needs of the
public will be met both during and after construction.
I. Contaminated Properties
A field survey to identify any environmental hazards and a records
search of the environmental agencies was conducted by the NCDOT's
Hazardous Waste Specialist. As a result of this investigation, eleven
sites (see Appendix), all with underground storage tanks (USTs) for
gasoline or kerosene, were identified within the project corridor. Five
of the eleven sites are currently operating. However, it is not known at
this time which tanks will be displaced by the project improvements.
None of these sites are currently on the Department of Environmental
Management's Groundwater Incident list as having confirmed or suspected
releases of petroleum hydrocarbons to the soil or groundwater.
Right-of-way plans will include the locations of these USTs in order
to determine if any will be inside the proposed right of way. The new EPA
regulations on USTs may result in the removal of some of these tanks prior
to project construction. Any site where USTs remain within the proposed
right of way should be assessed for the presence of soil and/or
groundwater contamination prior to right of way acquisition.
J. Farmland
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act, the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine the location, if any, of
prime or important farmland soils that may be affected by the proposed
improvements. The SCS responded that no soil information on the area was
available at this time.
26
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
The following federal, state, and local agencies were requested to
comment on the project during the preparation of this Environmental
Assessment. An asterisk (*) denotes agencies from which comments were
received:
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
*Soil Conservation Service (U. S. Dept. of Agriculture)
*N. C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Human Resources
*N. C. Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N. C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
*Region 0 Council of Governments
Wilkes County Board of Commissioners
City of Wilkesboro
Copies of the comments are included in the Appendix.
A public meeting was held at the Wilkes Central High School on
May 28, 1991. Approximately 100 people attended. While most people in
attendance acknowledged the need for improvements along NC 18, several
people expressed their concerns over the project's effect on their
property. These concerns were addressed by the DOT personnel at the
meeting and most people were satisfied with the information they received
at that time. Written comments received as a result of the public meeting
were similar to the verbal comments received at the meeting. These
comments dealt with individual properties and the project's effect on
them.
WTG/plr
APPENDIX

NORTH CAROL01

7, un
1Lq H
1180
,un
lin

rs BEGIN

`
a rlaw.'? ?rm.mwa
,
MtGrsdr !
Mlshn
c?.
H•tis M,il
/'
`
w I L E S
Y ,
Mhlear t Hays'
6 1 RoarUe 1
161161% Den 3 i % r '' roN - i
Ronde
ta,n
.yw•
er
li
421 t
•,rp
Purl.ar
Iirt$ . ,
a'
,Iresbom 1

ADO ii
W R.n S? Oe?l 4 u 111
''
r . _ lL£. 1 !I smPROJECT
o ertusm :3 Moravian Falls 11!
`
` to n
' BOOfnef
-
Globe 3221

BEGIN y er
PROJECT
:
•
?
L E •'
A
9
thin Valmea 1 - i
+Ln*
• :

90
16
S? 2 ?
• ¦
mowell VRwtnet..
t! :
•
8 Hudlyson
lA 321 •
on
On.
t an, e
falls L
_. •
(
/[uZher ad?_R . W
, ,o
1
END PROJECT'
.. ... roneiP
w C-Z ?.
,,, UnL
u1 OJT
t
stl
wr
c??
LUA
RUSSeI ?•.J
110th!
^ p E R
N
r?

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
NC 18
FROM THE CALDWELL COUNTY LINE
TO NC 16 AT MORAVIAN FALLS
WILKES COUNTY
R-2101B
FIG. 1
G
z
k
. ? v
M
"O 'U m
w m x
M"?
mm
Z
a a ;p
p
a
D
i
T
r
t i
c V ; 4
lw r
Ri +V F" ?¢ h ? r
j `ti »t'! ; 1J`4r' V
{ t? t -', i 4'?R
v 1? s x i k Y: 4' l o x l i . ?,ti
-7 ;AAL,1
r
?'c?...t SI?{\.i?. ,icy ? _ ?M '?? *? y ' ?`' • lt?
yyy,,y??yyy?? ? 's??F
tie
a
e ? r t ?
1k I
4 yt¢? a" * s ?µn
14
l_I`JE- A
fthmi ,ntmm?,uNu

V
?F4 r ,
I
*T
may. t 3' ? ++f ?? nk .' n_ •n f.
1 '
016,
uozz
_j z
0Z
i 10 m C
"IN '
ATM
tea, ` V 0 .V .
0 V4 w
Q l
Y ,
N
'tti ?`-lb't-.,. 'fir' ?. ? , ?r ; - Jr'k''? ? [i? ? '? 4 t ', .?i"(, ? ? 6 ''° :'t 2 ?
+ M tit, hyr. ?' ' • • ?y'?]?'?'4'???".q\ 15,?'?":Tf ''
' r .•? ?.•, ? fit,
h
Lot
W"o
. 1. yr C'?''-?#Sf '', ;' '? yr` r??sy
ly"
s
v
14
40 j
a
19
R-v
a'o.r, a- ?, ; .y a.-? te'a'+- +a. 'i?''} `f W'hJ 4?." ••"4'
4ZE
_tk.. {,M y, i. - + 'e- - '!'.,•9'?.. "?A 4 -1!
k' *?s?y'' 16 -?- 'y •'hY,: Fr ? ?' i ? 'Icyt. ?' ? ? ,?,? - i ?? '? ?' T is .P .?. .y ? }; Y ? 4 s?_ I
?• ti's ??`+„-' +? ? hYti: ?ti. ?'?? ,? huh R+ S rl w -? ' _ .L . ?? ?° a ?..??o. ,eJ{??f:?
` - '' r a yr; d r , Y ,h ]• rte,-
• .b. +c ar. k ? ?' ± ? i.?F ter. a ?? ? - r 44
u - a ?atf 't ?.a : 4 ti

+ t?°r ^'R 1Y!' ? rr?
y t f u4:
"4-
v ,4 }
Rt ? •
..:!
e p t;?
Sr 4 P

w? -
U.
0
ML¢' u

Eh
dx
r N' 'aB

1
Y Yi
F,e `
m m yZy ,'
O ;??y
> 4
• 4,
a `
r ? S1?
Sf? ? Y'1i'+ ?? ?i?ti -_. •??I,*}off y y { 2
tt' '^ • ?/
1
'1? L -
a ? . ? ?k j
yr?k_. . ? Sri: i
.. t , - J -
?pp y t QpT
'44^ `Fr-'YQ. '•*Y";1,r ? ^D-. ?n.49 ?/2,. •{R.'?F` '; ?.?' -?
_ - a ?n ? ?•
?s
y? ? >i? 77 m ?? .. , r y ? ti.
' j ? , ? ?' 'a' •y. }? ? ,Y i ma?y,y,, ?p??,???I
1 '.. T V?3r ..? ? O 1 l???y'1 '..? 1F -' '?? s
1 y 1Y
? 'PS' ?' ? ':?? .??? ??` ; y ?r ??•!? ,Vic ? ll`"?S?i1T ,y? r.?, ?'1
a ?? ee???? •; ; • ? _ } [ i??.??]P '9 ' aye 1Yp???{. Y

;?? 42?'} 71G-
YI
A
? ?
CO
'
11SS?? "?

viS.` 'F ?a. 1 '.
?
_ x `?

AD eW 1
;z r.
c
C
LL

a
o•
to
O
410
Sim ?;
1°'
?` . w h. ?, Yc?rY
j.
1

f' ?• 71a5}
Vii' 4f'

tez
J
t
A' y
,
L
? I .ct
1 rot
S T. Y j
Pl. Irv ? e# ..y,??' 1', . «y,•? '?. R ? K
7 11
t j
'47 ::J4
`.?ti ?. .1 .. Y :t` F??t -Cfc e.•-1- 7 fi ?,Y .; ??i? ? • ,r ? h ?
44
?rR w v. :? +'.??:; '?-'Y•Ib. ,' A wE-.. 'gin .?.,s ?• ?. +r hti.. ? ,s ?:YF,e+
'{ {+ ?' { H Y# °I k -+ n.y +! eyr:.? C. ?r r 7 "?•1?E.?;?',,:,r - .j >•? , set yly,y,
*? `? r,?l?'` i:- 3 i V +, ?d?? ??? ?w ? a w r ¦ ` ? g a.t??? { ?' ;??' ? ? 9 ,?ki•'F!
4F,i s?21• ?tp ? . +M ?'a a'taa'sr .z ? ' a= * ?, , K •?? a1
{ V +r ?' C !
ray c 1. ?a Y. t 1?i y w 91. at.K?.. a r U t ?
U, 1 F f! ? i ? 1 If 1{ il?y, ?•fr?•,4 _Y y? f ? ?y? ? 1 , ,+ ? a '7'l ?. ?:Y
J P I H )?r/?J 4i f. i a4 „a Y n O k.a
?ti? ?: ?j ?Y;* 1°'?•. 9 ?o-."gk?F.q=rj `r.',?v}
may. qj 7? ?' f ';fix wpT I?ti1? r{,,?.w- . ?. ? ??,*. ?'?? ''?''.7F .. ??+r •?;
?'k;4,p??" p? '? { ? '???q???kgi-. ax, .l.tt•?,u ?? r }.a 1?ti•'+? '' i?
kil
L"?R?? 4wvd 4 S ?? r •: ?{,, ?.K I ' ' a.. - a. ?,'*3? ,4, y*,i, t a ? a' '?? ? , ti '1`k" fS? 1. F,' .

-
y?+?1?1 f T '? ? 'lv:?*?F y? ? ;??Fc ?:,1?'? tam,.

t

3 R

I III ? °¢t?

°3571'5 `
•' S' ?' aV 5 t ?.
1a afsg y MATCH LINE p
1 61 Od $?..
f.•.:
,.S•?k . 4J??.?•?• - t ,

y R
C ?y
-0 -0 ,
002
to at v ?.
mm J
AlL
m ?{,.? .'r i ..i '31 6. ? ?[ ? •• ?.aN. ?-' 4 ? ;}f SIC ,5 ? ? _ °? ?-Y
11 A .?
?t
J
a e^
16
g ti
a .fir - 4t .- of
F
t'
_ a
L ? ;r 'tf ? l •r - l'rF ? ? • 1 ,511^.`:31 .1#_~;,
?` ?' • rte ? qo - , ? ? 5: ? ?-
4
_ K tti
&*
c
101
1 T 1?
{!' ? ? ?.. -I ?; * L •• !, ?.- ,?,y - SOD _ ' ? 1
02
Sr.ii Yy • al ' . k` MATCH LINE Ej-
t 1F!.
a? .? ?l,aib i°4i <l k ` 4, ^•"'? r .L .y+ av,.. ,?0.
.., hr,. 1 '? .arch.. 4?-.? 'S+. ?x•/G?-Z ?-.•'F _ ?`i. ?_ ?•? _'' ? _ -. ?6'-?'Ad•a /_"\ :'a- ,^SK - ..
}
?? r ?•
.°yvLJz?.?y?
Y,>
,2'0?
t 'R {
OA
j? •• ?t?Y 1 Sr.os .._ • ?y.k y r?..
j?,!{4 . .,y.y ?+ ??? ??' r?,?4r wv? '41p: • `??+`i i`rt1. yi_? r*?? [ '.? ..
44
Ar?
,!t 'xf,ti# ;.+'y,,• Y t , may'.' ri•? y ?? ,.9 ?.,.
pY'?YS31
t `y. x ?'? i' ?' w q ,x , "
r { [- w k ti 1 S e, "? J ?+ L k Ir y Rr a twt; ?... ?j ti.
If:? !? .. ?.: ?•" `fir ? ?,a -.o ? . ti. ? .r; ? ??.• 1Y.m b'4 f * ? ,'Lr IY} ;? ? ..."'
Y 1 t.
i
y?
Ile
t? r W r ?r •1,. it r l ,. V4.? is )* i ???rr': T.s.p ,
{ a , a ssy a 73^' r raY•11 1 z
!tY ? ? ? h .Y M 1 y,
? r b • h
?4a hk ,?,, ' r +? Ar i '? ' 2 ? • ? ? R ti t/?i <4 ? ?P". T ` + vx
+, ? 6`S? ? r ? ?. ? ky ti ? ! 4' x ?-e j ~' 4 y, ~ ! ?_ •R ??Mxh ?J 53t1r `-. .
a .t '"?• S`" dTt }. •:1 , g[??- > r• > D ?` j`y 1q,
r
3 , Y 4 e !? 4 tic' ?: z z
_i W
'14
s
- to
z
0
a .. ' 3 ?.. "?k a UJ J
s. .
_ ,c o
LL.
a
IF,
r a o c .q, Z o
.?y? ,yy - .:? ?, +: ,.tom #.;1 1 :r " ?, i ? y ?+ ?i''?' ,1. 4 y •i ` ':6y ,f?', 00
U ?S' a y t0 cif
y
Jd? ?x W
ID -1 ° QQ JZ
X` - 4•. "Hw {..T 1,: ?t'' i. ;.?,?.:. '? k`r,e Z
JY ft•'--?. _ s? f,i , - 'h'?x',4 `. - p +'° W' ,7., to F
E 44 y } Ib+ei^nk r ip r z a 0.x O U W
r }Ty" ` ,4 K C* rv Mr. S. fir. A•FT tr 2 o ,u
!\, 'S H _ _ . C? - 4.: ,r i'?'E ?x , • ti,-y„f #1:K 4{} kY} .h-,y LL aF- Gam. _4
?..• ? *.? ? i ;i'_ '..? ti ,:. ?y ?p?' ?.? .? .? . ? tr..? _ ' 4 ?Jtf 1 3. ° ,5:4. S?.t ?? f r M
' i'?'? 'r C Air { r • ,?4.'? . 4i. ??" : 5_ ?1., Y n t t, _ ? -
*y .? 4 *4, l i f
r? ??; j ?`:?? ?'-'Jc' ? rw ? ?::.. ?r .. •? ? - ter. h - - ,? ?_ t • `q -.... ... ? ?.:,? r-r
+'?iF s1. IBC r* ^•. Y ?r? f%.k • 6? ,fy - w.
* A? dl{it'"? s1.-? '.1? }1* ? .. ? RX? xpE?+i. ??. #ji '+Rkr''':i.` ?4Mf .`?, .';•*?}`?y ? ?M''y?, ?'?:'???k?...a
414
i4 ?i•
W. ? ?',,,??j ?,,? C+h• 7r?. - uk..:.. a - ,x ?. - -?' f.•*_ tt' ?'*'+' , ?, ` ? ? ; ?'y ??? .nF -. i ? tr ? , -P , , ? #' . t r} Y
J• } n.,t i, -. } :t. b ''**??'' +L F Yr( ,.153. L V ,}.'.
Vie
M )y rJh. i.. t . S ?.' j •Y?( rt?y 11P11 ?
.it?*S-b b+i? v Y.
r,..r?.rxL'lL`?nrr f 4•? t r j r: [ r .. - i ?°'Y
r7??`K :t.a?.t ?,•R ?,?_ y ? ..., ,.A , r ,?"R §.a s q_??-,Y t
n?{?7p Ott ? ?`•? i ???. f ??; ? • ?-' - t Y ?. .k{,. a - :' r yfti x
J.?1Fr..t ?? ? • *JV Myd4 °1"Y Y? pte+ ?, , y :''- ? , a ?r - ,? , ? f . ;. "?'?? 4F4 - 4 -
i.. ? ? ?( ,} n#y.Y s,?3 r. ??'S ai-i4-. .. •-. 5 ?, ? RY * F ?,4>, :?? ?. J :86. f-. .N ?1 r ?? - ..
iT 4 ,t ?. ?.+. IFn-.• !..y `r: - ti}'... u t _ _',r w Y.Y rye is y
???k• - 4''?}l?<., r r ? ? 4 .?,'p? 1 } ?;a fir' Ij , F.. E + Y'.f. ,. , 4..? 1.} a(<? S.!. ?.,
y1C t y ? ;?
Y, "ti w ?• i? ? ,?,ti e _ M. ? _ • : ? .. .. _ r?,fie 1r ? ???'?r.rrts?.
14.
Aq,
;{ ;.i:tai " ?!# T + _ ? " 4. n i ra rah'e MAT CH LINE F
y,; wk- R
Fn?u?ruilrfar
eatfa ,ika 4*3M L ?OIL *^ ,rr6u,! jrr r,ru
• ? Tt•s6r? ? ? r. +t'?1.-+1F?. ?ia =tom ? ".x ?v4 a. t?' r
?i
5 ft. iv .y •. ..Slf tbb i?..
iARY
30
?'' a• f. }` '? 3 ,!, } ?,,? ~ w r° ? "i '?arta°r?,= O x I '4"•Yg
?? ?• mod- ? i r.? ? `.y ; .wYY 'y?}?? . 7 ?.S I Y? C) {'. S?i 'L':
>. = + l s e y S . m r s f ..
73 ; 16r ?= f
r K Vii, i ra ?•L: L• ? ? :y • ? ??'$l:?r,
Ilk,
? .>?, ° its x , ?R? -'fir ?,`• q.r ? ? ?, ..y,3.a >+'?
t m - r s-'?3 wklr ?-113. ???. ,A .. ?iJ ??', 1 ? ? t +,`- ,?•` _ ??,;N?na 't;
- 5 .L +i?1`x•? t.. - ??? ??? '? ? 1 L ' Jr e:tis '?fY.r
_ b ? ?a y? Y. "? t Tr YYa , rrf M1 15 ? ,.E'.
q k.•"c +t = -'- fir: a -1'.'•?' F _ ,yz
"a m
002
-..?_fi '? "1 •r'wA Ryya: r r.'. fir] Y, ,{
CA Cl)
C'm m vPt r t b? ' • a ?'. e?{7?'b, r.'
??? 1.. a .r ? -s ? ,?f?+a- v ?wM :?? p? '? ';?o-??.1 •?' ? •r ?3??F '?" fg r I I?.
? w,ln S:F '? -???: - < ??±•r "? .{:? F-. ,?. 3? ,?#+ Irk ?.._
b
I I I
AI.
?' ? ? ?i a t rya.
Oy +` _ i•, `•? 1 :? es y.- °T f?. a ,` r5•L irv •',ti?+?{?{'y.w?{s?q??h xt fl
-air
a*»r ? ^?•- . yt f?' iLht'? ? 7?'t TYS1 Ftilyr Y s .?. a
Tf
i } ? 5pp? ?h` ? _ q ?L?1r¢?>y?M2(a ?Q?31'1'l4. a'? +° t
.A? .,? aC f!`• i• .y "a?wrkFM? ??: ., ,?a M4? 1,?+F? i?k ?,?v '' r-
«1??
ra,? . i ? `T7'i ?? `. ??• Ewa{ r•?q T- i ?.r.+ ecy?,,,,1?.; ?.
r? ^Sl { 'F Si ? fni_ Y F?'hr `. C. ??y .a ? i1S
>L
r : r y., t. s .•-F yp L ?11 a
. f .l ?,5?py, .w.rt •. ~w "`?.nl?'.r Nm iti?'.???RY ! ;?'' ? ,-#.?'R ttiy'1 ? ..Y /1 t.3 •ii lq t! fiiP??'k 5k?
?';'.? 1"r"+1-S,T. ?•i ?; .. _ .- ,r?\?,L ? ??'Ir^ +, ? ,2 ?.. titi? '-. F . >re lk 4? r?,..i+?..3y:"7''?=
?y• ..tea h?7 ,a? r+-Fi '+, '? .' ?° l L.w?1-tmt +4c ?l' sy.
_ ?L ?+rc- ,t, i???? _ ??y. a '?il.•t ,?51v ?ti +???'?y?r7"`?7.?? `??? Zip ? 1{ ? F? µ _ i J'f!4_ fy ? , .. ? 1.. { > +' l'• f 1?Y ?`40 ? Y
t Z, t ? 'k 5,+. x..'51
.1p
? . yi ° ,: ? Nr+?f + .c ? ?• ? „+fl x ? ?'.r ? ?^' if [fir 1'?: ?,A
•• . "R ,a +?i wtii- 5? it F i ' ?` yr . .- °!.
?' ?? ? ;???+a-,- ? '; >: ?? ? :.% tea. .? ;F, rp ti `•?: a• '?.. . ??
?Mr ,:w i9x. 'mac ,, y x ???:; ''T•t f,? ?,?,?,i• ?r• .? i• { { -';?. /
• w\ i ? fir ti5,t}?.-5'S +F>o- „? Y V ?+yS ,
rL
o-?
4 "ZF: yr' i. ? t":MI Fti14 Z{_ • ?4 4 M 1
w . YSY M ., t.. ??K pa ? ?C ? i?'•?? rh ??
l ? ?. O ' ?'F'b - • - /•L'. ?C Y d `h. j r1f 'k Tr ? ; ?. `,`•T
tis }, t L '?7"r " ?/? 'F ? ?rt ?R _ bT.¢e ,3 f •. •,5 a ?j!q a 1
55`

e ' y '!?? ' r' Y•r ?',?, ?.' tit
a`:?-! .• '`?. ,4 ? {? - _ 4 ? ? - ??? ? { ?• , d'?, l ',, .fir ?'. fJX N ?:'.
HZJ
w k b ti W m to)
4to
Atiw
r a hh - k, • ..+'D' ?_ Y'?' ` - . •' 4 ??C '?? , Z Fi A 0. Ci :Q CJ W r.
?{'4 ? ?? ?"S??+x.4'i ?,•• ._ ,it; y,?-i' S mks. A
a. !
4-
T µ a
H7w r ,d w r ..?} ti, gyp.. w
F x
r ! tc
LLI
IV 44.
+ r s ?y
w.• JNQ?C, - tBICN?? 'x41F ?,? ?•'•• ! i-I rn F¢ c `?? -r? " -1 •°
?r h } f J k ??? fix' voro
VAW
. } a . Nt' 1 v r.. F
rr,
%
r
wi-
• ?- 1r' ' ? ?, b ? 4 K {? . i .. f ,F yam, y yy,, yJry!y. A'4 ?' •?i
+ "? Q ',# 11?? '.? ',? ? mow. ? T.;•' S*^...?"? ?, ?' ? ?•
Ae,m
i
- q@r Yn 3 .... - ? .b,
40
41,
t 4r " ??
01 9.
4
,
KIM, ,
?l?rLr..rrrjritll a5?drrR ?:
H Nn l?r'a 4
4A

_ x r
u t 'o ? °? + ? d `Xr 4 3'?'+ty ? '?
lit
%
NC-18
FROM CALDWELL COUNTY LINE TO NC-16
EST. 1990/2010 ADT IN HUNDREDS
}
SR 1103
,2
20
TTST 3%
DUAL 4%
DHV 13%
DIR 60%
5 32
8 S6
SR 1194 NC-1 6-18
104
7
12
2§ 39 35
60 5e s6
,2 gg
20 4s
27 2 NC 18 ;s
6
6
,0 4,
st 72
SR 2483
NG18 NC-16
9
16
SR 1106
4
7
SR 1107
2
7
a
SR 1117
SR 11
,
2
43 1
74 2
3
5
,
z
7,
i
n
s
a
2
s
,0
,6
SR 1108
38
66

3a
66
2
3
,
2

A
-
----
- ss
---- A
--
SR 1108
3
5
FIGURE 3
SHEET 1 OF 2
SR 1118
ti SR 1114
TTST ;
DUAL
DHV 1
DIR 6G
SR 1123
SR 1125
SR 1127
SR 1129
SR 1116
SR 1212
SR 1128
SR 1126
FIGURE 3
SHEET 2OF2
NC-18
FROM CALDWELL COUNTY LINE TO NC-16
EST. 1990/2010 ADT IN HUNDREDS
1*
W
CC
U

41.

W
O

O

U)
W
Z
Q

N

w
H y
a
? u.
CL

i?
m
Z
O
H
U
W
a
U
a

M?
rr
Q Z
O
2 0
D cl)
W
Y
G
W
E
c
W 1
T
(
z
Z ..
W m c
Q T '
O '
UT '
N
U '
Q
3
t
Z
i?
U.
c
0
r-a
;
U.

0
cr.
U
Z
Q
U'
Z
2?
U
Z

Q?
i
CD
LL
0
W
0
c?
a
0
z
co
0
0
a
b
m
a
•

o a 0 0 0 0 0
o to o Ul) o a
Cl) N N r
Ti?
s
z
M:D
20
D C/)
Lij
v/
L^U
L.iC
zz
L ••
Q T
UT
V?
QL.L
w
C
m
V
C)
Q
m
m
CL
d
L
r

d
C
a
c
H
J
lJ!
ctT
O
Q
'0
Q
0
L
Q?

F-I
IUD
Z
O
O
O
t'7
Q
O
L
t.
co
O
to
a
0
m
a
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
t0 v Cl) N r'
R-2101 B
Underground Storage Tank and Hazardous Waste Sites
7
Site No. 1
Two USTs are located on the property 1.0 mile northeast of SR 1129. The
property is currently a residence. The tanks are located on the southwest
side of the building approximately 45 feet from the centerline of NC 18.
One of the tanks was open and had a strong smell of gasoline. The tanks
were apparently abandoned when the gas station closed.
Site No. 2
An abandoned gas station owned by Mr. Edward McEntire of Wilkesboro is
located 0.7 mile northeast of SR 1128. Two USTs are located on this
property approximately 50 feet from the centerline of NC 18. These tanks
were abandoned 12-15 years ago according to a local resident.
Site No. 3
Two abandoned USTs are located approximately 75 feet south of the
centerline of NC 18, 0.7 mile northeast of SR 1212. However, these tanks
should be well outside of the proposed right of way.
Site No. 4
L. M. Nelson Oil Company, 817 N. Cherry Street, North Wilkesboro, N. C.
owns four USTs located at Lackey's Market, Route 1, Boomer, N. C. The
tanks are located between 45 and 50 feet from the centerline of NC 18 on
the northeast side of the building.
Site No. 5
Two USTs are located at Boomer Service and Grocery at the intersection of
NC 18 and SR 1114. The store is closed and the tanks have been abandoned.
These tanks are approximately 30 feet from the centerline of NC 18.
Site No. 6

Three USTs are owned by Thomlinson's Oil Company of North Wilkesboro at an
abandoned gas station located 0.1 mile southwest of SR 1108. Employees of
Mr. Thomlinson indicated that he had plans to remove these tanks at some
future date. The tanks are located approximately 50-75 feet from the
centerline of NC 18 and contained gasoline and kerosene.
Site No. 7
R & R Convenience owns two USTs at their location near SR 1184. These
tanks are approximately 58 feet south of the centerline of NC 18.
Site No. 8
w
The Hillcrest Package Store, located midway between SR 1107 and SR 1117,
has two USTs on the property. The tanks have been closed for
approximately 20 years and are located 50 feet north of the centerline of
NC 18.
Site No. 9
Four USTs are located at Woods Grocery, Route 2, Moravian Falls. These
tanks are less than one year old and are constructed of fiberglass
reinforced plastic (FRP). Consequently, the potential for contamination
of soil and/or groundwater at this location is extremely low.
Site No. 10
There are five USTs at Combs County Market, 0.5 mile east of SR 1106.
These tanks were installed 12 years ago and are located approximately 75
feet south of the centerline of NC 18.
Site No. 11
Four USTs are located at the Run-In Food Store at the intersection of
NC 18 and SR 2843. The tanks contain gasoline and kerosene and are
approximately 2 years old. The potential for soil and/or groundwater
contamination at this site is low.
i

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Y WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
" P.O. BOX 1890
t ?
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
September 18, 1990
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201-
Dear Mr. Ward:
VI-CL,_
i. b1
9 199
A'n 1?1Gy O/v OF
?N'I y CJ
Y? AcSEARC???P?
We have reviewed your letter of August 27, 1990, requesting
information for "NC 18, from the Caldwell County Line to NC 16
at Moravian Falls, Wilkes County, State Project 6.761010, TIP
No. R-2101 B" and offer the following comments.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be
required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with this project, including disposal of construction
debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should
first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensation
or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any work within
waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch
would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for a
project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact
Mr. John Thomas, Regulatory Branch, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If
we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Saund s
Chief, Planning Division
United States Soil
Department of Conservation 4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
Agncwttxe service Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: [phone] Ki Nt
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
September 13, 1990
Re: NC 18, from the Caldwell County Line to NC 16 at Moravian Falls,
Wilkes County, State Project 6.761010, TIP No. R-2101B
Dear Mr. Ward:
This is in response to your request for Important Farmland Information.
We do not have soils information for the project area mentioned above.
Sincerely,
Bobbye on ? h
State Co rvationist
s
The Sod Conservation Servsce
is an agency of tM
v Department of Agnculfure

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James G. Martin, Governor
• October 1, 1990
Mr. L.J. Ward
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Highway Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Ward:

-Vf -C
(.yeah
k-' n(m?,j
James S. Lofton, Secretary
RE: SCH File #91-E-4220-0157; Scoping for Comments on the
Proposed Improvements to NC 18, From the Caldwell County
Line to NC 16 at Moravian Falls in Wilkes County
(TIP #R-2101B)
The above referenced environmental information has been reviewed
through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies, after
reviewing this document, which identify issues to be addressed in
the environmental review document. For compliance with the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act, the appropriate document should
be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse for environmental review.
Should you have any questions, please call 733-0499.
Director
Sincerely,
eW= I"?
Chrys Baggett,
State Clearinghouse
cc: Regions D & E 41Ci GEIV 4%
Attachment
CB/ jt -0 OCT 0 3 1990
Z
DIVIS?IOF =U
2,y HIGHWAYS QP
0
c? RF?p,RG?
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
a ? FNt
r a?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:

Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
S ?p 1gc?
iDU
Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator

Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
91-0157 Improvements to NC 18 from the Caldwell County
Line to NC 16 at Moravian Falls, Wilkes County
September 25, 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the Department of Transportation's scoping notice.
The information that was circulated for review was not sufficient
to evaluate potential environmental impacts of this project.
However, our review efforts did raise some specific concerns
that the Department of Transportation will need to address in
future environmental documents.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
attachments

P.O. Box r7687, Raleigh, North Camlina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
SEP 1990
s?/t! LJI,?
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission KN
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment Department of
Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Fred Harris, Chief
Division of Boating an d Inland Fishe "DATE: September 24, 1990

SUBJECT: NCDOT Improvements to NC 18 from the Caldwell County Line to
NC 16 at Moravian Falls, Wilkes County, State Project 6.761010, TIP
No. R-2101B
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. Ward of the N. C.
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our concerns regarding impacts on fish
and wildlife resources resulting from improvements to NC 18 in Wilkes County.
The proposed project will consist of widening the existing 20-foot pavement to a 24-
foot pavement and the realignment of the roadway at selected locations from NC 18
at the Caldwell County line to NC 16 at Moravian Falls in Wilkes County. The
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) is concerned over
potential adverse impacts to wildlife, fisheries and wetland resources within and
adjacent to the construction corridor.
Biological field staff of the NCWRC have reviewed the scoping letter. Due
to limited information in Mr. Ward's memorandum, we can express our concerns
and requests for information only in general terms. It is our recommendation that
an Environmental Assessment (EA) be pre aced for this project. Our ability to
evaluate project impacts and provide benefiicial recommendations when reviewing
the project A will be enhanced by inclusion of the following information.

1. Complete maps of road alignments showing areas to be cut and filled,
and location of erosion control measures and type.
2. Complete inventories of wildlife and fisheries resources within,
adjacent to or utilizing the project corridor. These inventories should
include any species on State or Federal lists of threatened,
endangered or special concern species.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all projected related areas that may
undergo hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage,
Memo
(2)
September 24, 1990
relocation, or filling for project construction. Critical areas which
need to be addressed concerning stream crossings and relocations
include Beaver Creek and tributary, Little Warrior Creek, Big
Warrior Creek and tributary, Blood Creek and Moravian Creek.
These sites were identified on US Geological Survey Maps, Boomer
and Moravian Falls quadrangles. Potential impacts in these areas
include sedimentation to the stream and loss of riparian vegetation.
fi?
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted
by the proposed project, including potential borrow sites.
5. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct or
indirect impacts to wildlife and aquatic habitat quantity and quality.
We are especially concerned over potential impacts to aquatic resources of
tributaries of the Yadkin River and W. Kerr Scott Reservoir. The proposed project
has a high potential for erosion and sedimentation of project area streams. Project
plans must contain detailed erosion control plans to protect streams and wetlands
from sedimentation. Erosion controls need to be maintained throughout the life of
the project and protective ground cover established as soon as any phase of the
project is completed.
We request that the draft EA and all supporting documents be provided to
the NCWRC for review and comment. These comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) and North Carolina Environmental Policy
Act (G.S. 113-A through 10).
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early stages of this
project. If we can provide further assistance, please call on us.
FAH/lp
cc: Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Don Hayes, District 7 Wildlife Biologist
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Regional Environmental Biologist
Allen Boynton, Mt. Region Nongame Biologist
4-

1
SF? 1990
r
State of North Carolina `'<< a
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Griffiths Forestry Center Harry F. Layman
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 2411 Garner Road Director
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
September 10, 1990
MEMORANDUM
Env'ronmeataL:xA's`sessment.rUnitY,?:.;:._- 3
FROM: Don H. Robbins
Staf f Forester
SUBJECT: EA Scoping for the Proposed Widening of NC 18 from the Caldwell
County Line to NC 16 at Moravian Falls in Wilkes County, N. C.
PROJECT 91-0157
DUE DATE 9/18/90
To better determine the impact, if any, to forestry in the area of the
proposed project, the Environmental Assessment should contain the following
information concerning the proposed widening for the possible right-of-way
purchases for the project:
1. The number of total woodland acres that would be taken out of timber
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. The acres breakdown of this woodland concerning present conditions
such as clear-cut areas, young growing timber, and fully stocked
stands of very productive timber within the new right-of-way
purchases for disturbed and undisturbed portions.
3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved within
the proposed right-of-way, so as to be able to determine the
productivity of these forest soils in the area.
4. The number of woodland acres that would affect any watersheds in the
area, if the woodland was removed.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Melba McGee
PROJECT 91-0157
Page 2
5. If woodland is involved, it is hoped that the timber could be
merchandised and sold to lessen the need for piling and burning of
debris during right-of-way construction.
Provisions should be indicated in the EA that the contractor will
make all efforts to salvage any merchantable timber to permit
construction, once the contractor takes charge of the right-of-way.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
the remaining standing trees outside of the right-of-way boundary
and construction limits.
We would hope that the widening would have the least impact to forest and
related resources in that area.
DHR: gm
pc: Warren Boyette
David Foster
File
AL

e? .
Y
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin. Governor
William W. Cobey. Jr.. Secretary
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Thru:
Subject:
September 10, 1990
Melba McGee
Randy Cottenq /
L ?, . .
SEP 1990
S.6fc :cOA C; 1r,E
Lei'. ? ?=

r
Gary Thompson 8--1 \
91-0157, Wilkes County, NC 18, from the Caldwell
County Line to NC 16 at Moravian Falls,
State Project 6.761010, TIP R-2101B
We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 7 geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone] prior to
construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
GWT/ajs
cc: Joe Creech, NCDOT

P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Chades H. Gardner
Director
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. Due
0% 1

i

1 `9/J?-- 1T 1* .6"( 1 7/ Y0
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding tnese permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

? Permit to construct b operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, b sewer construction contracts on-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site Inspection. 90-120 days
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (NIA
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever Is later.
?
Water use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(N/A)
7 days
? Well Construction Permit NIA
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
? Permit to construct S operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources NIA (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
estos material must be in compliance with 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A
prior to demolition.
(90 days)

? Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.0800.
/the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation control plan .
will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 days before begin activity.
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be permited.

? AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Mining Permit Less than 5 acres S 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources If permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
? counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

?
Oil Refinin
Facilities
NIA 90.120 days
(N/A)
g
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
? Dam Safety Permit inspect construction,.cenify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (N/A)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
M105 Continued on reverse
A
1
Normal Proem
mime
(statutory Ti qe
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
? Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (N/A)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
? Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)

? State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must Include 15.20 days
descriptions 3 drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
? 60 days
401 Water Quality Certification N/A (130 days)

? 55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application (180 days)

?
O
00 f
li
610
t
ti 22 days
60 d
CAMA Permit for MIN
R development .
ee mus
accompany app
ca
on (
ays)

? Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
ti
27687
h
N
27611
N
C
G
d
S
B
R
l
i
C
.
.
eo
e urvey,
,
,
.
c
ox
a
e
g
.
? Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
* Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
'of

reviewer signature agency date
REGIONAL OFFICES

? Asheville Regional Office 2/11'77 7?
? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
ill
C e?\ =
41 Suite 714 Wachovia Building

ill
NC 28301
F
tt
Ashev
e, N
28801
[phone] O
S&P ev
e,
aye
[phone]
? Moorseville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street Box 27687
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
[phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone] [phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH Project Number
AND NATURAL RESOURCES 411 - oI S -Z
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
r,/ I. ) ? c5
f 1 Inteer-/Agency Project Review Response
f 9"_ 0-4L.C,? I 1 b. Q H- s-
Project Name ?v 00- 1(p Type of Project
The following are our comments on the above referenced subject.
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system improvements
?- must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the
initiation of construction (as required by 10 NCAC IOD .0900 et. seq.). For information, contact
the Public Water Supply Sel:tlon, [phone].
~ ? Several water lines possibly are located in the path of an adjacent to the proposed project.
Due to a possible rupture during construction, the contractor should contact the appropriate water
system officials to specify a work schedule.
The proposed project wlII be constructed near water resources which are used for drinking. Precautions
should be taken to prevent contamination of the watershed and stream by oil or other harmful substance:
Additional Information is available by contacting the Public Water Supply Section at [phone].
Back flow preventors should be Installed on all incoming potable water Imes. Additional information
is available by contacting the Public Water Supply Section at [phone]-
This project will be classified as a community public water supply and must comply with state
and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant should
contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of felt of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish sanitation program,
the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their requirements
for septic tank installations (as required under 10 NCAC t0A .1900 et. seq. and/or sanitary facilities
requirements for this project if applicable.) For information concerning septic tank and other
on-site waste disposal methods, contact the On-site Sewage Branch at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures,
an extensive rodent control project may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of the
rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact the local health
department or the Public Health Pest Management Section [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem.
For informatton concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact
the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919) 7334407.
t
Reviewer Branch/ nit ate

.tee

North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
[phone]
September- 14, 1990
MEMORANDUM
To: N.C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
From: J. Russell CaQps, Division of Emergency Management,
NFIP Section ;V-lv
Subject: Intergovernmental Review
-----------------------------------------------------------
Re: State # N.C. 91-E-4220-0157
N.C. DOT - Proposed Improvements to NC 10, Wilkes,
County
For information purposes, the Commission is advised that
on July 24, 1990, Governor Martin signed Executive Order 123,
a Uniform Floodplain Management Policy, Which mu=_t be
followed for development on any site.

An E.jtt:il CIp{tirtunin• / Attimtatne Action Empio%cr
REQUEST FOR REVIEW
Please reviesr the attached notification and indicate your response. If your
agency requires additional information, contact the applicant directly or
'call Region D Council of Governments' Clearinghouse. Please submit your
response to the above office by the due date indicated. Phone: [phone].
SCH Number. 91-.E-4220-0157 Date 9/4/90L
'l
Please sign and return to:
Reviewers:
?Cecil Wood, Wilkes County Manager
Norman Call, Wilkesboro Town Manager
Judy Anthony, Ronda Town Administrator
Chris Carter, North Wilkesboro Town Manager
Response Date 9/14/90
Region D Council of Governments
Clearinghouse Coordinator
P. 0. Box 1820
Boone, North Carolina 28607
v
S??p 1990

Response: This agency has reviewed the notification and offers the following
recommendation: (check appropriate response/more than one can be checked)
No Comment
Favorable. The project is in agreement with the goals and objectives
of this agency's programs.
Unfavorable. The project is not in agreement with the goals and objec-
tives of this agency's programs.
Potential Problem(s). Identify:
Comments: ,
Z7 0ou J J
odem
Par ?s w«1? e
,-;f e?un.t?y so?.f(
cu: /1,e
an A)C- I
L?t1 ?? ? u G
f ?G Le e? J ??
Reviewed h..
REQUEST FOR REUIEW
Please review the attached notification and indicate your response. If your
agency requires additional information, contact the applicant directly or
call Region D Council of Governments' Clearinghouse. Please submit your
response to the above office by the due date indicated. Phone:, [phone].
SCH Number. 9.17E-4220-0157 Date 9/4/90L Response Date 9/14/90
Please sign and return to: Region D Council of Governments
Clearinghouse Coordinator
P. 0. Box 1820
Boone, North Carolina 28607
Reviewers:
Cecil Wood, Wilkes County Manager
vetorman Call, Wilkesboro Town Manager
Judy Anthony, Ronda Town Administrator
Chris Carter, North Wilkesboro Town Manager
Response: This agency has reviewed the notification and offers Zhe following
recommendation: (check appropriate response/more than one can be checked)
Comment
:::?/ Favorable. The project is in agreement with the goals and objectives
of this agency's programs.
Unfavorable. The project is not in agreement with the goals and objec-
tives of this agency's programs.
Potential Problem(s). Identify:
Comments:
n,
Reviewed by tu?..a. 14A-7 _ /? .. A..,,..,.... A, 1 4 Z- .,
REQUEST FOR REUIEI
Please review the attached notification and indicate your response. If your
agency requires additional information, contact the applicant directly or
call Region D Council of Governments' Clearinghouse. Please submit your
response to the above office by the due date indicated. Phone: [phone].
SCH Number 917E-4220-0157 Date 9/4/90L Response Late 9/14/90
Please sign and return to:
Region D Council of Governments
Clearinghouse Coordinator
P. 0. Box 1820
Boone, North Carolina 28607
Reviewers:
Cecil Wood, Wilkes County Manager 2QP1?
Norman Call, Wilkesboro Town Manager ?
Judy Anthony, Ronda Town Administrator
iris Carter, North Wilkesboro Town Manager / SEP1990 s
(? v
OFFICE
Response: This agency has reviewed the notification and offers the following
recommendation: (check appropriate response/more than one can be checked)
No Comment
x Favorable. The project is in agreement with the goals and objectives
of this agency's programs.
Unfavorable. The project is not in agreement with the goals and objec-
tives of this agency's programs.
Potential Problem(s). Identify:
Comments:
A worthwhile project for the County and I feel like North Wilkesboro
can benefit from any improvements in the road network of Wilkes even
though it will not directly be affected by this one.
Reviewed by Name:/,-, c - Agency: n,., ?1 /./ G"Y/, ?c??.A -/, 7
- ,} r
y r •+s
{
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resoi3ce?-`?r?'r
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director

September 26, 1988
M T'hf nR A Tmi TM
T0: J. M. Greenhill, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
r
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State ??
Historic Preservation Office,
SUBJECT: NC 18 from NC 90 at Lenoir to NC 16 at
Moravian Falls, TIP R-2101, 6.7610101,
Cleveland and Wilkes Counties, ER 89-7260
Thank you for your memorandum of August 15, 1988, concerning the above
project.
We have conducted a search of our maps
following structures of historical or
the general area of the project:
Caldwell Coun
and files and have located the
architectural importance within
Thomas Hoover House. North side of NC 18, about 1,000 feet
off highway, 2 miles east of junction with US 321.
King's Creek School. NC 18 (Wilkesboro Road), Ring's Creek
vicinity. May be eligible for National Register of Historic
Places as part of thematic nomination of early twentieth
century schools in North Carolina.
Wilkes County
No known significant historic structures in project area.
Please note that since a comprehensive historical architectural inventory
of Caldwell or Wilkes county has never been conducted, there may be
structures of which we are unaware located within the planning area.
Therefore, we request that the Department of Transportation architectural
historian survey the area of potential=:environmental effect for significant
historical structures and forward the results to our office. We will
provide timely review and comment upon receipt of the survey findings.
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
it
J. M. Greenhill
September 26, 1988, Page Two
:such of the project area follows the valley of Lower Creek and includes
many areas which are considered to be high probability areas for the
presence of prehistoric archaeological resources. We recommend that the
project area be surveyed for archaeological resources prior to construction
activities.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800, and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhance-
ment of the Cultural Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
CC. B. Church
T. Padgett
I'
4.• ?, s At
MAR 1. 3 1989
North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso£` ces :?%--art4vAY$ ?c,"?
R SEA
istory
James G. Martin, Governor Division %t
t Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
March 7, 1989
MEMORANDUM ? `-
TO: J. M. Greenhill, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
i
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Archaeological Study, NC 18 from Lenoir to
Moravian Falls, Caldwell and Wilkes Counties,
TIP No. R-2101, ER 89-7260
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 1989, transmitting the archaeo-
logical survey report by Tom Padgett concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey two sites were located within the
project area. Mr. Padgett has recommended that no further archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur
with this recommendation since this project will not involve significant
archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800, and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhance-
ment of the Cultural Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comments, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: T. Padgett
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
North Carolina Department of Culturafl; eSpurces
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
t
August 3, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: J. M. Greenhill, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State
G
Historic Preservation Officer ?-/
SUBJECT: NC 18 from NC 90 at Lenoir to NC 16 at
Moravian Falls, Caldwell and Wilkes Counties,
R-2101, GS 90-0002
Thank you for your letter of June 23, 1989, concerning the above project.
Based upon an evaluation of our records, two archaeological sites
(31Cw74 and 31Cw75) will be affected by the proposed project. These
sites were previously evaluated by North Carolina Department of Transportation
archaeologist Tom Padgett, who indicated that both sites were nonsignificant
and no further work was recommended. We concurred and no further
archaeological investigations are necessary for this project.
We have conducted a search of our files and concur with your finding
that there are no properties listed in the National Register of Historic
Places within the area of potential effect of this project.
We appreciate your providing the information and photographs for the
Hubbard House since Wilkes County has never been systematically surveyed
and we have only limited knowledge of the historic properties.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
?e66
G 1 V ?o
o..
OCT t? j?_ 199
r z
92 DIVISION OF
2, Ht?H,rlaYS rth Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
:'I'r, D REST p''
James . governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
,i
October 9, 1990
MEIORANDUM
TO: V. Charles Bruton, Bead
Environmental Unit
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: NC 18 from Caldwell County line to NC 16 at Moravian
Falls, Wilkes County, R-2101B, CH 90-E-4220-0366,
ER 90-7620, GS 90-0055, CH 91-E-4220-0157
Thank you for your letter of September 28, 1990, and for bringing this
information to our attention.
We previously reviewed the entire R-2101 project, and on August 3, 1989,
concurred with your finding that there were no buildings that are eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places located in either Section A
or B's area of potential effect.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
DB:slw
CC L. J. Ward
A

109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

WELKES COUNTY SCHOOLS
t

Superintendent
Marsh Q Lyall
Associate Superintendent
Dr. Linda H. Greene
Assistant Superintendents
K. Wayne Barker
C Eugene Reavis
September 7, 1988
201 West Main Street
Wilkesboro, North Carolina 28697
919-667-1121
Dr. Darrell Spencer
Assistant State Superintendent
Division of Sd=1 Plat ing
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603-1336
FRECEIVED
9 1988
N OF
LANNING
Board Chairman
Rex W. Whittington
Board Vice Chairman
C W. Barker
Dr. Fay C Byrd
A. Gerald Lankford
Ralph T. Steele
SUBJDC% NC 18 fxnm NC 90 at Lenoir to NC 16 at Moravian Falls, Caldwell-
Wilkes C=Utes, State Project 6.7620101, T.I.P. # 1-2101
Dear Dr. Spencer:
I have reviewed and studied the proposal you sent concerning the mq=ove-
ments of Highway 18. I have also shared this information with Mr. Harold
Triplett, our Director of Transporatim.
We cannot see that these proposed highway improvements will have any
significant effects on the human environment from an educational
point of view.
The proposed in; r-vements in the highway structure would appear to be
needed and would provide for a safer and more efficient traffic plan.
If we can be of further assistance to you, please feel free to omtact
our office.
' S' Y,
Eugene
Ass' Superintendent
ER/jh
COPY NCOOT
R E L O C A T I ON
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR
PROJECT: 6.761010
I.O. ND.: P-2101 8
R e f= OR T North Carolina Department of Transportation
OESICM . RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COLNTY: Wilkes
F.A. PROJECT: N/A
Alternate _L_ of _L Alternate
OESCRIPTICN OF PROJECT: NC 18 From Caldwell/Wilkes County Line to NC 16 at Moravian Falls
EST IMATED DISPLACE ES 1N-UM i t"r -J-

r ! Type of
,;Displaces
Owners
Tenants
Total M i nor
ities
0-151wl
15-25M
25-35M
35-`-M
50 lP
Individuals 0 0 0 D 0- 0 0 0 0
Families 16 11 27 5 8 9 5 5 0
Businesses 4 0 4 0 VALLE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLIN G AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Prof i t 0 0 0 0 ( -ZOM 1 s 0-150 9 0-213'1 2 S D-15D 25
ANS.ER ALL CLESTIONS 20-40M 6 150-250 2 20-40M 8 150-250 4
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSIERS 40-70'1 5 25D-400 0 40-713M 7 MO-400 4
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 3' 400-6x0 0 70-100 4 400-600 p

X services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 LF
1
600 LP
0
100 LF
10
600 LF 0

X aftected by displacement
3. Will business services still
TOTAL
16
11
31 3 3
be available after project
4. Will any business be dis- BASKS (Respond by Number)
X placed. If so, indicate size
estimated number of
3. THERE ARE FOLK (4) POSSIBLE BUSINESS DISPLACEP04TS
type,
employees; m i nor i t i es, etc. ANTICIPATED, HOWEVER, THERE APE OTi- R SIMILAR
X 5. Will relocation cause a BUSINESSES OPERATING THAT WILL NOT BE AFFECTED.
housing shortage
n/a Source for available hous-
6 4. (A) "MOLNTAIN DULCIMERS" - A SM4L.L. (IN HONE) CRAFT
.
(list)
in OPERATION - 1 FLLL TIME EMPLOYEE. NOT A MINORITY
X, s
7. Will additional housing BUSINESS OPERATION. IN R/W
"'--
programs be needed (B) "LACKEYS 1400(ET
X Show I d Last Resort Hoes i ns
8
EVIENCE"
(C) "R L R CONVENIENCE"
.
be considered (0) "I.10013Y'S GROCERY" '.'
X 9. Are there larse, disabled,
families
elderly: etc -
8, Co 3 0 ARE CONSIDERED D -E TO PROXIMITY. ALL ARE
. SMALL COLMRY GROCERY AND GAS TYPE OPERATIONS. ALL
AN " THESE ALSO FOR DESIG?1 OYEES AND
X will Puo is using a
10 Ef'PLOYEE APPROXIMATELY 1- 2 FULL TIME EMPL
. ONSIDERED MINORITY BLISINE5S OPERATIONS.
needed for project NONE ARE C
X

1 11. Is public housing avail-
LOCAL REALTORS, AND NEWSPAPERS.
SLRVEY
SUAL
able ,
.
6. VI
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
DDS housing available
8. WILL BE CONSIOE7IED AND IMPLEMENTED AS NECESSARY.
X equate
during relocation period
X Will there be a problem of
13 9. THERE WILL BE A FEW, BUT NO PRO&_E S ARE ANTICIPATED.
.
housing within financial
means
12. WITH THE HOUSING AVAILABLE, OLR ADDITIVE HOUSING
Are suitable business sites
14 SOME OWNERS RE AININ
PROGRAM, AM THE POSSIBILITY OF
.
available (list source) T
AND MOVING THESE IMPROVEMENTS,
15. Number months estimated to S FFICIENIT HOUSING AVAILABLE FOR ALL PROPOSED
n/ a complete RELOCATION 1g,_24 OISPLACEES.
??
4x
<
?
4
F. Meade: i 2. I .
9
Date Approved Date
_
?
elocatic", ent
Fore 15.4 Revi ed 5/90 Original L 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File