R-2300

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
4 0
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
February 25, 1998
MEMORANDUM
To: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Through: John DorneRM
From: Cyndi Bell L L.6
Subject: Finding of No Significant Impact for NC 8 Widening from SR 2412 to
I-85 Davidson County
State Project No. 8.1600701, T.I.P. No. R-230013;
DENR #98-0495; DWQ # 11961
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The
project will involve fill in up to 0.9 acre of wetlands. Impacts to perennial streams were
not quantified. DWQ offers the following comments based on the document review:
A) NCDOT has sufficiently demonstrated avoidance and minimization of wetland
and stream impacts. The project, as currently planned, would not require wetland
or stream mitigation. NCDOT is reminded that if wetland impacts are increased
to 1.0 acre or above, wetland mitigation will be required in accordance with 15A
NCAC 21-1.0506(h). If necessary, the Wetland Restoration Program will be
available to use for stream mitigation for this project.
B) Based upon stream descriptions and project information provided in the EA and
FONSI, it is unlikely that this project will require impacts to perennial streams in
excess of 150 linear feet. Prior to application for a 401 Water Quality
Certification, DOT will need to verify this with a field determination of perennial
versus intermittent streams. Culvert extensions and/or channel changes exceeding
150 feet linear distance of perennial stream impacts at any crossing will require
mitigation in accordance with current DWQ Wetland Rules 115A NCAC
21-1.0506(b)(6) }. If necessary, the Wetland Restoration Program will be available
to use for stream mitigation for this project.
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Ms. Michelle Suverkrubbe Memo
February 25, 1998
Page 2 of 2
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the EA, an Individual 401 Water
Quality Certification will be required for this project. Final permit authorization will
require formal application by NCDOT and written concurrence from DWQ. Please be
aware that this approval will be contingent upon evidence of avoidance and minimization
of wetland and stream impacts to the extent practical, and provision of wetland and
stream mitigation where necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the FONSI. DOT is
reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfaction of water
quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream
uses are lost. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell
at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Mark Cantrell, FWS
David Cox, WRC
R2300BFON.DOC

Environmental Review Tracking_. Sheet
DWQ - Water Quality Section
Date:
MEMORANDUM
TT : Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
O Trish MacPherson (end. sps)
O Kathy Herring (foresdORW/HQW)
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
O Matt Mathews (toxicology)
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
t Eis L
DENR # 7 6T/
DWQ #
ENVY ?,r•:?<<?'.?J' '.
Regd. Prg Mgmt Coordination Branch
-- ' O Ed Buchen (Archdale 9th)
O Brent McDonald (Archdale 12th)
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston - Salem
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
Wetlands (WQ Lab)
O John Dorney (Corps, 401)
Cyndi Bell (DOT)
O Eric Galamb
0 Eric Fleck
Planninu Branch (Archdale 6th)
O Alan Clark (basinwide planning)
O Boyd DeVane (classifications & standards)
O Beth McGee (management planning)
O Steve Zoufaly (reclassifications)
O Ruth Swanek (modeling) (Archdale 9th)
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
0 Dave Goodrich (NPDES) O
0 Bradley Bennett (Stormwatcr) O
0 Tom Poe (Pretreatment) (Archdale 7th) O
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Regional / Program Management Coordination Branch
PROJECT:

Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts to the environment,
especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please check the appropriate
box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by the date indicated.
RESPONSE DEADLINE: g
Fj NO COMMENT COMMENTS ATTACHED
Name:
Date:
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly appreciated!
Notes:
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
misAcircmento - mac version

r
It
Wilmington
SR 1209 (Independence Boulevard) Extension
From US 76 (Oleander Drive)
to just north of Randall Parkway
New Hanover County
State Project No. 9.8039075
TIP No. U-3116
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
l

For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611

?a Ve H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manage
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
41
( .166,

Wilmington
SR 1209 (Independence Boulevard) Extension
From US 76 (Oleander Drive)
to just north of Randall Parkway
New Hanover County
State Project No. 9.8039075
TIP No. U-3116
ADM NISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
to
Brian F. Yam •
3pt
Project Planning Engineer

Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Planning Engineer, U ' Head ???•??H 0
???
(
? .......... y
r ?..• EESSr?
%.
I
` r
,
.
y
00 SEAL
Rich 9d B. Davis, P. ., CPM, As ' tart Mana er = 6944
_
Planning and Environmental Branch ?.C/ NE?Q:.; '?'?•
• ?? ;
.,?? qR •......•

Wilmington
SR 1209 (Independence Boulevard) Extension
From US 76 (Oleander Drive)
to just north of Randall Parkway
New Hanover County
State Project No. 9.8039075
TIP No. U-3116
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
A. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control Guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of the project to prevent increased sedimentation to off-project surface
waters.
B. The NCDOT Hydraulics Design Unit will investigate the feasibility of providing a
grassed drainage Swale to filter stormwater runoff into Burnt Mill Creek.
C. Noise barriers will be provided in three locations along the project as specified in
Section VII. E. of this document.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION ......................... 1
II ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES OR
. GOVERNMENTS .................................................................................. . 2
A. Permits Required ......................................................................... . 2
B. Floodway Modifications .............................................................. . 3
C. Sidewalks .................................................................................... . 4
4
D. Greenways .................................................................................. ..
III. NEED FOR ACTION ............................................................................ .. 4
IV. CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................... 5
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.. 6
A. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers .................................................. .. 6
B. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................... .. 8
C. N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural

y Resources - Division of Water Quality 8
D. N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources - Division of Coastal Management ............................. . 9
' E. N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources - Division of Environmental Health ............................ 10
F. N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission ........................................ . 11
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.......... . 11
VII. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............... . 13
A. Cost Estimate ............................................................................ .. 13
B. Proposed Intersection Treatments .............................................. .. 14
C. Proposed Improvements Along Intersecting Roads .................... ... 15
D. Sidewalks .................................................................................. ... 16
E. Traffic Noise Abatement ........................................................... .... 16
F. Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................... ... 17
G. Wetland Findings ...................................................................... .... 23
H. Surface Water and Water Quality 23
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................... .... 24
Wilmington
SR 1209 (Independence Boulevard) Extension
From US 76 (Oleander Drive)
to just north of Randall Parkway
New Hanover County
State Project No. 9.8039075
TIP No. U-3116
DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
construct a multilane facility on new location from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to just north of
Randall Parkway, a distance of 1.1 kilometers (0.7 mile) in Wilmington (see Figures la
and lb for maps showing the project location). The recommended cross section is a four-
lane median-divided curb and gutter section. This cross section provides a 21.6-meter
(72-foot) roadway with a 3.6-meter (12-foot) inside travel lane in each direction, a 4.2-
meter (14-foot) outside travel lane in each direction to accommodate "share the road"
bicycle traffic, and a 4.8-meter (16-foot) raised median. A 3-meter (10-foot) berm will be
constructed behind the curb. Noise abatement walls will be constructed on the outer edge
of the berm in locations specified in Section VII. E. of this document. The proposed 27.6-
meter (92-foot) cross section will require a right of way width varying from 35 meters
(115 feet) to 40 meters (130 feet). Temporary construction easements will be necessary in
some areas. See Figure 2 for a sketch of the recommended cross section.
The Independence Boulevard Extension will increase mobility in the area by
providing a direct thoroughfare linking Oleander Drive, Wrightsville Avenue, and Randall
Parkway. The project implements a portion of the Greater Wilmington Urban Area
Transportation Plan and will function as a major arterial to improve access to the northern
portion of the city. The facility will provide greater traffic carrying capacity through the
area and relieve accident potential by decreasing traffic volumes and congestion on
intersecting streets.
The project is included in the 1998-2004 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition and construction for the project
are scheduled to begin in 1998 and 1999, respectively. The TIP includes a total funding of
$8,350,000 including $4,200,000 for right of way acquisition, $3,650,000 for
construction, and $500,000 for prior funding. Total estimated cost for the proposed
Independence Boulevard Extension is $10,704,300 including $6,500,000 for right of way,
$3,775,000 for construction and $429,300 for noise abatement walls.
II. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES OR GOVERNMENTS
A. Permits Required
Encroachment into jurisdictional surface waters of Burnt Mill Creek as a result of
project construction is unavoidable. The project is located in New Hanover County and is
under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). CAMA is
administered by the Division of Coastal Management (DCM), which is the lead permitting
agency for projects within its jurisdiction.
CAMA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to identify and designate
Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) in which uncontrolled development might cause
irreversible damage to property, public health, and the natural environment. CAMA
necessitates a permit if the project meets all of the following conditions:
• it is located in one of the 20 counties covered by CAMA;
• it is in or affects an AEC designated by CRC;
• it is considered "development" under the terms of the Act, and;
• it does not qualify for an exemption identified by the Act or by CRC.
This project will require a CAMA major development permit because impacts to
AEC's are likely. The CAMA major development permit application form serves as an
application for three other state permits and for permits from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) required by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. The state permits include:
1. permit to excavate and/or fill;
2. easements in lands covered by water, and;
3. 401 Water Quality Certification.
AEC Information:
Estuarine waters are an AEC which CAMA defines as all the waters of the Atlantic
Ocean within the boundary of North Carolina and all the waters of the bays, sounds, rivers
and tributaries there to seaward of the dividing line between coastal fishing waters and
inland fishing waters. This definition of estuarine waters was also set forth in an
agreement adopted by the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) and the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
A public trust AEC includes all waters and submerged lands in the coastal region
where the public has rights of use/or ownership, including rights of navigation and
recreation. This AEC also covers all lands underneath these waterways and the minerals
and biological resources that these submerged lands contain.
2
A Coastal Wetland AEC is defined as any marsh subject to occasional flooding by
tides (including wind tides). Tidal waters may reach the marsh by either natural or
artificial watercourses. Coastal Wetland AEC's, by definition, must contain certain plant
species listed in the CAMA regulations.
An Estuarine Shoreline AEC includes all shorelines within 23 meters (75 feet)
landward of the mean high water level, or normal water level, of estuarine waters that
have been designated an AEC.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a General Nationwide
Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a) 14 will likely be required from the Corps of Engineers (COE) for
the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." Final permit
requirements for the project will be determined by the Corps of Engineers.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge into waters of the United States. A Section 401 water quality certification will
be required from the N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources -
Division of Water Quality prior to the issuance of the federal Section 404 permit.
B. Fooodway Modifications
The proposed project crosses Burnt Mill Creek just south of Randall Parkway.
Burnt Mill Creek is included in the New Hanover County and City of Wilmington Flood
Insurance Study. The proposed crossing of Burnt Mill Creek is located in a flood hazard
zone and is included in a detailed flood study, having an established 100-year floodplain
and floodway with corresponding water surface elevations. The recommended structure
for this stream crossing is a double barrel 2.7-meter (9-foot) by 3.4-meter (11-foot)
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). Construction of the proposed culvert at this
crossing and the corresponding encroachment of the established floodway will require a
floodway modification. The backwater from the culvert will not have a significant adverse
impact on the upstream floodplain and adjacent properties. The NCDOT Hydraulics
Design Unit will coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
and local authorities as necessary regarding application and approval for floodway
revisions that may be necessary.
The existing floodplain is in a developed area, and consists mostly of cleared lawns
with some shrubs and brush along the stream banks. A field review conducted by
NCDOT staff failed to locate any buildings in the vicinity of the proposed stream crossing
having floor elevations below the 100-year flood level. The proposed roadway and
culvert will not have a significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and will not
significantly increase the existing flood hazard.
C. Sidewalks
The City of Wilmington has expressed an interest in providing sidewalks as part of
the project; however, the locations have not been specified by the city. The standard for
Wilmington is to install sidewalks on both sides of new location facilities like the proposed
extension of Independence Boulevard; however, adjustments to the standard have been
considered in exceptional cases. Details concerning potential locations and
constructability of sidewalks will be coordinated further with the City of Wilmington as
part of a municipal agreement. If sidewalks are constructed as part of the project, the
NCDOT will participate in 60 percent of the sidewalk cost (up to a maximum of 2% of the
project construction cost) and the City of Wilmington will be responsible for the remaining.
40 percent as outlined in the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy Guidelines.
D. Greenways
The Thoroughfare Plan for the Wilmington Urban Area identifies a proposed
greenway that crosses the proposed Independence Boulevard Extension at Burnt Mill
Creek. In accordance with NCDOT's guidelines concerning public greenways
accommodations across state lands, the City of Wilmington must justify the transportation
importance of the greenway as well as guarantee construction and connection to other
greenway segments before the state will consider funding a greenway crossing as an
incidental part of the project. The city must also accept maintenance responsibilities for
the greenway after construction.
The NCDOT contacted the City of Wilmington planning department concerning
potential greenway accommodations at Burnt Mill Creek. The planning department
indicated local residents have not been supportive of a greenway in this location.
Accordingly, the city does not request greenway accommodations as part of the proposed
project.
III. NEED FOR ACTION
Wilmington has a population of over 64,000 people and is a popular destination
for tourists and retirees. The completion of I-40 in the early 1990's has led to increased
traffic demand on Wilmington's already strained transportation system. The interstate
joins NC 132 (College Road) on the north side of the city, and most travelers destined for
the downtown area or the beaches in southern New Hanover and Brunswick Counties
must use the existing Wilmington street system, which includes numerous minor
thoroughfares and residential streets.
The Independence Boulevard Corridor has been identified in previous city plans as
an important part of Wilmington's transportation system. Independence Boulevard
currently extends from Carolina Beach Road to Oleander Drive. To continue northward
to Market Street, one must make several ninety degree turns and use existing two-lane
roads. The opening of Randall Parkway and the installation of a signal at Market Street
4
and Covil Avenue have dramatically increased traffic on Forest Hills Drive, Mercer
Avenue, and Covil Avenue between Oleander Drive and Market Street.
The proposed extension of Independence Boulevard will continue north from
Oleander Drive to join Covil Avenue north of Randall Parkway. It will cross two major
thoroughfares, Wrightsville Avenue and Randall Parkway, and connect with Market Street
via Covil Avenue. The Thoroughfare Plan for the Greater Wilmington Urban Area calls
for the eventual extension of Independence Boulevard/Covil Avenue from Market Street
to Smith Creek Parkway. This will provide an important north-south link in Wilmington's
future transportation system, with access to eight existing or proposed major
thoroughfares.
The proposed project will provide a multilane thoroughfare linking Oleander
Drive, Wrightsville Avenue, and Randall Parkway and implement a portion of the
Thorougfare Plan for the Greater Wilmington Urban Area. Independence Boulevard
Extension will function as a major thoroughfare and improve mobility in the central
portion of the city. This facility will provide greater traffic capacity and reduce the
accident potential by decreasing traffic volumes and congestion on intersecting streets.
IV. CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The State Environmental Assessment was circulated among the following federal,
state, and local agencies. Written comments were received from agencies noted with an
asterisk (*).
* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* N. C. State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Marine Fisheries
Cape Fear Council of Governments
New Hanover County Commissioner
New Hanover County Planning Department
* City of Wilmington
The comments and issues presented in these letters included in the Appendix have
been addressed in this document.
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Comment:
"...the project (will) cross Burnt Mill Creek, a detail study stream with 100-year
flood elevations determined and a floodway defined. We suggest coordination with the
City for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and any changes, if required, to their
flood insurance map and report."
Response:
As stated on page 36 of the State Environmental Assessment for this project,
proposed culvert construction at the crossing of Burnt Mill Creek will likely require a
floodway modification. If it is determined during final design that encroachment into the
floodway cannot be avoided, the Hydraulics Design Unit will provide a conditional letter
of floodplain map revision to the City of Wilmington. NCDOT will also coordinate with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as necessary regarding application
and approval for floodway revision.
Comment:
"According to information provided in the EA, the proposed extension of SR 1209
(Independence Boulevard) from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to Randall Parkway will require
the installation of a two-barrel 9-foot by 11-foot reinforced concrete box culvert at Burnt
Mill Creek... Although we concur that the proposed work may qualify for nationwide
permit (NWP) authorization, it is incumbent upon the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to avoid and minimize all impacts to waters and wetlands. Final
determination of Department of the Army permit requirements will be made after final
design has been completed."
Response:
NCDOT believes that crossing Burnt Mill Creek, which flows in an east-west
direction, is unavoidable. The NCDOT has evaluated a bridging versus culvert option for
the Burnt Mill Creek crossing. From a hydrological and cost standpoint, a box culvert is
the most practical concept. NCDOT acknowledges that culverted crossings generally
result in larger immediate perturbations to the aquatic environment than a typical bridging
concept. However, NCDOT has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to implement
culverted crossings that are hospitable to aquatic biota. Final decisions on culvert design
will be made during the design interval, when definitive substrate and structural
considerations will be evaluated. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be applied in
the planning, design, and construction of the project to reduce adverse surface water and
6
water quality impacts. Final permit requirements will be determined by the Corps of
Engineers after design has been completed.
Comment:
"We ... encourage the use of shoulder sections in the vicinity of Burnt Mill Creek to
avoid or minimize the point source discharge of stormwater into Burnt Mill Creek. In
addition, we strongly recommend that NCDOT restore Burnt Mill Creek at Mercer
Avenue to original grade and elevations when the existing crossing is removed."
Response:
The proposed Independence Boulevard Extension traverses a highly developed
corridor in the central section of Wilmington. Due to right of way constraints on the
northbound and southbound approaches to Burnt Mill Creek, curb and gutter treatment is
the most effective way to reduce the right of way width needed for construction. The
proposed project is urban in nature, with noise abatement walls recommended and the
potential for sidewalk construction. For these reasons, NCDOT recommends constructing
curb and gutter through the entire project. Routing stormwater runoff through a grassed
swale to filter contaminants rather than discharging directly into Burnt Mill Creek will be
considered as further design is completed. If the swale does not require undue right of
way or damage to surrounding properties, it will be recommended.
NCDOT has proposed removing the existing box culvert that carries Burnt Mill
Creek underneath Mercer Avenue. As part of the culvert removal, Burnt Mill Creek will
be returned to the grade and elevation present before culvert removal.
Comment:
"The SEA states the backwater from the proposed culvert will not have a
significant adverse impact on the upstream floodplain and adjacent properties. It would be
helpful in our analysis of impacts if the projected increase in flood elevations for a given
storm event were provided in the document."
Response:
A floodway modification will be submitted by the NCDOT Hydraulics Design Unit
to the City of Wilmington and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
impacts to the floodway of Burnt Mill Creek as hydraulic design continues. Increases in
flood elevations for given storm events will be provided as part of the submittal to
determine approval of the modification. The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit indicates it is
common practice to coordinate with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the
floodway modification procedure.
7
B. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment:
"We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; and/or,
(3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the
identified action."
Response:
The SEA for this project identified ten federally-protected species in New Hanover
County. Since the SEA was completed, four species have been added to the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's list of federally-protected species and four others have been
removed. The findings for the six species remaining on the list from the SEA remain valid.
Descriptions and biological conclusions of "No Effect" were given for these species in the
SEA.
Descriptions and biological conclusions for the four species added to the list
(American alligator, manatee, rough-leaved loosestrife, and Cooley's meadow) are given
in Section VII. F. of this document. The proposed project is not expected to affect any of
the newly listed species.
C. N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources - Division of
Water Quality
Comment:
"DWQ requests that a computerized traffic signal system (TSM option) be
considered as part of the build alternative. This should allow for a higher level of service
and increase the length of life for this facility."
Response:
The City of Wilmington currently operates and maintains an urbanized closed loop
signal system. Independence Boulevard is one of the primary traffic arteries controlled by
this system. Future plans call for the Independence Boulevard Extension to be integrated
into the closed loop signal system.
8
Comment:
"...there was not enough discussion on treating the stormwater from the proposed
curb and gutter section."
Response:
The Hydraulics Unit of NCDOT does not recommend stormwater detention basins
for this project since Burnt Mill Creek is not an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) or
within 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) of a critical area. NCDOT will consider routing
stormwater through a grassed drainage swale to filter stormwater pollutants rather than
piping directly into Burnt Mill Creek as design continues.
Comment:
"Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow."
Response:
In general, NCDOT attempts to avoid locating borrow/waste areas in wetland
areas. No jurisdictional wetlands were located in the project study area; therefore,
location of borrow/waste areas for this project will not be in wetland areas.
D. N. C. Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources - Division of
Coastal Mana eg ment
Comment:
"...we have determined that the project is consistent with the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program, provided the following conditions are met:
1. A 401 Water Quality Certification, if required for the project, is received from the N.
C. Division of Water Quality.
2. A stormwater management plan for the project is approved by the N. C. Division of
Water Quality and effectively incorporated into the design and construction of the
project.
3. If required, a sedimentation and erosion control plan for the project is approved by the
Division of Land Resources.
9
4. The project is designed and constructed such that it is consistent with the Wilmington
and New Hanover County Land Use Plan Policies for bicycle transportation and
bikeways."
Response:
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state issue or deny
water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in
a discharge to waters of the United States. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification will
be required from the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division
of Water Quality for proposed construction activities in Burnt Mill Creek.
The stormwater management plan is currently being developed by the Hydraulics
Unit of the NCDOT. Details of the plan may be discussed with the Division of Water
Quality as part of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification process.
The NCDOT is not required to submit sedimentation and erosion control plans to
the Division of Land Resources. The N. C. Sediment Commission has delegated authority
for the N. C. Department of Transportation to develop its own sedimentation and erosion
control plans, but has not exempted the department from performance requirements.
The NCDOT Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation agrees with the
recommendation to provide 4.2-meter (14-foot) outside travel lanes to accommodate
"share the road" bicycle traffic. This will allow continuous bicycle travel from existing
Independence Boulevard to Covil Avenue, both open to bicycle travel. This conforms to
the Wilmington and New Hanover County land use plan policies for bicycle
transportation.
E. N C Deyartment of Environment Health and Natural Resources - Division of
Environmental Health
Comment:
"If existing water lines will be relocated during construction, plans for the water
line relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Plan Review Branch, Parker Lincoln Building, Raleigh, North Carolina,
[phone]."
Response:
All water line relocations caused by the project will be coordinated with the Public
Water Supply Section of the Division of Environmental Health.
10
F. N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment:
"We have previously recommended a shoulder section for his project because of
the water quality benefits associated with grassed shoulders. We are concerned that curb
and gutter will direct runoff from the road surface into Burnt Mill Creek with no
opportunity for pollutant removal. Storm water from road surfaces has been shown to
contain oils, antifreeze, deicing salts, and high levels of heavy metals. Therefore, we feel
that NCDOT should provide some means of treatment for roadway runoff before allowing
it to enter the stream."
Response:
NCDOT recommends providing a curb and gutter cross section to contain width
of right of way needed for construction and to maintain consistency with the
urban/suburban surroundings. Providing stormwater detention basins to filter pollutants
out of roadway runoff was considered, but found not to be warranted since Burnt Mill
Creek is neither an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) nor within 0.8 kilometer (0.5
mile) of a critical area. NCDOT will evaluate the feasibility of routing stormwater through
a grassed swale rather than discharging directly into Burnt Mill Creek as hydraulic design
continues. If a grassed swale can be provided without acquiring an unreasonable amount
of additional right of way or causing damage to surrounding properties, it will be
recommended.
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING
On July 10, 1997, a formal public hearing for the project was held at Roland-Grise
Middle School near the proposed project. The hearing was advertised in the local media
prior to its being held. Approximately 150 people attended the hearing including
representatives from New Hanover County, the City of Wilmington, and NCDOT.
Comments during and subsequent to the hearing focused on the following issues:
Comment:
Noise walls should be provided in locations specified in the State Environmental
Assessment as areas where the barriers could be used to reduce noise impacts on area
residents.
Response:
As described in Section VII. E. of this report, NCDOT has revised the
recommendation in the SEA not to provide noise abatement walls. It is now
recommended optimized concrete noise walls be constructed on the west side of the
project between Park Avenue and Wrightsville Avenue, on the west side of the project
11
between Malpass Avenue and Burnt Mill Creek, and on the east side of the project
between Malpass Avenue and Burnt Mill Creek.
Comment:
The proposed speed limit in the EA is 45 miles per hour. The speed limit on the
new facility should be lower than 45 mph.
Response:
The SEA indicated the speed limit on the proposed Independence Boulevard
Extension will "likely" be posted at 70 kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour) based on
the 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour) design speed. Determination of the actual
posted speed limit will be made after the preliminary field inspection for the project in
consultation with the Area and Division Traffic Engineers.
Comment:
If Malpass Avenue is left with access to the Independence Boulevard Extension as
currently proposed, it will become a "shortcut" for people trying to access Independence
Boulevard from Wrightsville Avenue. Malpass Avenue should be closed to preserve the
quiet character of Camden Park on the east side of the proposed extension.
Response:
It is recommended right turn in and right turn out access to Malpass Avenue be
maintained after the Independence Boulevard Extension is constructed. As the project is
currently proposed, Malpass Avenue is the only direct access to Camden Park from the
Independence Boulevard Extension, and will remain open to general traffic including
neighborhood residents, emergency vehicles, and service vehicles. The only other access
to Camden Park is via Wrightsville Avenue, Rosemont Avenue, and Farmers Street.
Comment:
A fire station is located on the north side of Park Avenue near St. Johns Episcopal
Church. Will they still retain access to Park Avenue and to Independence Boulevard
Extension?
Response:
The fire station located on Park Avenue will maintain access to Park Avenue, but
will not have direct access to the Independence Boulevard Extension.
12
Comment:
Will a bicycle lane be provided as part of the project?
Response:
A 4.2-meter (14-foot) outside travel lane will be provided in each direction so
bicycles may "share the road" with motor vehicles. A separate bicycle lane is not
warranted or feasible in this location.
Comment:
Will sidewalks be provided as part of the project?
Response:
A 3-meter (10-foot) berm will be constructed behind the curb where a sidewalk
can be constructed. The City of Wilmington has expressed an interest in constructing
sidewalks as part of the project; however, specific locations were not suggested. The
standard for Wilmington is to install sidewalks on both sides of new location facilities;
however, adjustments to the standard have been considered in exceptional cases. Details
concerning potential sidewalk locations and constructability will be coordinated further
with the City of Wilmington as part of a municipal agreement with NCDOT.
VII. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Cost Estimate
The total estimated cost for the proposed Independence Boulevard Extension
presented in the State Environmental Assessment was $10,785,000 including $4,285,000
for construction and $6,500,000 for right of way acquisition. The EA reported an
estimated cost to provide sidewalks on both sides of the proposed facility of $140,000
(not included in construction cost). The revised total projected cost for the project is as
follows:
Construction $ 3,775,000
Noise Abatement Walls $ 429,300
Right of Way $ 6,500,000
Total $10,704,300
Should the City of Wilmington and NCDOT reach an agreement concerning
sidewalk construction, the total project cost may increase. The previous cost estimate to
13
provide sidewalks on both sides of Independence Boulevard Extension ($140,000)
remains valid.
B. Proposed Intersection Treatments
The State Environmental Assessment identified five intersections on the proposed
Independence Boulevard Extension including US 76 (Oleander Drive), Park Avenue,
Wrightsville Avenue, Malpass Avenue, and Randall Parkway. All intersections are
recommended to be signalized except Malpass Avenue, which will be stop sign controlled.
The recommended lane treatments at the signalized intersections have been revised since
the EA was released as follows. The proposed intersection configurations maximize traffic
capacity within existing right of way constraints.
US 76 (Oleander Drive)
The State Environmental Assessment (SEA) recommended three through lanes, an
exclusive left turn lane, and an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound and westbound
approaches of Oleander Drive to Independence Boulevard Extension. Two through lanes,
dual exclusive left turn lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane were recommended on the
northbound and southbound approaches of Independence Boulevard Extension.
The revised lane configuration consists of two through lanes, a shared through and
right turn lane, and an exclusive left turn lane along the eastbound and westbound
approaches of Oleander Drive to Independence Boulevard Extension. The northbound
approach of Independence Boulevard consists of dual left turn lanes, one through lane,
and a shared through and right turn lane. The southbound approach consists of dual left
turn lanes, two through lanes, and a right turn lane. See Figure 3a for a sketch of the
recommended intersection configuration at Oleander Drive.
Park Avenue
The SEA recommended a shared through and right turn lane and dual exclusive
left turn lanes on the eastbound approach of Park Avenue to the Independence Boulevard
Extension. Proposed improvements to Park Avenue west of Independence Boulevard
have been revised since the public hearing. To accommodate the revisions to Park
Avenue, one of the exclusive left turn lanes recommended on the eastbound approach to
the intersection has been eliminated. The remainder of the intersection has not changed
and consists of a shared through and right turn lane and an exclusive left turn lane along
the westbound approach of Park Avenue. Two through lanes, an exclusive left turn lane,
and an exclusive right turn lane are proposed along the northbound and southbound
approaches of Independence Boulevard to Park Avenue. See Figure 3b for a sketch of
the recommended intersection configuration at Park Avenue.
14
Wrightsville Avenue
The SEA recommended two through lanes, dual exclusive left turn lanes, and an
exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound approach of Wrightsville Avenue to
Independence Boulevard Extension. Two through lanes, an exclusive left turn lane, and
an exclusive right turn lane were proposed on the westbound approach of Wrightsville
Avenue. Two through lanes, a shared through and right turn lane, and dual exclusive left
turn lanes were recommended on the on the northbound approach of Independence
Boulevard Extension to Wrightsville Avenue. Two through lanes, dual exclusive left turn
lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane were recommended on the southbound
Independence Boulevard Extension approach to the intersection.
The revised intersection configuration consists of dual exclusive left turn lanes, a
through lane and a right turn lane on the eastbound approach of Wrightsville Avenue to
Independence Boulevard Extension. One combined through and right turn lane and an
exclusive left turn lane are proposed on the westbound Wrightsville Avenue approach.
Two through lanes, a right turn lane, and a left turn lane are proposed on both the north
and southbound approaches of Independence Boulevard Extension to the intersection.
See Figure 3c for a sketch of the recommended intersection configuration at Wrightsville
Avenue.
C. Proposed Improvements Along Intersecting Roads
Section I.B.7. of the State Environmental Assessment described proposed
geometric improvements to Park Avenue, Wrightsville Avenue, Randall Parkway, Mercer
Avenue, and Covil Avenue to be implemented as part of the project. The descriptions of
proposed construction on Randall Parkway, Mercer Avenue, and Covil Avenue that
appeared in the SEA and on the public hearing map for the project remain valid.
Geometric improvements shown for Park Avenue and Wrightsville Avenue in the SEA
and on the public hearing map have changed as follows:
Park Avenue
The SEA indicated the section of Park Avenue between Independence Boulevard and
Forest Hills Drive will be relocated on new location to intersect Forest Hills Drive just
south of the existing intersection. This was presented at the public hearing for the project
on July 10, 1997.
Park Avenue is currently designed to function as a one way pair, but does not operate as
such. Two way traffic is allowed on each leg of the pair of roads that comprise Park
Avenue. Instead of relocating the northern leg of Park Avenue as recommended
previously, NCDOT now proposes to remove the northern leg completely between
Independence Boulevard and Forest Hills Drive. The southern leg of Park Avenue will
accommodate two-way traffic between Independence Boulevard Extension and Forest
Hills Drive. See Figure 4a for a sketch of proposed improvements to Park Avenue.
15
Wrightsville Avenue
The improvements to the existing "K" intersection of Wrightsville Avenue, Rosemont
Avenue, Wilshire Boulevard, and Caswell Street described in the SEA remain valid.
Although these improvements were not shown on the public hearing map for the project, a
recent administrative decision re-authorized the improvements described in the SEA. The
public hearing map is being revised to reflect this recommendation. See Figure 4b for a
sketch of improvements to the intersection.
D. Sidewalks
Any existing sidewalks that are disturbed by proposed construction activities will
be replaced by the NCDOT. The SEA included a letter from the City of Wilmington
indicating their interest in constructing sidewalks as an incidental part of the project. The
city further indicated the provision of noise walls as part of the project in no way
diminishes Wilmington's desire for sidewalks as part of the project (See letter from City of
Wilmington included in Appendix). The SEA estimated the approximate cost to provide
sidewalks on both sides of Independence Boulevard Extension; however, the city has not
clarified whether sidewalks are needed on one or both sides of the proposed road. The
SEA also indicated NCDOT will participate in sidewalk funding as specified in the
NCDOT Pedestrian Policy Guidelines. Details concerning the constructability and
location of sidewalks will be further coordinated with the City of Wilmington through a
municipal agreement with NCDOT.
E. Traffic Noise Abatement
As part of the State Environmental Assessment, an analysis of predicted noise level
increases resulting from the proposed Independence Boulevard Extension was conducted
to determine the number of receptors impacted by future traffic noise. The criteria for
traffic noise impacts are specified in Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations and are reviewed in the SEA. It has been estimated 48 receptors along the
project will be impacted according to Title 23 CFR Part 772. Accordingly, an
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts was considered.
A noise barrier evaluation was conducted for this project in two steps. First, a
qualitative barrier evaluation was performed for each impacted receptor which considered
each receptor's Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) activity category, source-receptor
relationships, impacted site densities, and the ability to have continuous barriers. The
qualitative evaluation resulted in three potential barrier locations. The second step of the
barrier evaluation modeled noise barriers at the candidate locations using the OPTIMA
noise barrier simulation model. Barriers were developed which meet minimum noise
reduction goals of 4 dBA or more and are economically feasible.
16
The first location considered was on the west side of the project between Park
Avenue and Wrightsville Avenue. An optimized concrete noise wall, approximately 555
meters (1,820 feet) long and 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) in height will benefit 14 receptors at a
total cost of $229,300 ($16,379 per benefitted receptor) at this location. The second
location considered is on the west side of the project between Malpass Avenue and Burnt
Mill Creek. An optimized concrete noise wall, approximately 240 meters (787 feet) long
and 3.5 meters (11.5 feet) high will benefit 14 receptors at a total cost of $99,100 ($7,080
per benefited receptor) at this location. The third barrier location considered is on the east
side of the project between Malpass Avenue and Burnt Mill Creek. An optimized
concrete noise wall, approximately 240 meters (787 feet) long and 3.5 meters (11.5 feet)
high will benefit 10 receptors at a total cost of $95,800 ($9,580 per benefited receptor).
The SEA recommended not providing barriers at any of the three locations, citing
the urban nature of the area and the need for businesses, churches, and other related
establishments to maintain visibility from the road. At the public hearing for the project,
overwhelming support for providing barriers at the three described locations was received
from the public, affected businesses, and officials of St. John's Episcopal Church. The
revised recommendation is to provide noise walls at these locations.
F. Threatened and Endangered Species
A protected species review was conducted for the project to update the State
Environmental Assessment. Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended.
As of May 2, 1997, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists ten
federally-protected species for New Hanover County (see Table 1). Four species,
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), manatee (Trichechus manatus), rough-
leaved loostrife (Lysimachia asperulefolia), and Cooley's meadow (Thalictrum cooleyi)
have been added to the list since the completion of the SEA. Descriptions and biological
conclusions of "No Effect" were given to the remaining six species in the SEA. These
conclusions remain valid. Descriptions and biological conclusions for American alligator,
manatee, rough-leaved loosestrife, and Cooley's meadow are given below.
17
TABLE 1
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR NEW HANOVER COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Acipenser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon E
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T (S/A)
Caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle T
Chardadrius melodus piping plover T
Chelonia mydas green sea turtle T
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Trichechus manatus manatee E
Amaranthus pumilus seabeach amaranth T
Lysimachia asperulefolia rough-leaved loosestrife E
Thalictrum cooleyi Cooley's meadow E**
Note:
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T (S/A)" denotes Threatened due to similarity of appearance (a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is
listed for its protection. This species in not biologically endangered or
threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Alligator mississippiensis (American Alligator) T (S/A)
Animal Order: Lorcata
Date listed: 5/2/97
Alligator mississippiensis range from 1.8 to 5.8 meters (6 to 19 feet) in length. It
is a reptile with a broad snout, a short neck, heavy body, and a laterally compressed tail.
Adults are blackish or dark grey, with faint yellowish crossbands sometimes evident.
Young alligators are dark with conspicuous yellow crossbands. This species is similar to
the Spectacled Caiman, but has a small, curved bony ridge in front of the eyes.
The American alligator inhabits fresh water swamps, marshes, abandoned rice
fields, ponds, lakes, and backwaters of large rivers. Although its range once extended
north in the coastal plain to the Dismal Swamp, the American alligator is now absent in the
area north of the Albemarle Sound and in much of the upper coastal plain.
18
In early summer, the female alligator builds a large mound of leaves, mud, and
debris about 60 centimeters high, 120 to 200 centimeters wide, and usually located in a
shaded area a few meters from the water. She deposits about 30 eggs in a vavity atop the
mound, remains nearby, and challenges all intruders, frequently including man. Hatchlings
about 21 centimeters long emerge in late summer or early fall. (Martof et al, 1980)
The American alligator is listed as Proposed Threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species that are listed for protection. This species is not
biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Trichechus manatus (West Indian manatee) E
Animal Family: Trichechidae
Date Listed: 3/11/67; 6/2/70
The historic range of the manatee included the Gulf Coast as far west as Texas and
the Atlantic Coast as far north as New Jersey, Delaware, and Virginia. Winter populations
are now limited to the southern half of the Florida peninsula. In summer, manatees have
been sighted as far north as North Carolina and west as far as the Florida panhandle.
Although manatees found in North Carolina are considered to be migratory, there is
evidence of overwintering by manatees in warm-water discharges from powerplants.
The manatee is a large gray or brown, barrel shaped, aquatic mammal. Adults
average 34 meters long and weigh approximately 500 kilograms. The hindlimbs are
absent and the forelimbs have been modified into flippers. The tail is flattened
horizontally. The wrinkled body is nearly hairless except for stiff "whiskers" on the
muzzle. In clear water, most of a manatee's body is visible; however, in murky waters
(like North Carolina) only a small part of the head and nose are visible.
Manatees are found in canals, sluggish rivers, estuarine habitats, salt water bays,
and as far off shore as 6 kilometers (3.7 miles). They are found in both freshwater and
marine habitats with a depth of 1.5 meters or more. In the winter, between October and
April, Florida manatees concentrate in areas with warm water. During other times of the
year, manatees occupy habitats with sufficient water depth, an adequate food supply, and
proximity to fresh water. Many scientists believe manatees require a source of freshwater
to drink.
Manatees are primarily herbivorous, feeding on any aquatic vegetation present, but
occasionally feed on fish. They spend 5 to 8 hours a day feeding and consume up to 11 %
of their body weight. The primary threats to the manatees existence are from destruction
of habitat and injury by boat collisions and flood control structures.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of freshwater and marine habitats with a depth of 1.5
meters or more are not present in the project area. In addition, a review of the North
19
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on September 15, 1997 indicated
no known occurrence of the manatee within the project area. Therefore, this project will
not affect this species.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) E
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: June 12, 1987
Flowers Present: June
The rough-leaved loostrife is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North
and South Carolina and is currently found in nine locations in North Carolina. It is
believed to be extirpated from South Carolina.
This perennial herb has slender stems that grow to a height of three to six
decimeters from a rhizome. The whorled leaves encircle the stem at intervals below the
showy yellow flowers, and usually occur in grouts of three or four. Flowers are borne in
terminal racemes of five petal flowers. Fruit is present from July through October.
This species occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and
pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet, peat, poorly
drained soil), on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils
overlaying sand. It has also been found on deep peat in the low shrub community of large
Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly drained depressions of unknown origins). The
areas where it occurs are fire maintained. The rough-leaved loosestrife is rarely associated
with hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands
and pond pine pocosins is not present in the project area. In addition, a review of the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database on September 15, 1997 indicated that
there is no known occurrence of the rough-leaved loosestrife within the project area.
Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
Thalictrum cooleyi (Cooley's meadowrue) E
Plant Family: Ranunculaceae
Federally Listed: February 7, 1989
Flowers Present: late June-July (best mid July)
Historical records indicate populations of Cooley's meadowrue occurred in the
southeastern coastal plain in North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Present populations
are limited to nine locations in North Carolina and one in Florida. Known North Carolina
populations are found in Columbus, Pender, and Onslow counties.
20
Cooley's meadowrue is a rhizomatous perennial plant with stems that grow to one
meter in length. Stems are usually erect in direct sunlight, but are lax and may lean on
other plants or trail along the ground in shady areas. Leaves are usually narrowly
lanceolate and unlobed, although two or three lobed leaves can be seen. The flowers lack
petals, but staminate ones have yellowish to white sepals and lavender filaments about 5 to
7 millimeters long. Pistallate flowers are smaller and have greenish sepals. Fruits are
narrowly ellipsoidal achenes, 5-6 millimeters long. Fruits mature from August to
September.
This plant is found in moist to wet bogs, savannas, and savanna-like openings. It is
dependent on some form of disturbance to maintain its habitat. All known populations are
on circumneutral, poorly drained, moderately permeable soils. It only grows well in areas
with full sunlight.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of moist to wet bogs, savannas, and savanna-like
openings is not present in the project area. In addition, a review of the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program database on September 15, 1997 indicated there is no known
occurrence of Cooley's meadowrue within the project area. Therefore, this project will
not affect Cooley's meadowrue.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are twenty-two Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for New Hanover
County (see Table 2). Twelve species have been added to the list of Federal Species of
Concern and four species, Carolina spleenwort (Asplenium heteroresiliens), Carolina
crawfish frog (Rama areolata), Greenfield rams-horn (Taphius soelneri), and white-wicky
(Kalmia cuneata) have been removed since the completion of the State Environmental
Assessment. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Federal Species of Concern are defined as those species which may be listed in the
future. These species were formerly candidate species, or species under consideration for
listing which there was insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed
as Endangered, Threatened, Significantly Rare, or Special Concern by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
21
TABLE 2: Federal Candidate Species for New Hanover County
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake No SR*
Myotis austroriparius Southeastern myotis Yes SC
Ophisaurus mumicus mimic glass lizard No SC
Passerina ciris ciris Eastern painted bunting No SR*
Pituphis melanoleucus Northern pine snake No Sc*
melanoleucus
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog No SC
Atrytone arogos arogos Aragos skipper No SR*
Planorbella magnifica magnificent rams-horn No E
Problema hulenta rare skipper No SR
Procambarus plumimanus Croatan crayfish Yes SR
Triodopsis soelneri Cape Fear threetooth Yes T
Amorpha georgiana var. savanna indigo-bush No T
con. fusa
Astragalus michauxii sandhills milkvetch No C
Carex chapmanii Chapman's sedge No W1
Dionia muscipula Venus flytrap Yes C-SC
Hypericum adpressum bog St. John's-wort No C**
Litsea aestivalis pondspice No C
Pieroglossaspis ecristata spiked medusa No C**
Sohdago verna spring-flowering goldenrod Yes E/PT*
Stylisma pickeringh var. Pickering's dawnflower No E
pickeringii
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel Yes C
Trichostema sp. I dune bluecurls No C
Note:
* Historic record- the species was last observed in the county more than 50
years ago.
* * Obscure record- the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the
forseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is
designated as a Threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act).
"P" denotes Proposed (a species proposed for official listing as endangered or
threatened, but has not yet completed the legally mandated fisting process).
22
"C" denotes Candidate (a species which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1
to 20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction. If these species are relocated in the state, or if present land use trends
continue, they are likely to be listed as Endangered or Threatened).
"SC" denotes Special Concern (a species of wild animal native or once-native to North
Carolina which is determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission to require
monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under the provisions
of this Article).
"SR" denotes Significantly Rare (a species which is very rare in North Carolina,
generally with 1 to 20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction. These species are generally more common
somewhere else in their ranges, occurring in North Carolina peripherally to their
main ranges, mostly in habitats which are unusual in North Carolina).
"W 1" denotes Watch Category 1 (rare, but relatively secure) includes reae species whose
status in North Carolina is relatively well known and which appear to be relatively
secure at this time.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit. A review of the
N. C. Natural Heritage Program database of the rare species and unique habitats on
September 15, 1997 revealed one Federal Species of Concern near the project study area.
Venus flytrap (Dionia muscipula) is located approximately 1.4 kilometers (0.9 mile) south
of the US 76 (Oleander Drive) terminus. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded
federal protection, however the project is not anticipated to impact this species.
G. Wetland Findings
Executive order 11990 requires appropriate documentation to show that there is
no practicable alternative to the proposed construction and the proposed action includes
all practicable measures to minimize harm to jurisdictional wetlands. Jurisdictional
wetlands, as defined by 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater 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. The project was surveyed on foot by an NCDOT biologist. No
jurisdictional wetlands were found; therefore, the NCDOT has determined constructing
the Independence Boulevard Extension will not impact any jurisdictional wetland.
H. Surface Water and Water Quality
The proposed project crosses one stream, Burnt Mill Creek, approximately 60
meters (200 feet) south of the proposed intersection of Independence Boulevard
Extension with Randall Parkway. The only rechannelization of Burnt Mill Creek expected
is the minimum amount necessary to install the proposed double-barrel 2.7 meter (9-foot)
23
by 3.4 meter (11-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) that will carry Burnt Mill
Creek underneath Independence Boulevard Extension. The creek channel is located in an
east-west direction and a crossing by the proposed road is unavoidable.
The NCDOT has incorporated within this project all practicable measures to
minimize adverse surface water and water quality impacts including:
Application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the planning, design,
and construction of the project to reduce adverse surface water and water
quality impacts.
Perpendicular stream crossing to reduce encroachment into the floodplain
and to minimize culvert length.
In addition, NCDOT will evaluate need for providing a grassed swale to filter
roadway runoff pollutants from stormwater entering Burnt Mill Creek during the final
design phase of the project. A swale will be installed if it is necessary and feasible.
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the State
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments received from federal, state, and local
agencies and the public, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation that this project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the human
or natural environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be
required.
BFY/plr
24
,?? - Ston«+ X113 1 I_?. •? ?.> _ ?
L'29' 3171.
,q 13 7 + )Jig 1103 '? '
113.1 311. d
221 77 1 \ i>'
?' ?F•• ?. a 172 u
31DS 1
1111 .f ' L e 1 171! 3U1 ? art ?•
u7
gr41°.d' d /
WRIGNTS10R0 AO Ak- Ile '
ror. 31+13 P
r\
' w,;onnew° TAU -- -
.11 ?T
toy. I /.
1 I Oode
G5 a Ctif /// COO- •' j. ' /
1 ING] GRANT . 2.111 /
IuwNCI
r 2.? At
L 3 r? A. ``wY :: INGE
Mee }1AS N
.cAll
A-i
WILMINGTON
74 1 1 I ' v 1?
a p \ Wri
TO wertevlue 17 IIJ .. ? ... .. f' .._ V rvilb?'
Y, 14
,•?711?' iN , ? •, ..% /,.WR HTSv'L°LEBEACM
INSET / ?/ ror. 7.
SEAGATE y j
Z? L SEE FIGURE 16 _ 10~7'.7 '
N Q i G l
IASO`:RORO I.VLET
,.?
N!'1t VAI?EY pi X111 ??+?? ??'
w lug. I
rOr. 7.e Lin
7 +? 1 ?
W FEAR
?.1
A 4: ql
l \ 'ICS e, ?? ° ,_
SILVER LAKE
7 ror. 7,e71
eArrNe O /
n o, rent OR vt
V f i0T O
.or. 2.lf7 d i
' 7 wO / 71712
NEW HANOVER
_ . , ,id" /
J CAST.
COUNTY' = a7
I 11UT? UK POF
I
1 I.
I llu
71
T :r NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Se° TRANSPORTATION
e..... DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
_ a PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
-TcH .r e+e BRANCH
J° ? I CAROUNA BE.
/ 1\ ?4 ASTAL SR 1209 (INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD) EXTENSION
FROM US 76 (OLEANDER DRIVE)
TO JUST NORTH OF RANDALL PARKWAY
WILMINGTON, NEW HANOVER COUNTY
J?AROUNA BEACH U-3116
' t ) / ,1 , r ry l i iioe. 2.00
miles FIGURE 1A
I ?•
r Qs O O,? '.'? ? m
• ?? •?? ? o- p q ? .? _ o w
Dry .a .v - - ! y tt
.u Q ? Z e•• 2 Y 7
z w a > V
0 v
Q• 4i _ y <
W x Z
,,,a y4o o ] w o
> _
O \ _ w O J _J W
o b '1 U z=_ o z z
w U.
o_
az
r ^ F e
I a +1 C : w
I- Z
a o o. vim' ?
_
ULJ Lj • ?? ?l V V4 e o O
L-U
. ?? Q G Q ?:: y o 0
a. 3 o
' d..? Ne a 0
Q 3 0.
' 0 d a
- o aya 4 v?H^
.r1 I ,•. m
4Q
v o o. z'
d o
t' M QT v b'a ? ?°.,y
'• p` o ? v '>,?S J S'a'o ? ? ? ? ! .?? ?o?
"IV t,
0 3B HSr tag. a r I ? f a obn a _ «. >_ ?• ?'' • o^
s
• ? u , ? •Q^?? O ,32Yrr-rg?1M? \L Z 1 oh'/
t ? O
^?ots F Fi, i d z ? ? ! 0 h ry,.. ? di
?•? s? r .v' ? ?? a,` --? •. •l. ,Inv. , 3 • ?
Z 4 sb o ZI??r .. /
c a Q } J ?w?dy ibvy 4 nr?h?rblMIM
9U{n• J Q
71
y
a,rn
A;17Hsd
y G ??
lNanB^ ' ? y4r+
N?3a3 `. S) y '
• ?'h j . ?_ ? '^'ba to
Z a - ? V r?
o
mod. ? b? oo- s r3
? Leo ?
vro?zb '71d01yd?1 Lt W ??aw? ,6
T
O J .? W ° .ad J V %n N.
O NJ.YM
g U Q .u u
/ LLI f- rY ; rt
W to
J 7 ??
a
Q 5 0
2EE-C Q 0 0 < . N- C
t ? Z J y? t
z
• OyCaa a ? ? ? a d ? ?: 4 • ?? y
N 'N/ a .?A? FIC a r' ,d
v?
P, AAIN6ER O (,UILFDR? - Z 0
? U W N S'TREC'r•
J } .
ao 3 M Ly"
D N N J a
? F= 3nV rroa ? ?
{? •F d }? N ? GHES ? v I
?1 N V'
1
N W Ni ? _ Q ?
N . U1 . Y TJ
O ; O N `
? ?• m 133 15 z 0 l-11nn Y ^,
• ? N
W h C N .. ..
a I •\ 3n12y0 3 Y d ?5537NIad
t 0 y W ( N \ - N! anitlc T 7:: 7 n- tea
A"
N N
m m m
`
CD
E m
m
0 Ew
o o
?
Cl) l
o

CD m
CD
E m
a ?
a v
LLJ
?
L n
CD Q
m
E 0 ?W
N
v

CD
m m W//?

N
rn
N
n
N
m

? C/ /
W .
? Q

ai m `
m E m
E m
"'

(D
CD
(Q
r
?"
" UQ
E E It
0
`0 m
I
L

W F-
cq
N ,-
N L 0 -

CD m
m m
0

.. W
?U
--
? Q W
m
E ,"
d'

m m m m
m m E?
E o o?
o v o
0

LL
F?Z
?4-

1),

b
0
q
v
U
U
b
C
U
U
b
C
I
M
U
H zQ
?
Q
O E-?

?
o U
Q

a-
Q
'3
r-
cis

lttdf?
O
Q
Cd
C?
?i
C?
Jd b b

O?
z~
o?

?U
F=
z
c
)
o
to U

.n
M
W
W
U
C3
-® a
- -v
a?
U
C
r 4
' 1 V?J
fP

C?
FC$
?i
PO=1

G-
F-7-7 -D
Q
5
w

'b
Cd
a?
0
a?
c
a?
-o
a
a?
o.
a?
v
c
r
I
I • I 1? I• \ •f -vV III ' , ? •?? `?I
?l
J I °
° c II
I ,
°
I ? I I a? ? ICI °
t ?e\.•.....r
1 >
C, Z
10 Ow
Y-.?.1 ? o
------------------ -

I I w i
C4 1 , , - eee
°
i
Independence Boulevard
SUPPLEMENTARY IMPROVEMENTS 1t I _ _I il?,?
ALONG PARK AVENUE I I f
I I ?, I - _ ?' ~ Figure 4A
° r
?' 1 I ? I II I? °
I
i w .?
i
?I I II I _ I
Wrightsville Avenue
Tf
I _ L- .• I I a\ ONE'
\ °
s _
JI,
• ji O o
I I
(lo/ o ° I -7 f 1
SUPPLEMENTARY IMPROVEMENTS ALONG I - °
WILSHIRE BOULEVARD/ROSEMONT AVENUE
?;\\ \\ \ C I 1,. f
l ? ?? ?- - Figure 4B
i ?
APPENDIX
y r, ?_? rr.J
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO October 29, 1996
OATrENnMOr
Special Studies and I r? F
Flood Plain Services Section
N4? 11996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch "L ptVtStG?• -'` ????
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201 `? FNVIRpNc:?
Raleiah. North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of August 30, 1996, requesting our comments on
the "State Environmental Assessment for Wilmington, SR 1209 (Independence
Boulevard) Extension, From US 76 (Oleander Drive) to just north of Randall Parkway,
New Hanover County, State Project No. 9.8039075, TIP No. U-3116" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199606160).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
CzShuf rd, A E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
October 29, 1996
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"State Environmental Assessment for Wilmington, SR 1209 (Independence Boulevard)
Extension, From US 76 (Oleander Drive) to just north of Randall Parkway, New Hanover
County, State Project No. 9.8039075; TIP No. U-3116" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No.
199606160)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis Special Studies and Flood Plain Services
Section, at [phone]
The project is located in the city of Wilmington, which is a participant in the National
Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panel 5 of the November 1987 Flocd Insurance
Rate Map and the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, the project would cross Burnt Mill
Creek, a detail study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway
defined. This crossing is noted on page 2 of the Environmental Assessment (EA). Enclosed
for your information is a copy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures
for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways." In addition,
we suggest coordination with the City for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and any
changes, if required, to their flood insurance map and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Scott McLendon, Wilmington Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
According to information provided in the EA, the proposed extension of SR 1209
(Independence Boulevard) from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to Randall Parkway will require the
installation of two-barrel 9-foot by 11-foot reinforced concrete box culvert at Burnt Mill Creek.
Fill in surface waters is expected to be 0.2 acres. Although we concur that the proposed work
may qualify for nationwide permit (NWP) authorization, it is incumbent upon the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to avoid and minimize all impacts to waters and
wetlands. When final design has been completed, you should contact Mr. McLendon for a
final determination of Department of the Army (DA) permit requirements for this project.
It was noted that the proposed improvements include a 4-lane curb and gutter section
with a raised median. We would encourage the use of shoulder sections in the vicinity of
Burnt Mill Creek to avoid or minimize the point source discharge of stormwater into Burnt Mill
Creek. In addition, we strongly recommend that NCDOT restore Burnt Mill Creek at Mercer
Avenue to original grade and elevations when the existing crossing is removed.
Finally, the EA states that "Construction of the culvert will require a floodway
modification. The backwater from the proposed culvert will not have a significant adverse
impact on the upstream floodplain and adjacent properties. It would be helpful in our analysis
of impacts if the projected increase in flood elevations for a given storm event were provided in
the document.
C?
Federal Emergency Management Agency
' - Region IV
O?yo o? 1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite I:"?
Atlanta, GA 30309
R-4
1/92
PROCEDURES FOR "NO-RISE" CERTIFICATION
FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN REGULATORY FLOODWAYS
Section 60.3 (d) (3). of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
regulations states that a community-shall "prohibit encroachments,
including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and
other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it
has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the
proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood
levels within the community during the occurrence of the base (100-
year) flood discharge."
Prior to issuing any building grading or development permits
involving activities in a regulatory floodway, the community must
obtain a certification stating the proposed development will not
impact the pre-project base flood elevations, floodway elevations,
or floodway data widths. The certification should be obtained from
the permittee and be signed and sealed by a professional engineer.
The engineering or "no-rise" certification must be supported by
technical data. The supporting technical data should be based upon
the standard step-backwater computer model utilized to develop the
100-year floodway shown on. the community's effective Flood
Insurance Rate Map or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) and
the results tabulated in the community's Flood Insurance Study
(FIS).
Although communities are required to review and approve the "no-
rise" submittals, they may request technical assistance and review
from the FEMA regional office. However, if this alternative is
chosen, the community must review the technical submittal package
and verify that all supporting data, listed in the following
paragraphs, are included in the package before forwarding to FEMA.
-2-
To support a "no-rise" certification for proposed developments
encroaching into the regulatory floodway, a community will require
that the following procedures be followed:
Currently Effective Model
1. Furnish a written request for the step-
backwater computer model for the specified
stream and community, identifying the limits
of the requested data. A fee will be assessed
for providing the data. Send data requests
to:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
1371 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 735
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
or to:
FIS Information Specialist
Dewberry & Davis
8401 Arlington Boulevard
Fairfax, Virginia 22031-4666
Duplicate Effective Model
2. Upon receipt of the step-backwater computer
model, the engineer should run the original
-step-backwater model-to duplicate the data in
the effective FIS.
Existing Conditions Model
3. Revise the original step-backwater model to
reflect site specific existing conditions by
adding new cross-sections (two or more) in the
vicinity of the proposed development, without
the proposed development in place. Floodway
limits should be manually set at the new
cross-section locations by measuring from the
effective FIRM or FBFM. The cumulative reach
lengths of the stream should also remain
unchanged. The results of these analyses will
indicate the 100-year floodway elevations for
revised existing conditions at the proposed
project site.
-3-
Proposed Conditions Model
4. Modify the revised existing conditions model
to reflect the proposed development at the new
cross-sections, while retaining the currently
adopted floodway widths. The overbank
roughness coefficients should remain the same
unless a reasonable explanation of how the
proposed development will impact Manning's "n"
values should be included with the supporting
data. The results of this floodway run will
indicate the 100-year floodway elevations for
proposed conditions at the project site.
These results must indicate NO impact on the
100-year flood elevations, floodway
elevations, or floodway widths shown in the
Duplicate'Effective Model or in the Existing
Conditions Model.
The original FIS model, the duplicate effective FIS model, the
revised existing conditions model, and the proposed conditions
model should all produce the same exact results.
The "no-rise" supporting data and 'a copy of the engineering
certification must be submitted to and reviewed by the appropriate
community official prior to issuing a permit:
The "no-rise" supporting data should include, but may not be
limited to:
a. Duplicate of the original FIS step-backwater model
printout or floppy disk.
b. Revised existing conditions step-backwater model.
C. Proposed conditions step-backwater model.
d. FIRM and topographic map, showing floodplain and
floodway, the additional cross-sections, the
site location with the proposed topographic
modification superimposed onto the maps, and a
photocopy of the effective FIRM or FBFM showing the
current regulatory floodway.
e. Documentation clearly stating analysis procedures.
All modifications made to the original FIS model to
represent revised existing conditions, as well as
u
-4-
those made to the revised existing conditions model
to represent proposed conditions, should be well
documented and submitted with all supporting data.
f. Copy of effective Floodway Data Table copied from
the FIS report.
g. Statement defining source of additional crosation.
section topographic data and supporting
h. Cross-section plots, of the added cross sections,
for revised existing and proposed conditions.
i. Certified planimetric (boundary survey) information
indicating the location of structures on the
property.
J. Copy of the microfiche, or other applicable source,
from which input for original FIS HEC-2 model was
taken.
k. Floppy disk with all input files.
1. Printout of output files from EDIT runs for all
three floodway models.
The engineering "no-rise" certification and supporting technical
data must stipulate NO impact on the 100-year flood elevations,
Floodway elevations, or floodway widths at the new cross-sections
and at all existing cross-sections anywhere in the model.
Therefore, the revised computer model should be run for a
sufficient distance (usually one mile, depending on hydraulic slope
of the stream) upstream and downstream of the development site to
insure proper "no-rise" certification.
Attached is a sample "no-rise" certification form that can be
completed by a egistered professional
technical data when applying
community along with the supporting technical
for a development permit.
ENGINEERING "NO-RISE" CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that I am duly qualified engineer licensed to
practice in the State of
It is to further certify that the attached technical data supports
the fact that proposed
will not impact
(Name of Development)
the 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations and
floodway widths on (Name of Stream)
at published sections in the Flood Insurance Study for
, dated
(Name of Community)
and will not impact
the 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations, and
floodway widths at unpublished cross-sections in the vicinity of
the proposed development.
(Date)
SEAL:
(Signature)
(Title)
(Address)
FEMA, NTHD
8/91
REC
WPP?MENT OF United States Department of the Interior 1 p
Z
y FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office ?V
Post Office Box 33726
"CM y `es Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 2?'9 OA.
October 18, 1996 ?1VTF+
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Thank you for your letter of August 30, 1996, requesting comments
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the State
Environmental Assessment (SEA), dated July 31, 1996, for the SR
1209 (Independence Boulevard) extension project, New Hanover
County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3116). This report is provided
in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543).
According to the SEA, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a multi-lane
facility on new location from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to just
north of Randall Parkway. The total length of the proposed
project would be 0.7 miles.
Alternatives Analysis
Section III of the SEA considers alternatives for the project.
We consider the analysis of alternatives to be adequate.
Wetlands
The SEA notes (p. 21) that most of the project passes through
maintained residential areas and states (p. 32) that there are no
jurisdictional wetlands located within the study area. However,
the proposed road would cross Burnt Mill Creek. A two-barrel box
culvert would be used at this crossing and sedimentation and
erosion control measures (Best Management Practices) would be
strictly enforced during project construction. Preliminary plans
indicate that surface water impacts would be minimal and
estimated impacts range from 0.02 to 0.05 acres. Based on data
in the SEA, the Service believes that the NCDOT has endeavored to
avoid and minimize wetland and surface water impacts associated
with this project.

Federally Protected Species
The SEA evaluates (pp. 21-27) potential project impacts to
species protected by the ESA. Based on the information supplied
by the NCDOT and the assumption that stringent water quality and
erosion control procedures will be employed during construction,
the Service concurs that this project is not likely to adversely
affect any Federally-listed endangered and threatened species,
their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently
proposed for Federal listing under the ESA, as amended.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA have
been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species
or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2)
this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review; and/or, (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
Summary
The Service believes that the SEA adequately describes the
purpose and need for the project, the alternatives considered,
and the environmental impacts of the project. Based on
information contained in the SEA, the Service would support a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
project. Please continue to advise us of the progress made in
the planning process, including your official determination of
the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard
Hall at (919)-856-4520 (ext. 27).
Sincerely,
Tom Augsspurger
Acting Supervisor
FWS/R4:HHall:10/18/96:WP:A:u3ll6.o96

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary December 17, 1996
Roger N. Schecter, Director
loom
?EHNR
? CEDE,
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
REFERENCE: SCH97-0218: TIP No. U-3116 EA Independence Boulevard Extension
(SR-1209), Wilmington
Dear Mr.Vick:
DEc , r
1996
The State of North Carolina has completed its review of the proposed extension of Independence Boulevard
in Wilmington. Based upon our review we have determined that the project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program, provided the following conditions are met:
1. A 401 Water Quality Certification, if required for the project, is received from the NC Division of
Environmental Management.
2. A stormwater management plan for the project is approved by the NC Division of Environmental
Management and effectively incorporated into the design and construction of the project.
3. If required, a sedimentation and erosion control plan for the project is approved by the NC Division of Land
Resources.
4. The project is designed and constructed such that it is consistent with the Wilmington/New Hanover County
Land Use Plan Policies for bicycle transportation and bikeways.
If you have any questions regarding our finding, please contact Steve Benton or Caroline Bellis, Division of
Coastal Management, at [phone]. Thank you for your consideration of the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program.
Sincerely,
er . Schecter
cc: Bob Stroud, Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington
Zoe' Bruner, Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington
Jim Gregson, Division of Environmental Management, Wilmington
Dan Sams, Division of Land Resources, Wilmington
Melba McGee, DEHNR -
Chrys Baggett, State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 27687, ??y? FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 N C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-2293 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N, Schecter, Director
1 • •
December 17, 1996 EDE H N F-R
CE jE,
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 7611-5201
REFERENCE: SCH97-0218: TIP No. U-3116 EA Independence Boulevard Extension
(SR-1209), Wilmington
Dear Mr.Vick:
r DE Z 1996
1' Dlvr?
The State of North Carolina has completed its review of the proposed extension of Independence Boulevard
in Wilmington. Based upon our review we have determined that the project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program, provided the following conditions are met:
1. A 401 Water Quality Certification, if required for the project, is received from the NC Division of
Environmental Management.
2. A stormwater management plan for the project is approved by the NC Division of Environmental
Management and effectively incorporated into the design and construction of the project.
3. If required, a sedimentation and erosion control plan for the project is approved by the NC Division of Land
Resources.
4. The project is designed and constructed such that it is consistent with the Wilmington/New Hanover County
Land Use Plan Policies for bicycle transportation and bikeways.
If you have any questions regarding our finding, please contact Steve Benton or Caroline Bellis, Division of
Coastal Madagement, at [phone]. T'nank you for your consideration of the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program.
Sincerely,
er . Schecter
cc: Bob Stroud, Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington
Zoe' Bruner, Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington
Jim Gregson, Division of Environmental Management, Wilmington
Dan Sams, Division of Land Resources, Wilmington
Melba McGee, DEHNR
Chrys Baggett, State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 27687, N%fl 14 FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-2293 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
epa
games B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Mr. Whit Webb
N.C. Department of Transportation
Program Developmeng Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Dear Mr. Webb:

North Carolina
Lent of Administration
November 12, 1996
o GT
NOV?? v?I
MANAGEMENT
PROJECT
NOV 1 4
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
e(!"

Re: SCH File #97-E-4220-0218; Environmental Assessment - Proposed Improvements
to Independence Blvd. from US 76 to Randall Parkway; TIP #U-3116
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 the Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources (DEHNR) in the course of this review. DEHNR has requested that its
concerns be adequately addressed prior to the'submittal of a FONSI document.
Therefore, pursuant to 1 NCAC 25 .0506(c) this office recommends that a supplemental
document addressing the concerns of DEHNR be submitted to the Clearinghouse for further
review and comment prior to the concurrence of the EA for this proposal.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
cbu?o /5.v?
Ms. Chrys Baac ett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Attachment -
cc: Region O
?? fc >-lu?;;;??e
() FILE WrTi -i ESTIMATES

NON 1 3 1996
Z pI??I?;Gv ;.
u
FN?1F.?„ . ?f
116 West Jones Street a Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00 oz?":
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer Vb`-
L)eparrmenT of tnvlronmenT,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
ti??-
G G HN F:;Z
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee'
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 97-0218 Independence Boulevard Extension, New Hanover County
DATE: November 6, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed
the proposed project.
There Iare several points that need further clarification, as noted in the
attached comments. The Department of Transportation is encouraged to directly
work with our commenting divisions so questions are satisfactorily resolved prior
to submitting the FONSI to the State Clearinghouse for review. Addressing these
issues, early on, will only help our regulatory divisions when subsequent permits
are reviewed.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If this office can be of further
assistance, please let me know.
attachments
R% F?JL.Y k ?.L/
NOV --- i 1996'

N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Iy FAX [phone]
P.O. Box 27687, 7? C
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 N An Equal opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
919-715-4148 7?T "_?? `50°b recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
J? ?rue ?? ? ??, v,,, ,?+
mentof Erivironment,
and.Nstukal Resources •
t Water.Qualtty
Ad"ft
Iu ht, Jir,', G o:ve m or
I Howes; ..Secretary E3 E .?
16wscd" Jr:, P.E., Director
November 5, 1996
4NDUM
To: Melb&;McGee
From: Eric Galamb&', -
Subject: '.'.EA for'.SR 109 independence Boulevard) Extension
Now Hanover County
Stata`:Project DOT Igo. 9.8039075, T1P # U-3116
EIjNR #. 97=0218
::.The subje'ct`document:has:been reviewed. by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(D.WO) is resporisible-for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
for.activities which Impact- of. waters of the state,including wetlands.. The document
-states that 0.02 'acres of. wetlands and waters will be impacted by this project. DWQ
offers the following'°comments•on the EA:
A) DW9 requests that a computerized traffic signal system (TSM option) be
considered as-part of the build alternative. This should allow for a higher LOS
and increase ..the length of life for this facility.
B) The-:document`states, !Since curb and gutter is proposed: storm water
intervention- methods: should be considered." DWQ remains concerned that
there 'was not 'enough discussion on treating the: stormweter from. the proposed
curb.. and:gutter section. The storm water issue should be discussed with Mr.
Bradley Bennett prior to the FONSI. Should DOT and Mr. Bennett not agree on
the method•of•treatment, DWQ will request an EIS for this project.
C) Borrowlwaste'.areas should avoid, wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
DWQ. p"rovldes conditional concurrence with the EA pending satisfactory agreement in
B.-abov4* 'DOT Is.teminded that endorsement of an EA by DWQ would not preclude
the denial. of 'a.401°Certification upon application if wetland and water Impacts have
not been .avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions' regarding they 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) In DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch,
indpnh.ea
cc: Scott McLendon, Wilmington COE
Steve..Benton, DCM
John Dorney .
Bradley Bennett
Enviromenta'Odances Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road
Telephone [phone]
M" CpparwWAMmw*vAd!"n En*M
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
TAX s 733-9959
Soxrecyd.dnG%PW =W+^"PW"
.l

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission it,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
. Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Ilighway Project Ctw-d tmtor
Habitat Conservation Program.
DATE: October 25, 1996
SUBJECT: ' North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for SR 1209 (independence Boulevard) extension, from US 76
(Oleander Drive) to just north of Randall Parkway in Wilmington, New Hanover
County, North Carolina. IIP No. U-3116, SCH Project No. 97-0218.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as
amended; 1 NCAC'. 25).
NC;DOT proposes to extend SR 1209 on new location from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to just
north of Randall Parkway. The roadway will be a four-laiie, curb and gutter section. Project
length is approximately 0.7 miles. Wetland and waters impacts are associated with the crossing
of Burnt Mill Creek and total approximately 0.02 acres.
The FA provides an adequate discussion of anticipated impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the project area. Due to the disturbed nature of the project area, we feel that impacts
to natural resources will be minimal. However, we remain concerned over potential impacts to
Burnt Mill Creek.
We have previously recommended a shoulder section for this project because of tiie water
quality benefits associated with grassed shoulders. We are cuncerned that curb and gutter will
1 ?

Memo
1)
october 25, 1996
direct runoff from the read surface into Burnt Mill Creek with no opportunity for pollutant
removal. Storm water from road surfaces and parking lots has been shorn to contain oils,
antifreeze, deicing, salts, and high levels of heavy metals. Therefore, we feel tliat NCDOT should
provide some means of treatment for roadway runoff before allowing it to enter the stream.
These mcnsures should he discussed prior to the FONSl. We will have an opportunity to
comment on the CAMA Dredge and Pill permit for this project and will likely recommend these
measures be included as conditions of the permit.
At this time, we will concur with the EA for this project. NCDOT should eontinuc efforts to
minimize impacts and should employ NCDOT Best Management Practices to protect off=site
resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. if we can be of any further
assistance please call me at [phone].
Slate of North Carolina
P ,partment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Reviewtiil, '
l M r?
Proje t Number: Due D
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS .(?; /R 1013
a Attar review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina law.
Ou]stions regaramq %nese permtao arrvutu uc .uuicaac. .v •••- ••-r•- •- - -- - -- -- - - - - -- - -
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Normal Process
Re,tonal Office. Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
Permit to construct a operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
1
! facilities, sewer system extensions. t sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
syelfms not discharging into state surface waters technical conference usual (90 daysl
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water andror Application 160 days before begin activity on-site inspection. 00.120 days
permit to operate and Construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
J disenarging Into state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply INIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit -whichever is later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Pre•scolication technical conference usually necessary
INIA)
7 days
Wait Construction Permit Complete soolicaticn must be received and permit issued
u
f
ll
(15 days)
a:ion o
a we
prior to the insu
i Application copy must be Serye0 on each adjacent riparian property SS days
Dredge ano Fill Permit owner On-silt msw--tion Pre•acalicauon conference usual Felting
may recuife Ease-e-1 to Fill from N C. Department of 190 daysl
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
faulities and/or Emission Sources as per 1SA NCAC 21H 060 , NIA (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520
Demolition or renovations 0! structures containing
astestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 20 0525 which reouires notification and removal N!A
prior to demolition Contact Asoestos Control Grou:
919.733.OE2C 190 dsys)
J Ccmpiex Source Permit recurred under 1SA NCAC 20 0600
The Sedimentation Pollution. Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for ally land disturbing activity An erosion l sammentati0
toabtol plan will be requited if one or more acres to be disturbed. Pun filed wits proper Regiona! Office (Land Duality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity A lee of S30 for the first acre and 220 00 for ear. additional sere or ¦n must accompany Inc ia- 130 davst
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinances O .C? CMG (30 days)
7
i
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EMNR. Bond amount
j Mining Permit varies with type mrrr and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 Oays
mined greater than one sere must be pertntfed The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be Issued
North Carolina Burning permit Om-sate inspection Cy N.C. Division Forest Resources If permit 1 day
exceeds a days INIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspectic? t;y N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
J counties in coastal N C with organic sods than five acres 0l ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
Should be re0ues:e2 at least ten days before actual burn Is planned."
90.120 days
J Oil Refining Facilities NIA (NIA)
If permit requirec. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hi•e N.C. Qualified engineer to: prepare plans 30 days
1
Dam Safety Permit Inspect construct ran. CMdy construction is according to EMNR soorov•
ad plans .May alas require permit under mosquito control program. Ana (60 days)
a Ida permit from Crops of Engineers. An Inspection of site is naees•
sary to verify Hata"J Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac-
company the application An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the t:tal project cost will be reouued upon completion
y_ Continued on tevetse
.. w File surety bond of $5.000 with EHNR running to State of N C. 10 days
Permit to dAll exploratory on .., gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator Shall, Upon (NIAI
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 fetter. No standard application form. (NIAI
Slate Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions 6 drawings of structured proof of ownership (NIAI
of npanan property.

401 Water OuWily Certification
NIA 60 days
(130 days,

CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
5250.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
415t, days)

CAMA Permit for MINOR development
550.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days,
Several geodetic monuments are located in of near the project area It any monuments Aeea to tic moved or destroyer. ple.se notify
N C Geodetic Survey. Box 27667, Raleigh, N.C 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if recurred. must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100
Notification of the proper regional office is requested of °orpnan" underground storage tanks (USTSi are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Slormwater Rulesi is requireiZ. 45 days

? Mooresville Regional office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville. NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Of lice
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington. NC 27889
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
(919) 8967007
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive. Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
X ?1Wilmington Regional Office
,127 Cardrnaf Drive Exfcnsion
ilmington, NC 28405
[phone]

REGIONAL OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodhn Place Suite 714 Wacnovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
(704) 2514;208 [phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
MEMORANDUM
I IF?
E5P_HNF;Z
TO: Melba McGee, NC Division of Policy and Development
FRONT: Steve Benton, NC Division of Coastal Management
SUBJECT: Review of SCH # 97-CZ/B DATE: /01.9196
A Copy of All Comments Received by the SCH -Reviewer Comments Attached
is Requested
Review Comments:
X This document is being reviewed for consistency with the NC Coastal Ivianagement Program pursuant to federal
law and/or NC Executive Order 15. Agency comments received by SCH are needed to develop the State's
consistency position.
Project Review Number (if different from above)
A Consistency position will be developed based on our review on or before i i
A Consistency Determination document _is, or _may be required for this project. Applicant should contact
Steve Benton or Caroline Bellis in Raleigh, phone # [phone], for information on the proper document
format and applicable state guide'.ines and local land use plan policies.
Proposal is in draft form. a consistency response is inappropriate. A Consistencv Determination should be included
in the final document.
A Consistency Determination document (pursuant to federal law and/or NC Executive Order 15) is not required.
A consistency response has already been issued.
Project No. Date issued
Proposal involves < 20 Acres or a structure < 60,000 Sq. Feet and no AEC's or T-and Use Plan problems.
Proposal is not in the Coastal Area and will have no significant impacts on any land or water use or
natural resource of the Coastal Area.
A C.AIvIA Permit _is, or _may be required for all or part of this project proposal. Applicant should contact
in , phone # , for information
_ A LAMA Permit _ has already been issued. or _ is currently being reviewed under separate circulation
Permit No. Date issued
Other (see attached).
State of North Carolina Consistency Position:
The proposal is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program provided that all conditions are adhered to
and that all state authorization and/or permit requirements are met prior to implementation of the project.
The proposal is inconsistent with the NC Coastal Management Program.
Other (see attached)
P.O. Box 27687, ??y+ FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 C An EGucl Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-2293 50% recycled/10% post-consumer pccer
V EPARTMLNT or, 1rNV 11?ON\lEN'1 , HLAl: Tl-1, Project Number
AND NATURAL RESOUP\CF%S (? _ ?ZI
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH "l
County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name*\N),%)nft Y1 ti Type of Project
r? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
?J improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award
of a .contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more inft.?,..iacion the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfisanitation progra
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem.
For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should
contact the Public Health Pest Management Sectior- at [phone].
?-? The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
?-? structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order co prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. The information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919)
733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq ).
For information concerning septic tank and ocher on-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at (919) 733-2S55.
r-? The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
L? facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, Parker Lincoln Building, Raleigh, North Carolina, (919) 733-
2460.
0'f _ SUSS S ?? L
Reviewer Section/Bra nch Date
nrlir-,r. JISR (Reviled r./93)
+ by}y
?Y V? 11f,1i
1739
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, PE
CITY of WILMINGTON
North Carolina
P.O. BOX 1810
28402
September 25, 1997
Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
GEIV
r -"
DIVISIOtJ OF
''L? ?!tGHWAYS?P?,
This letter is in response to a recent inquiry from the Department of Transportation
concerning the provision of sidewalks as part of the Independence Boulevard Extension
project (Project U-3116). The provision of soundwalls in no way diminishes the City's
desire for sidewalks as part of this project. The provision of sidewalks will enable safe
pedestrian movements to desirable destinations in the area and enhance the quality of life
for the City's residents.
We recognize the Department of Transportation's interest in this matter and
appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns. Please contact me or Bill Austin if we
may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
1' L(v1??C303Z?
Mary M. Gornto,
City Manager
cc: Garland Garrett, Secretary of Transportation
Odell Williamson, Board Member
Michael Mills, Board Member
City Council
y
r?- > 1991 z
tz1 L?' Q
pt?J;S;OP? OF ?AZ
z%? ti1C?t'?AYS Qom.
14
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWQ - Water Quality Section
V'Ii r° 1s_1
03-
Date:
MEMQEANQUM
TO. Env Sciences Branch (WC
O Trish MacPherson (end. sps)
O Kathy Herring (forest/ORW/1
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
O Matt Mathews (toxicology)
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
Wetlands (WQ Lab)
O John Dorney (Corps, 401)
WCyndi Bell (DO17
O,Eric Galamb
0 Eric Fleek
c;
DENR # q e _ V ygy-
DWQ# 1/2?o
ff-°" _Mi chen (Archdale 9th)
O Brent McDonald (Archdale 12th)
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
0 Winston -Salem
Plannint=_ Branch (Archdale 6th)
O Alan Clark (basinwide planning)
O Boyd DeVane (classifications & standards)
O Beth McGee (management planning)
O Steve Zoufaly (reclassifications)
O Ruth Swanek (modeling) (Archdale 9th)
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
0 Dave Goodrich (NPDES) O
0 Bradley Bennett (Stormwater) O
0 Tom Poe (Pretreatment) (Archdale 7th) O
FROM:
PROJECT:
IQ
r iE f
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts to the environment,
especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please check the appropriate
box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by the date indicated.
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly appreciated!
Notes:
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
misAcircmemo - mac version
Michelle Suverkrubbe, Regional / Program Management Coordination ranch
0
*" iIft
NC 8
From SR 2412
To I-85
Davidson County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-3531(3)
State Project No. 8.1600701
R-2300B
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
and
PROGRAMMATIC 4(f) EVALUATION
U. S. Department Of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department Of Transportation
Division Of Highways
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(c)
4
APPROVED:
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., anager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date N11-Cho . Graf, P. E.
FObivision Administrator, FHWA

NC 8
From SR 2412
To I-85
Davidson County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-3531(3)
State Project No. 8.1600701
R-2300B
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
and
PROGRAMMATIC 4(f) EVALUATION
Documentation prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch by:
CARpJ?.
SEAL `
19818
Mark L. Reo , FE.
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
A. Commitments Pending
1. The size of the pipe located 15 meters (49 feet) south of SR 1101 will be
investigated and addressed in the final design (refer to discussion in
Section IV.D.3.e of the Environmental Assessment (EA)).
2. Best Management Practices along with sedimentation and erosion control
measures will be enforced during project construction.
3. Any potential right of way involvement with the UST sites mentioned in
Section IV.D.3.c of the EA will be fully evaluated by NCDOT's
Geotechnical Unit prior to right of way acquisition.
4. In response to comments from the public hearing, the proposed alignment
has been shifted to acquire property from the historic Junior Order United
American Mechanics (J.O.U.A.M.) National Orphans Home. This
alignment revision has been determined to have no adverse effect on the
property. A Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation is included in this FONSI
(refer to discussion in Section VII.B and to the Programmatic 4(f) in
Appendix B).
B. Resolved Commitments from EA
1. Expressway gutter will be used in front of the Captain John Miller House
to reduce impacts to this architecturally significant structure.
2. Concurrence from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
is included in the Appendix of this document. The ACHP concurred with
FHWA determination of "no adverse effect" for the Captain John Miller
House and the J.O.U.A.M. National Orphans Home. Since the time of
concurrence, the alignment was revised in front of the J.O.U.A.M. home.
The Advisory Council has reviewed the revised alignment and concurs
with the "no adverse effect" determination (refer to October 28, 1997 letter
in Appendix B).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................. 1
II. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES ............................... 2
III. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................ 2
IV. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT........ 3
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT ................................................................................... 3
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND SUBSEQUENT
TO THE PUBLIC HEARING .............................................................. 15
VII. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 17
VIII. BASIS FOR THE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT............ 19
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Revised Alignment at the Historic American Children's Home
Property
APPENDIX
Appendix A Agency Correspondence
Appendix B Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation
Appendix C Relocation Report
NC 8
From SR 2412
To I-85
Davidson County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-3531(3)
State Project No. 8.1600701
R-2300B
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) , Division of
Highways, proposes to construct two-lane, three-lane, and five-lane improvements along
a 15.9-kilometer (9.9-mile) portion of NC 8 from SR 2412 (Rothrock Road), north of
High Rock Lake, to I-85 in Davidson County (see Figure I for project location). The
project is divided into three parts for funding and construction purposes. These parts are
described as follows and shown on Figure 1:
Part BA extends from SR 2412 (Rothrock Road) to SR 1115 (Wrenn Road). This
portion of the project consists of two typical sections:
Typical Section Roadway
Width
Location
Three-lane curb & gutter 12.Om (40')
Two-lane shoulder 7.2m (24')
- SR 2412 to north of SR 1349 (Wall Road)
- SR 1349 to SR 1115.
Part BB extends from SR 1115 to south of SR 1126 (Trantham Drive). This portion
contains three typical sections:
Typical Section Roadway Location
Width
Three-lane shoulder 10.8m (36') - SR 1115 to SR 2281 (Hunt Road)
- Southwood Elementary School to SR 2277
Two-lane shoulder 7.2m (24')
- SR 2281 (Hunt Road) to Southwood
Elementary School
Three-lane curb & gutter 12.Om (40')
- SR 2277 to south of SR 1126.
Part BC extends from SR 1126 to I-85. This portion contains one typical section:
Typical Section Roadway Location
Width
Five-lane curb & gutter 19.2m (64') - SR 1126 to I-85
The subject improvement is Part B of Project R-2300 which extends from NC 49
to SR 2212, located just north of I-85. R-2300 is included in the 1998-2004
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is estimated to cost $38,825,000 which
includes $16,000,000 for right of way acquisition, $14,350,000 for construction,
$7,450,000 for post year (after the year 2004) right of way and construction, and
$1,025,000 spent in previous years. The current estimated cost for R-2300B is
$31,400,000 which includes $15,400,000 for construction and $16,000,000 for right of
way acquisition. Part BC of the project is scheduled in the TIP for right of way
acquisition in fiscal year (FY) 1998 and construction in FY 2000. Part BB is scheduled
for right of way in FY 2000 and construction in FY 2002. Part BA is scheduled for right
of way in FY 2001 and construction in FY 2003.
II. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
A. Permits Required
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are anticipated. In
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
The proposed project will likely require a Nationwide Section 404 Permit from
the COE for impacts to wetlands and surface waters. In addition, this project will require
a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) prior to the issuance of a Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Final
decisions concerning applicable permits for the subject project rest with the COE.
III. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project is necessary to provide a safer travelway for motorists using
NC 8 by greatly improving visibility along the roadway. The proposed center turn along
most of the project area will reduce the potential for rear-end collisions and accidents
involving turning movements. The proposed cross section will also provide a safer
environment to accommodate the current and projected traffic volumes.
3
IV. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Copies of the Environmental Assessment were sent to the listed federal, state,
regional, and local agencies. An asterisk (*) denotes those agencies responding with
written comments. Substantive comments are discussed in the following section and
copies of the correspondence are included in Appendix A of this document.
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Region G Planning Agency
Davidson County Commissioners
Davidson County Schools
City of Lexington
The EA was also made available to the public for review and comment.
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Comment:
Segmentation of R-2300B from R-2300 does not allow cumulative impacts to be
fully evaluated. Additionally, some evaluation of the anticipated impacts on Part A
should be conducted to get a perspective of the cumulative impacts associated with the
entire project.
Response:
The subject project (Part B) has independent utility from Part A. Part B is the
most heavily traveled portion of the R-2300 corridor. Just south of the project limits, the
traffic volumes decrease by 55 percent. In addition, much of the project consists of
constructing safety improvements which will not result in the need to build Part A. For
these reasons, the project provides logical termini. The project limits are of sufficient
length to address environmental matters on a broad scope without precluding any
alternatives for Part A.
4
Comment:
The final document should provide the existing and future levels of service
predicted for free-flowing traffic along NC 8.
Response:
The current and future levels of service were computed for free-flowing traffic
along NC 8. These levels of service are shown in Table 1 and are discussed below.
Table 1
FREE-FLOWING LEVELS OF SERVICE
(veh/day)
Proposed Current
Segment Location Typical Section (1998)
Traffic
(LOS)
(veh/day)
Design Design
Current Year Year
(1998) 2( 018) (2018)
LOS Traffic LOS
Part BA North of SR 2412 3-lane curb and gutter 3,900 C 6,140 D
South of SR 1115 2-lane shoulder 6,200 C 9,780 D
Part BB North of SR 1115 3-lane shoulder 7,580 D 11,960 E
North of SR 2281 2-lane shoulder 10,120 E 16,000 E
South of SR 1126 3-lane curb and gutter 11,380 E 18,000 E
Part BC North of SR 1126 5-lane curb and gutter 18,040 E 28,560 C
South of I-85 5-lane curb and gutter 26,640 F 41,960 D
Along Part BA, from SR 2412 (Rothrock Road) to SR 1115 (Wrenn Road), the
existing roadway currently operates at LOS C. In the design year (2018), this portion of
NC 8 will reach LOS D with the proposed two-lane and three-lane improvements.
Along Part BB, from SR 1115 to south of SR 1126 (Trantham Drive), the current
levels of service range from LOS D to LOS E. By the design year, this portion of NC 8
will reach capacity (LOS E) with the proposed improvements. To operate at LOS D or
better, multilane improvements are needed. These would exceed the funding scope of the
project and are not recommended. The proposed three-lane cross section along most of
Part BB will not increase the capacity of the roadway, but it will enhance the traffic flow
by removing left turning vehicles from the travel lanes.
5
Along Part BC, from SR 1126 to I-85, the current levels of service range from
LOS E to LOS F. The design year levels of service will range from LOS B to LOS D
with the proposed five-lane improvements.
Comment:
The final document should more thoroughly describe the proposed alignment for
the recommended alternative.
Response:
The recommended alignment is shown in Table 2 and is described as follows
(refer to Figure 1 for locations):
Table 2
RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
Project
Segment Alignment Description

Part BA Symmetric Widening
Realignment
Symmetric Widening
Part BB Realignment
Symmetric Widening
Realignment
East Side Widening
Realignment
Part BC West Side Widening
Transition from West side
to East Side Widening
Location
- SR 2412 (Rothrock Road) to 0.5 km (0.3 mi) south
of Rosebriar Drive
- 0.5 km (0.3 mi) south of Rosebriar Drive to
Rosebriar Drive
- Rosebriar Drive to SR 1115 (Wrenn Road)
- SR 1115 to SR 2281 (Hunt Road)
- SR 2281 to 0.7 km (0.4 mi) north of SR 2281
- 0.7 km (0.4 mi) north of SR 2281 to 0.3 km (0.2 mi)
south of SR 1272 (Jersey Church Road)
- South of SR 1272 to SR 2279 (Pine Lodge Road)
- SR 2279 to SR 1126 (Trantham Drive)
- SR 1126 to south of NC 47
- South of NC 47 to north of NC 47
Transition from East Side to - North of NC 47 to Center Hill Baptist Church and
Symmetric Widening J.O.U.A.M Children's Home properties
Transition from Symmetric - Church and Children's Home properties to south of
to East Side to West Side SR 1268 (Bill Lohr Road)
Widening
Table 2 (Continued)
RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
Project
Segment
Alignment Description
Location
Part BC Transition from West Side
to East Side Widening
- South of SR 1268 to the Winston-Salem
Southbound Railway
Winston-Salem Southbound Railway to SR 2241
(Oakdale Street)
East Side Widening
Symmetric Widening - SR 2241 to I-85
Along Part BA, symmetric widening is proposed from SR 2412 (Rothrock Road)
to SR 1115 (Wrenn Road), except in one area south of Rosebriar Drive. A
0.5-kilometer (0.3-mile) portion of NC 8 just south of Rosebriar Drive is to be
realigned to the east to improve the roadway curvature.
Along Part BB, the proposed alignment consists of realigning some portions of
the existing roadway and widening symmetrically, to the east side, and to the west
side. From SR 1115 to SR 2281 (Hunt Road), NC 8 is to be realigned,
transitioning from the east side to the west side to improve the roadway curvature.
North of SR 2281, symmetric widening is proposed along a 0.7-kilometer
(0.4-mile) portion of the roadway. From north of SR 2281 to 0.3 kilometer
(0.2 mile) south of SR 1272 (Jersey Church Road), NC 8 is to be realigned along
the west side to improve the roadway curvature in the vicinity of Southwood
Elementary School. From south of SR 1272 to SR 2279 (Pine Lodge Road), east
side widening is proposed. From SR 2279 to SR 1126 (Trantham Drive), NC 8 is
to be realigned, transitioning from the east side to the west side to improve the
roadway curvature.
Along Part BC, the proposed alignment consists of widening to the west side, to
the east side, and symmetrically. West side widening is proposed from SR 1126
(Trantham Drive) to south of NC 47. From south of NC 47 to north of NC 47, the
alignment transitions from the west to the east side. North of NC 47, the proposed
alignment transitions from east side to symmetric widening between the Junior
Order United American Mechanics (J.O.U.A.M.) National Orphans Home
(American Children's Home) and Center Hill Baptist Church. From the
children's home and church properties to south of SR 1268 (Bill Lohr Road), the
alignment transitions from symmetric to east side to west side widening. From
south of SR 1268 to the Winston-Salem Southbound Railway, the alignment
transitions from west side to east side widening. East side widening is proposed
from the Winston-Salem Southbound Railway to SR 2241 (Oakdale Street), and
symmetric widening is proposed from SR 2241 to I-85.

Comment:
The discussion of the "do-nothing" alternative should have acknowledged that
fewer environmental impacts would result from not building the project.
Response:
This comment has been noted.
Comment:
The final document should clarify if the Corps of Engineers concurs with the
wetland delineations. The document should also include a discussion of the quality and
value of adjacent wetlands as well as any quantity of wetlands impacted by the
recommended alternative.
Response:
Wetland areas were identified through field surveys of the project area. During
the Section 404 permit application process, these wetlands will be delineated by NCDOT
staff and approved by the Corps of Engineers.
Site 1 is a forested above-the-headwaters wetland located just north of Rosebriar
Drive on the east side between the railroad tracks and NC 8. This site has a rating of 37
according to the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of
Water Quality Wetland Rating System. The dominant vegetation in this wetland includes
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sugar maple (Acer barbatum) and sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua). The project will impact as much as 0.2 hectare (0.4 acre) of
wetlands from this site.
Site 2 is a man-made pond and wet meadow located on the east side of the NC 8
approximately 1.3 kilometers (0.8 mile) north of SR 1110 (Gray Road). This site has a
wetland rating of 43 and has fair to good aquatic life habitat potential. The dominant
vegetation in this wetland includes black alder (Alnus serrulata), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), and red maple (Acer rubrum). The recommended alignment will impact
as much as 0.2 hectare (0.5 acre) of wetlands from this site.
Comment:
The final document should describe the type of structure to be used or extended at
the crossing of the unnamed tributary to Abbotts Creek. BMP's should be applied at this
location.
Response:
A 1.2-meter by 1.2-meter (4-foot by 4-foot) box culvert exists at the crossing with
the unnamed tributary to Abbotts Creek. Each end of the culvert has been extended with
a 1050-millimeter (42-inch) pipe. During the hydraulic design stage of the project, this
stream crossing will be studied in detail to determine if the structure should be extended
or replaced with the project. Best Management Practices and sedimentation and erosion
control measures will be enforced during construction to protect this tributary from
sedimentation.
Comment:
The EA indicated that no fish or macroinvertebrate organisms were observed in
the surface waters. What examinations or sampling methods were used?
Response:
A cursory examination was made to identify potential fish and macroinvertebrate
organisms in the surface waters.
Comment:
The EA (page 32) indicated that groundwater resources would be evaluated during
the final hydraulic design to protect against groundwater contamination. An indication of
potential groundwater contamination should have been included in the EA. The final
document should discuss this issue.
Response:
NCDOT does not routinely conduct groundwater testing along proposed projects.
However, the groundwater depths will be investigated during the final design stage of the
project to insure that the proposed construction improvements will not adversely affect
groundwater resources.
Comment:
Were additional modeling and design measures considered for potential air quality
problems at congested intersections?
Response:
Davidson County is in a maintenance area for ozone but is in an attainment area
for carbon monoxide. Intersections are not generally modeled in attainment areas for
carbon monoxide. Based on past project experience, violations of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are not expected. NCDOT routinely investigates
deficiencies in the transportation system. As traffic operations at intersections become
congested, appropriate lane improvements will be considered.
Comment:
No oil solutions should be used to control dust, especially near water resources.
Open burning must be consistent with state and local regulations and should be avoided
or minimized in an ozone maintenance area.
Response:
NCDOT does not use oil solutions to control dust. Any necessary open burning
will be performed in accordance with state and local regulations.
Comment:
Although most people may adapt to their noise environment, they should not have
to accept elevated noise (or other pollutant) levels since prolonged exposure could lead to
physiological or psychological changes.
Response:
The NCDOT is committed to providing all prudent noise mitigation measures for
its highway projects in accordance with Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (Part 772)
and the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy. No noise abatement measures were
determined feasible, reasonable, or cost effective for the project.
Comment:
The calculated ambient noise levels were within 1.2 to 2.7 dBA of the measured
values, exhibiting a large range of difference. Were the model data generally above or
below the measured values? Also, model calculations at congested intersections may not
be conservative, particularly if the model underpredicted the measured values. The final
document should clarify these issues.
Response:
The STAMINA 2.0 noise prediction model calculated values that were higher
than the field measured values. This model typically overpredicts noise levels when
compared to field measurements, and this trend has been verified by other state highway
agencies. As discussed on page 40 of the EA, differences in dBA levels are attributed to
"bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the
computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed. NCDOT's noise
analysis is generally not adjusted to compensate for the slight overprediction by the noise
10
model; therefore, it represents the "worst case" for environmental documentation
purposes. Future noise levels are not anticipated to be greater than those indicated in the
EA.
Comment:
Level of service C (LOS C) traffic volumes were used for predicting future noise
impacts.
Response:
As discussed in the EA, peak hour design and LOS C traffic volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the posted
speed limits. Future noise levels are not expected to be greater than the levels predicted
in the EA.
Comment:
The EPA considers all noise increases as impacts and that increases of 10 dBA or
more are significant impacts. EPA takes this position for all ambient noise levels since
an increase of 10 dBA represents a doubling of noise.
Response:
All noise level increases of +10 dBA or more were identified for receptors in the
vicinity of the project. However, NCDOT adheres to Title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations (Part 772) and the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy in determining
traffic noise impacts.
Comment:
Noise levels from construction equipment literature would be appropriate for
inclusion in the discussion of construction noise impacts. Including an estimate of the
duration of construction work would also help document the magnitude of these noise
impacts. Construction equipment should have noise attenuators such as mufflers and
insulated engine housings.
Response:
These comments regarding construction noise have been noted. Construction
noise impacts have been addressed in accordance with Title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations (Part 772).
Comment:
The Traffic Noise section of the EA should include the 123 impacted receptors
mentioned in the Summary and shown on Figure 6D.
Response:
The second sentence on Page 42 of the EA states "[t]here are 123 impacted
receptors in the project area."
Comment:
The final document should identify the final number of relocatees, residences, and
businesses that would be affected or impacted by traffic noise.
Response:
Based upon the latest design information, a total of 114 receptors, including 90
residences and 24 businesses, are anticipated to be impacted by traffic noise.
Comment:
Further consideration for noise abatement should be given for those receptors with
predicted noise levels that exceed 70 dBA. Such mitigation measures may include
planting vegetative screens, constructing vegetative earthen berms, installing central air in
low income areas, and relocating or buying impacted residences.
Response:
These noise mitigation measures were considered. The FHWA does not consider
vegetative screens to be effective noise abatement measures because these do not
substantially reduce noise levels for extended periods of time. Earth berms would require
a substantial amount of additional right of way and numerous openings for driveway
access and are not considered a prudent mitigation measure for the project. Noise
insulation may only be considered for public use or nonprofit institutional structures,
according to the USDOT's publication entitled Highwgy Traffic Noise - Analysis and
Abatement. In addition, this publication states that federal funds may not be used to
purchase a noise easement from a property owner to mitigate for a traffic noise impact.
Comment:
According to the EA, the project area provides suitable habitat for the federally-
protected Schweinitz's sunflower. Based upon a field survey, the EA concluded that the
project would have no effect on the plant species. The final document should indicate
12
when the field survey was conducted, how the plant could be identified, and if the Fish
and Wildlife Service concurs with the survey results.
Response:
Field surveys for the Schweinitz's sunflower were conducted during the
September/October blooming season, and no sunflower plants were found in the project
area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs with the determination from the EA
that the project will have no effect on Schweinitz's sunflower (refer to correspondence in
Appendix A).
Comment:
According to page 50 of the EA, two groundwater incidents, a superfund site, and
an associated landfill are in the vicinity of the project. It is assumed that the proposed
right of way does not encroach on these sites or that the sites will be remediated prior to
construction.
Response:
These hazardous waste sites were not mentioned the EA and are not found within
the vicinity of the project.
Comment:
The final document should discuss whether the SHPO concurs with the "no
effect" determination for the Miller-Everhart Farm that is eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Response:
The SHPO concurs with the "no effect" determination for the Miller-Everhart
Farm (refer to page 2 of the September 7, 1995 Concurrence Form for Assessment of
Effects in the Appendix of the EA).
Comment:
"...if additional archaeological finds are unearthed during ... construction, the
work at that site must stop until the SHPO approves its continuation."
Response:
The project will be completed in compliance with applicable state and federal
regulations regarding cultural resources.
13
Comment:
The final document should include state, county, and available census block group
data to compare with the percentage of minorities relocated by the project. Attention
should be given in areas where only asymmetrical widening was considered near minority
communities or groups.
Response:
The relocation report for the project was updated to reflect the latest design
information. The project will relocate 20 residences and 10 businesses (refer to
discussion in Section VII.D and to the relocation report in Appendix C). Of these, two
(10 percent) are minority residences and none are minority owned businesses. These are
below the state percentage of minorities (24.4%) and the county percentage (11.6
percent). The project is in compliance with the Executive Order on Environmental
Justice.
Comment:
"Similarly, low-income groups should also be considered in terms of
disproportionate impacts. The poverty level should be provided for Davidson County.
Would the two families in the less than $15,000 per year category (p.15) qualify as being
under the poverty level amount?"
Response:
According to Davidson County Social Services, the county has not established a
poverty income level. The county refers to the federal poverty guidelines developed by
the Department of Health and Human Services. As of May, 1997, the annual income at
the federal poverty level for an average household size of 3 people, typical for Davidson
County, is $13,330. Four families (20 percent) with low incomes (under $15,000) will be
relocated by the project. This percentage is lower than the state average (27 percent) and
the county average (25 percent). The project is in compliance with the Executive Order
on Environmental Justice.
Comment:
"This same kind of comparison should also be made for the numerous families
(and to a lesser extent businesses) that would be impacted/ affected by the above-
discussed highway noise, i.e., will noise impacts disproportionately affect minorities and
low-income populations relative to the state, county, and block group census
percentages?"
14
Response:
Only the potential relocatees were reviewed to determine racial and income status.
No attempt was made to identify the racial and income status for the families or
businesses anticipated to be impacted by traffic noise. Based on area demographics,
NCDOT and FHWA have no reason to believe the proportion of minority or low income
groups affected by noise would differ significantly from state and county percentages.
Comment:
The final document "should acknowledge the potential for induced development
impacts associated with the proposed widening. Environmental impacts associated with
development often include water quality degradation (erosion), air quality degradation,
wetland loss, habitat loss, etc."
Response:
Two-lane and three-lane improvements are proposed from SR 2412 (Rothrock
Road) to SR 1126 (Trantham Drive) to reduce the potential for accidents to occur along
the facility. These improvements will not increase the traffic carrying capacity along this
portion of NC 8, but the proposed three-lane section will improve the flow of traffic by
removing left turning vehicles from the travel lanes. These two and three-lane
improvements are essentially safety improvements which are not expected to lead to
induced development impacts.
A five-lane typical section is proposed along the densely developed portion of
NC 8 from SR 1126 to I-85. This area is primarily characterized by commercial and
industrial development. The remaining undeveloped land is limited to a few parcels near
NC 47.
B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment:
"We believe the requirements under Section 7 of the [Fish and Wildlife
Coordination] Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may
affect endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner not considered in this
review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected
by the action."
15
Response:
These comments regarding federally-protected species are noted. NCDOT will
insure that the project complies with Section 7 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality
Comment:
"The document does not adequately describe wetland avoidance measures. On
page 33, DOT states that minimization efforts will occur during the final design. These
measures include employing asymmetrical widening away from ponds and wetlands.
DWQ requests that asymmetrical widening investigations occur prior to the FONSI so
that these efforts can be included in the document."
Response:
A discussion of wetland avoidance and minimization measures is included in
Section VILE of this document.
D. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment:
"We feel the EA does a good job of describing impacts to wildlife and fisheries
resources. However, no actual discussion of wetland avoidance is included. We request
that NCDOT include a comprehensive discussion of wetland avoidance opportunities in
the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)."
Response:
A discussion of wetland avoidance and minimization measures is included in
Section VILE of this document.
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing was held on October 29, 1996 at the Southwood Elementary
School. Approximately 200 people attended the hearing with 12 representatives of
NCDOT present. Most comments made at the hearing were concerning how the project
would affect individual properties. Most of those questions were answered one on one by
NCDOT staff following the meeting. Some of the more substantive comments are
addressed as follows:
16
Comment:
Members of Center Hill Baptist Church requested the alignment to be changed
from east side to symmetric widening between the church and the historic American
Children's Home. This would be less damaging to the church property.
Response:
After the hearing, NCDOT representatives met with representatives from the
church and the children's home to discuss the proposed alignment between these
properties. Both the church and the children's home officials agreed that the roadway
should be widened symmetrically, and the recommended alignment was revised in this
area (refer also to Section VII.B for a discussion of the revised alignment).
Comment:
Several property owners commented that the runoff from the ditches along NC 8
near SR 1396 (Linwood Smith-Southmont Road) overflows onto adjacent properties.
Response:
Drainage issues in this area will be reviewed and addressed in detail during the
hydraulic design phase for Part BA of the project.
Comment:
Property owners near SR 1114 (Rockcrusher Road) asked for the alignment to be
shifted to the west, using more of the existing roadway and reducing damages to adjacent
properties.
Response:
After the hearing, the proposed alignment in this area was reviewed and revised
between SR 2284 (Feezor Road) and SR 2281 (Hunt Road). The revised alignment has
shifted by as much as 70 feet to more closely follow the existing roadway and minimize
damages to properties.
Comment:
Several property owners near SR 1124 (Smith Grove Church Road) requested that
the right of way be decreased near this intersection to reduce the damages to their
properties.
17
Response:
The proposed alignment in this area was reviewed and was shifted to the east to
more closely follow the existing road. The revised alignment reduces damages to a
lumber business and residence on the west side of NC 8.
VII. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Cross Sections
The three-lane shoulder section, presented in the EA, has changed in two
locations. Along Part BA, a two-lane, 7.2-meter (24-foot) shoulder section is currently
recommended from north of SR 1349 (Wall Road) to SR 2284 (Feezor Road). Left turn
lanes will be provided at the intersections with SR 1110 (Gray Road) and SR 2284.
Along Part BB, a two-lane shoulder section is also recommended from SR 2281 (Hunt
Road) to Southwood Elementary School.
B. Recommended Alignment
In response to comments that were made during the public hearing, the proposed
alignment has been revised in the following areas: (1) from SR 2284 (Feezor Road) to
SR 2281 (Hunt Road), (2) from south of SR 2277 to SR 1126 (Trantham Drive), and
(3) from NC 47 (Junior Order Home Road) to the Winston-Salem Southbound Railroad
(refer to discussion in Section VI).
Property owners near SR 1114 (Rockcrusher Road) asked for the alignment to be
shifted to the west to reduce property damages. After the hearing, the proposed
alignment in this area was reviewed and revised between SR 2284 (Feezor Road) and
SR 2281 (Hunt Road). The revised alignment has shifted by as much as 21 meters
(70 feet) to more closely follow the existing roadway and minimize damages to
properties.
Several property owners near SR 1124 (Smith Grove Church Road) requested that
the right of way be decreased near this intersection to reduce the damages to their
properties. The proposed alignment in this area was reviewed. From south of SR 2277 to
SR 1126 (Trantham Drive), the alignment was shifted by as much as 9 meters (30 feet) to
the east to more closely follow the existing road. The revised alignment reduces damages
to a lumber business and residence on the west side of NC 8.
Members of Center Hill Baptist Church requested the roadway to be widened
equally between the church and the historic children's home property. Representatives
from the church, the children's home, and NCDOT met to discuss the alignment and
agreed that the roadway should be widened symmetrically between these properties. In
coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office, this alignment shift has been
18
-ied to have no adverse effect on the children's home property (refer to the
.,currence Form for Assessment of Effects in Appendix B). Since the revised
alignment takes land from this historic property, a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
has been prepared (refer to the Programmatic 4(f) in Appendix B).
C. Cost Estimates
The current estimated cost for the project is $31,400,000 which includes
$15,400,000 for construction and $16,000,000 for right of way acquisition.
D. Relocation Impacts
The EA (page 14) stated that the project would relocate 17 residences and ten
businesses. However, the latest design information indicates that 20 residences and ten
businesses will be displaced by the project (refer to revised relocation report in
Appendix Q. Of these, two (10 percent) are minority residences and none are minority
owned businesses. These are below the state percentage of minorities (24.4%) and the
county percentage (11.6 percent). Four families (20 percent) with low incomes (under
$15,000) will be relocated by the project. This percentage is lower than the state average
(27 percent) and the county average (25 percent).
The project is in compliance with the Executive Order on Environmental Justice.
Adequate residential and commercial properties are anticipated to be available at the time
the residences and businesses must relocate. NCDOT will ensure that comparable
replacement housing has been offered or provided to each relocatee prior to displacement.
Last resort housing will be used, if necessary, for some of the displaced families who
cannot afford to relocate to comparable housing available in the area.
E. Wetland Findings
Executive Order 11990 requires appropriate documentation to show that there is
no practicable alternative to the proposed construction and that the proposed action
includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to 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.
All practicable steps have been taken both to avoid and minimize impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands. Two wetlands are located along the project (refer to Figure 1 for
locations). Site 1 is a forested above-the-headwaters wetland located just north of
Rosebriar Drive on the east side of NC 8. Site 2 is a pond and wet meadow located on
the east side of the NC 8 approximately 1.3 kilometers (0.8 mile) north of SR 1110 (Gray
Road).
19
To avoid Site 1, the alignment would need to be shifted to the west side by as
much as 15 meters (50 feet). According to preliminary design information, a westward
shift would substantially damage, if not relocate, a residential property that is across from
the wetland site. For this reason, avoiding Site 1 is not considered to be a practicable
alternative. Impacts to this wetland have been minimized by widening symmetrically
along the existing roadway, reducing the cross section width to two lanes, and using
2:1 slopes within the wetland limits. The recommended alignment will impact as much
as 0.2 hectare (0.4 acre) of wetlands from Site 1.
To avoid Site 2, the alignment would need to be shifted to the west side by
approximately 6 meters (20 feet). Shifting to the west in this area would relocate a
business that is across from the wetland site. For this reason, avoiding Site 2 is not
considered to be a practicable alternative. Impacts to this wetland have been minimized
by widening symmetrically along the existing roadway, reducing the cross section width
to two lanes, and using 2:1 slopes within the wetland limits. The recommended
alignment will impact as much as 0.2 hectare (0.5 acre) of wetlands from Site 2.
Based on the above considerations, there is no practicable alternative to the
proposed construction in wetlands, and the proposed action includes all practicable
measures to minimize harm to these resources. NCDOT's standard sedimentation and
erosion control measures and Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be strictly
enforced during construction to protect the wetlands and water resources from
sedimentation.
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based on a study of the proposed project, documented in the Environmental
Assessment, and on comments received from government agencies and the public, the
Federal Highway Administration and the N.C. Department of Transportation have
concluded the project action will not have a significant impact upon the human and
natural environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement or further
environmental analysis is not required.
MR/plr
FIGURES
- --- ----------------------- - -------?
1 \ ?
E9co2
r ;n
i? a\ Z tT1
1 ? ? ? Yrl IYE2 ,-, ? ?
? O suv? ?, v.E2 .\ d,l
1 L7 I
' llE w w N ? (1-
1 1 prG?-. 1 CD 1 x ?E
ouc.
c? n 1D zkz 8 ti? z.>z>z \V-
.Gj O ti O ? I?l cu: C? ?
D' G Q' G n• suz '?' a \ •?n• 9\
CD rD Ro ci Ro d ? r-{ Iz zilz ?-+? n0? •' loll ? ?y? wi[ •\
Enz '. ?.<' O O a0? zAIIII e•?F ,, i \
= (7• c? ?? COLE
" = -I 1
O O• ??. ?I u O E011
VI / " dDEI •1
\ O O zxz \ C / _ ?
G G w:z ?. E6:Z u?,nu7 - ? 1 1
Lsl?oulan `
, ? anz pp ? ? zon 1
(, Ems, 162 ? 1 J IE.cZ /" 1
ev'
zE' ?
? zc[z is c.r I?z EbZL _z LE' S ? ? wll 's
6d2? 1 ` t W I I .
V bf ? G;uZ 01 G1 Iz'<doz O ,,,ou-- ? 1
L?CLUdwal3`. 2° GIEI \
MsZZ _ S'a 1 LZ' _ SE IE ?W •
b[x?Z SE IE N
EE' ?• EI' vE' C
c?1 0l' w GIEI
?, SR 1349 (Wall Road)
,?? li ? LE IEIE
bb._Z G•.r•_Z L0.Z /
/
C e5v2 ? • ?? ? ml1
Va
ZUE? Ini'-Z ??
l`, t? ZVCZ 1 , ?`\
zwz 00
er.::z 'G• i I?.I o L• n
L 1 ? o6cZ Ey SF4:L ??
a?'z
? Rosebriar Drive
V(E1
X100 .
pa, - Vf j?U, , GrV
L?vz w ?' J'
S Y n bull
Eccz C. zyrzc c"'EZ uvz fz. O??l?
t so' z ' 0L
/ awz '
SR 1110 (Gray Road) -
/ / ?01 IE' Elil
" Ewz t" v9i
o Clue L + E
1 / borz LO _ _ 0' ?? zill
j/ ? ? LI z , Etrz ? su,z ? s _ s c, e ?
L a ? 9?
coot z= L IE 1111
6CVZ 'Ib9Z/ 1 ?Ly?2 `?
tt>2 O ??'1
i O tE_
ZI.Z ' '? OE IE CUZ ? ? yl _
N l N ?Na
ti 00
/--. uyq 0 ? I 1 ? 9tfl LI
a ? ? o
/' O E• LvEI
O• W `?? NZIE 'iUIE ?'
1 ELE2 `-? 1 `
E? N YbEi`
1L02 ? y 1 r` 41 Gi L4E1 E, '?`.•
I c ?? ? Eu A1
z,.z u1g w
I
( ? 11 ?' ILI
- , . SR 111 s (Wrenn
I ad)
\ ? A l
E?z 017
' ( ?' 8111 /6111
ELE2 ` y
O °? 1
/ ? fp' 17•f ? L bell
0?\ / / ? ? ? N O / 9 II'1
( C)j O
O r
zL21 '1
\ ?o• a a ?asra(1 Z?Z? S
,C ? ?Peo? I
O a 2 21 \
E[EZ Ol ? wog, u Ll?, oEl
i ms's l'?"?;,[ ?„ ? °.? a. < «?•
zs2z ? t EI' zE OZ / Ez ar 1LC1 ? Ras.e? .e1N I
,I 9t Z2 l L6E1 to E I \ .
? I
1 - 4 aoz >I 'l. l
Cli2 EE>Z \ fKAZ o / 1
F, -El
? I MNZ
1
9vv2 V 1? ,, / ? .
I ? 1 ? ?vvz ? of 1• ? I
1 -
-SR 1124 (Smith Grove Church Road) ODIE
i `Ir
?OET
'4J'tl`Y'3 s.M>afJ •-.? 9e>2? ?? - `^i 41 /
«z - \ Lo o SR 1126 (Trantham Drive)
\ \\ \ - .. L? E _ n 091E
-------- f,-- ---- - ---- \ \ _ ---- \ ---------------- -=°H-nrnor-- - _ -? - -
01
C 1 I 'V li Ivies ??? ? ? V ?s
I- I 47 .I I? \
y I
i
. 1
1 ?, ,, Ia o i Lexington
1 -
Ira is
77
I.O.U.A.M. p
`Children's Ia Al 4 I 1 ?, ti i
Home ? ?`. ? •?E,;
?e - 8
.1
W ' . I 1 Center Hill
s ' Baptist Church
i
N I? ,a PROJECT
la ? C? i 1 i ' Is ?
LIMITS
Part BC ' `, ?I I IN
1
-?•-? ? ? r-- ,, N ,? Part BC 8s ?,
a N
IW I?
I
I
. 'fu
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 8
From SR 2412 (Rothrock Road) to I-85
Davidson County
R-2300 B
0 1/2 1 (kilometer)
0 1/4 \ 1/2 3/4 (mile) FIGURE 1
1
o I qw ,
M:
III
mu- MI
e I n - -
TOR - M - lay -------------------------------------------
We l0i ]al ,' f- ?
e ca / v
76
` •-r__ 'r'ir°?:"a yyJ?-c ???-- / ? // -_'w?T_ + au?asss?i? „?,',v{^?$'??
r
04
I I .? _- ?- e ?? tpQ
• 1
3 t .? J
FIG
-------------------------
1 1\.
k
b ?
1` I ( '
a \\ CD
1
° 11 ???v? ? 1 II
-------- }se li v I I II
ga,
I?
4i,
II iP '
---------------
, 1 ?i Yr
- - - - - - - - - - - - _
of _ lit ?
i 4; + A
\ \ \ .? \ \ \?\ 7?' y) fit SCP + i'i,??p l/ -O / I r 1? \11 U ?'
\, I >, it
t I; ?? I, act :.?
{? I l:JSEi ?
(Die
00
1
Y It $
4
--------.---- -- -_
?Id
_-009 a-OOFi-6TH--avr- W9 .?.Y/ yy?`y 1?.- i - O a °
3MYr1 Will
I a- dtb SlC , ?? 1? I 0
NsA/d
drtl 51
S Y ssrtJ w
?, SIf P.LSK3
'lf) --
. 12x3 R 0 ?' 0
?- stlpl S
06
I `
e J1'' III"_ ""-- S
I - - - - - - - -
S Ei ? ' p p? ?
-.- -• T»i..T ? 1 tic II-I - ? ?. /l /
I ° • ? ?'? ?}? II wWc? ? CD p
® km` r
E:L
-??:I! II {? -----------
,
l
t l ?1? a II
I I ?1.1?" ?,I P, ? odd m
c1l
t 1" ? II , a I'?: t
11 11 0
? ? II; ?? 1 ?:Sbk •? U
1 '?U I_ U
} ' r ?If o ?' 0 ° 0 0? a _-
i
,
III ± +{{ '? {
t '
• ?' `_-!' ,? ?„'---i 0 { ? I; I ` ? . ?{ I C ? I Ott
I {ICE ;II •I ai
----
_ - _w `- - - - - - - -- - - - -, --
,u t I ??
Y a ? { V i
\ t i/ ?r I I/ R //
?\??? ?yM}a?/y_ ` t i1 t Ali 11
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
AGENCY COMMENTS
:*WD?')? DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLYM ATTENTION OF September 16, 1996
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of June 26, 1996, requesting our comments on
the "Federal Environmental Assessment for R-23006, NC 8, From SR 2412 to 1-85,
Davidson County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-3531(3), State Project No. 8.1600701"
(Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199602419).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure Xrvj- , - , V O
sip 19 1996
Z? p?VlS1C'?
September 16, 1996
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for R-230013, NC 8, From SR 2412 to 1-85,
Davidson County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-3531(3), State Project No. 8.1600701"
(Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199602419
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in Davidson County, which participates in the
Nationai Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panels 90 and 150 of the
May 1980 Davidson County Flood Insurance Rate Map, there is only one identified
flood hazard area close to the project. The southern terminus of the project appears to
be near the edge of the approximately mapped 100-year flood plain of High Rock Lake.
However, it is unlikely that the proposed improvements will adversely impact this flood
plain.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone], Extension 25
Review of the subject project indicates that the proposed work may involve the
discharge of fill material into tributaries of Abbotts Creek (High Rock Lake). All work
restricted to existing high ground areas will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, 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 within the crossing of the aforementioned waters
and wetlands. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the project, extent
of fill work within streams and wetland areas (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.),
construction methods, and other factors.
At this point in time, construction plans are not available for review. When final
plans are completed, including the extent and location of development within any
waters and wetlands, the applicant should contact Mr. Thomas for a final determination
of the Federal permit requirements.
J~\tED Si,?r?S
1 r
PROSf'Ct
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG'E?,;_-`
REGION 4
34S COURTLAND STREET, N.E
ATLANTA.. GEORGIA 30361z
August 8, 1996
4PM/FAB-cmh
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
?? G E I c `
O
AU6 1 2 1996;
DIVISION OF
\?? IGHWAYS
SUBJ: EPA REVIEW OF DRAFT EA FOR R-2300B; NC 8; FROM SR 2412 TO
I-85; DAVIDSON COUNTY; FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-3531(3);
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1600701; 9.9-MILE WIDENING PROJECT
Dear Mr. Vick:
Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the subject
draft Environmental Assessment (DEA). Overall, this DEA appeared
somewhat abbreviated compared to other North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) DEAs recently reviewed. Nevertheless, the
document provides information to educate the public regarding
general and project-specific environmental impacts and analysis
procedures. We appreciate such consistency with the public review
and disclosure aspects of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process. We also note that a Citizens Informational
Workshop was held on September 15, 1994, although no mention of
a pending public hearing was made.
NCDOT proposes three- and five-lane widening for given
sections of NC 8 from SR 2412 (Roth Rock Road), north of the High
Rock Lake Bridge, to I-85. The project corridor includes both
urban and rural sections and a land-use mix of residential,
commercial, industrial, agricultural and undeveloped areas. The
exact length of the improvement corridor is somewhat unclear since
page 1 indicates 9.9 miles and page 2 indicates 9.3 miles. A 9.9-
mile corridor will be assumed until the final EA (FEA).
EPA's primary project concern is the separation of NEPA
documentation of Project R-2300B (present DEA) from Project R-2300.
We also have concerns regarding potential air quality problems at
certain intersections, the proposed filling of wetlands (including
forested wetlands), and potential noise impacts to numerous
residences. We offer the following comments:
? NEPA - We note that Project R-2300 was apparently subdivided into
at least two parts: R-2300 and R-2300B. It is also unclear why
2
certain intersection improvements (NC 8 with SR 1254 and SR 2212)
will be considered under a separate TIP project (they were
considered beyond the scope of the DEA: pg. 10-11).
From a NEPA perspective, EPA does not agree with this approach
since the current DEA documentation only covers one part (R-2300B)
of the project. By combining project continuations and related
local projects rather than segmenting them, cumulative impacts
would be considered under NEPA. It is conceivable, for example,
that impacts of two segmented projects/phases could together
warrant an EIS rather than an EA for a given project. It is also
important for permitting purposes such as 404 permitting for
wetlands (an individual permit rather than a nationwide coverage
may be warranted). Even if documentation is separated as planned,
we believe that the impacts of the R-2300 and R-2300B (as well as
any other possible phases, should at a minimum be summarized in the
R-2300B FEA in order to gain a whole-project cumulative impact
perspective. Future projects of this nature should be combined
into one appropriate NEPA document.
It should be noted, on the other hand, that segmenting a proposed
project from a construction standpoint is acceptable and
understandable. However, the NEPA impact documentation for those
various construction sections should be under one document for
continuation sections and otherwise related sections constructed
by NCDOT that are internally approved and funded during similar
timeframes.
? Need - The need for the project
and safety benefits. Although the
by themselves, appear to be too
accident rates are generally lese
presented intersectional LOS value
unclear why the existing and desig
levels were apparently not provid
provide these levels).
involves expected traffic flow
ADT levels do not necessarily,
high (except near I-85) and
than the state averages, the
s are congested. (Note: It is
1 year free-flow (mainline) LOS
ad in the DEA; the FEA should
Page 12 states that "[t]he proposed project will improve the
overall safety and convenience of motorists." While the widening
of NC8 should improve safety, it may not always improve motorist
convenience. We note that projected LOS levels for the 2018 design
year for certain signalized intersections are predicted to still be
very congested (LOS F) since improvements were considered outside
the scope of the project. Improved travel through the proposed
widening may actually exacerbate the intersection problem since
more motorists would reach intersections earlier and begin their
queuing. While the magnitude and design of highway projects is
primarily a NCDOT decision, EPA is concerned about potential air
quality problems occurring at intersections functioning at a
congested LOS.
3
? Alternatives - The alternatives section (pg. 12) is more
abbreviated than in other NCDOT DEA proposals recently reviewed
by EPA for similar projects. Usually various symmetrical,
asymmetrical and combination widening options are presented as
alternatives. For NC8, however, only combination widening is
presented and recommended. The design of the recommended option is
apparently also not yet finalized since it was presented in general
terms: symmetrical where practical and asymmetrical at other sites
to minimize impacts, plus some relocation to improve the line of
sight. While we are pleased to note that wetland impact is one of
the areas to be minimized through asymmetrical widening, we believe
the design of the recommended alternative should have been more
complete (or more completely presented) at the DEA stage. The FEA
should further address.
The "do-nothing" or "no-build" alternative was also addressed.
This discussion should have acknowledged that this alternative
would, from an environmental perspective, cause less environmental
impacts since no construction would be involved. Some incremental
increases in areas such as noise and air quality could be expected.
? Wetlands - Wetland areas were delineated (apparently by NCDOT
staff or contractor) using the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) delineation manual. The FEA should also clarify if the COE
has concurred with the results of the wetland delineation.
Wetlands along the corridor appear to be an above-the-headwaters
forested wetland, a wet meadow and a man-made pond -- all
apparently associated with or near Abbotts Creek. Jurisdictional
wetland impacts are expected to total 1.15 acres (pg. 33). The
FEA should provided additional information regarding the quality
and value of these wetlands. Also, are they urban or in the
agricultural/undeveloped section of the corridor?
We note that aquatic and other impact acreages are based on a
100-ft wide right-of-way (ROW). Page 3 indicates that Section BB
will involve a 120-ft wide ROW. The FEA should account for any
potential additional impacted acreages due to this wider ROW. On
the other hand, we are pleased to note that while functional
designs show symmetrical widening in the area of the wetland site,
" [ i ] n the final design, efforts will be made to minimize if not
totally avoid direct impacts to this site by asymmetric widening to
the west side of NC 8." EPA would support such alignment shifts
to avoid wetlands and other important resources. It should be
emphasized that properly planned alignments avoid impacts and
the need for mitigation.
Given that some alignment shifts to avoid wetlands and other
resources are proposed, the FEA should document the final, if any,
amount of wetland acreage still proposed for filling.
4
We note the statement (pg. 33) that "[m]itigation for wetland
impacts may be necessary if the project is authorized under a
general permit or if wetland impacts exceed the impact criteria
for the nationwide permits." We agree that if wetlands cannot
be avoided through the above alignment shifts or other methods,
mitigation should be provided, particularly for the forested
wetlands.
? Water Quality - We are pleased to note the commitment to minimize
sediment erosion, as stated on page 19: "Potential effects will be
minimized through the utilization of erosion and sediment control
measures as specified in the state-approved Erosion and Sediment
Control Program." We also note from this statement that this
program has been approved by the state, apparently by the North
Carolina Sediment Control Commission (pg. 44).
Page 7 indicates that two bridges are located along the project.
Both are to be retained, with one to be widened. Since this
structure is an overpass over a railroad, it would not affect a
waterway. Page 31 indicates that an unnamed tributary to Abb6tts
Creek is crossed by NC8. What structure would be used or extended
at this site? Soil erosion BMPs should be applied.
We note (pg. 31) that some of the waterbodies in the corridor
were examined regarding aquatic animals: "A cursory examination
during the field reconnaissance did not reveal any fish or
macroinvertebrate organisms in these surface waters." Similarly,
page 20 states that "[n]o fish or invertebrate organisms were
observed in this creek during the site visit." What examinations
were made? Was any qualitative or quantitative sampling conducted?
Page 32 states that "[g]roundwater resources shall be evaluated
during final hydraulics design to ensure that appropriate measures
are taken to prevent groundwater contamination." We believe that
the DEA should already have provided a reasonable indication as to
the project potential for groundwater contamination. The FEA
should discuss.
? Air Quality - As is often the case for highway projects,
page 36 shows that ozone NAAQS standards would not be exceeded
for the free-flow analysis (indeed, even the 2018 horizon scenario
without the proposed widening is within the one-hour CO standard).
Potential air quality problems, however, may exist locally at
the intersection level. We note that LOS levels intersections are
and apparently would remain congested. Was any air quality
modelling conducted for such congested intersections? Should
additional design measures be implemented to reduce vehicle queuing
(and therefore improve air quality) at such intersections or
movements thereof? The FEA should further consider.
5
We note that the project is located in Davidson County (NC). We
have verified DEA statements (pg. 36) indicating that Davidson
County was a non-attainment area for ozone but that it has been
reclassifed by EPA as a "maintenance" area for ozone.
Page 37 and 44 discuss dust control during construction. We
strongly recommend that no oil solutions be used, especially
near waterbodies and wetlands, to control fugitive dust. Periodic
watering of temporary roads and staging areas would be more
environmentally responsible and is therefore recommended.
All open burning of slash and other non-toxic debris must be
consistent with state/county regulations and permitting. Open
burning is also a contributor of precursors to ozone; open burning
should therefore be minimized/avoided in a ozone maintenance area.
All construction equipment should be periodically tuned to the
manufacturer's specifications to minimize the amount of air
emissions.
? Noise - Page 39 states that "[o]ver time, particularly if the
noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected, individuals
tend to accept the noises which intrude into their lives. While
most people do probably adapt to their noise environment, they
should not have to accept noise (or other pollutants) at elevated
levels since physiological/psychological changes could occur over
time due to repeated noise impacts. For projects such as the
subject project that propose a widening of an existing roadway with
urbanized sections, noise impacts can be a concern to affected
nearby populations.
The STAMINA 2.0 model was used for noise modelling. We note
(pg. 40) that model calculations were only within 1.2 to 2.7 dBA
of the measured values. This appears to be a somewhat high range
difference. Were the model data generally above or below the
measured values? We suggest that perhaps a standard deviation be
calculated since a 2.7 dBA difference above or below the actual
level can be important. Also, the DEA indicates that LOS C volumes
were used for modelling. While this may be conservative for the
mainline traffic (although the mainline LOS values were apparently
not presented in the DEA), some LOS values for some intersections
(considered beyond the DEA scope) apparently would be much more
congested than LOS C. Model runs for these sections may therefore
not be conservative, particularly if the model typically
underpredicted the measured value (above). The FEA should clarify.
EPA considers all noise level increases as impacts, but considers
only those that are +10 dBA or greater as significant impacts. We
believe this is true at all ambient levels since an increase of +10
dBA represents a doubling of noise. We note from Figure 6B that
the NCDOT policy regarding noise increases is less conservative
6
since +10 dBA or greater increases are only considered substantive
if ambient levels are >50 dBA Leq (for ambient levels less than or
equal to 50 dBA Leq, increases of +15 dBA or more are considered
substantive by NCDOT). Regarding resultant noise levels, FHWA
guidelines consider levels that approach, equal or exceed 67 dBA
Leq for residences and 72 dBA Leq for businesses as candidates for
mitigation (Fig. 6B). However, we note that even those "impacted"
receptors qualifying for consideration are often not compensated.
EPA appreciates the inclusion of the section on construction noise
(pg. 43). Some noise levels (within 50-100 ft) from the literature
of typical construction equipment would be an appropriate addition
in the FEA. Although the DEA states that the construction time
is of a "relatively short-term nature," an estimate of the
construction time would help document the magnitude of the impacts.
The number of noise receptors during construction would be similar
to those for highway operation (below). In additional, all
construction equipment should be equipped with noise attenuation
devices such as mufflers and insulated engine housings.
Page 41 indicates that noise level increases predicted for the
proposed project operation range from +2 to +9 dBA. Figure 6D
indicates that 280 residences or businesses along the 9.9-mile
corridor were predicted to be affected in this way, with 123 of
these "impacted" per NCDOT/FHWA criteria (above). These would
therefore qualify for consideration for mitigation. Based on
Figure 6D, several residences would be elevated to a resultant
level of 70 to 74 dBA Leq and/or elevated +7 to +9 dBA. (Note:
The 123 impacted receptors figure was mentioned in the DEA
Summary and can be determined from Figure 6D; however, it was not
found in the noise section of the text. The FEA should include.)
Considering that the alignment may not yet be finalized and
alignment shifts still possible to further avoid resources,
the FEA should identify the final number of relocatees and
residences/businesses that would be affected/impacted by noise.
NCDOT does not propose any noise abatement (pg. 43) for this
project. While noise mitigation is difficult to accomplish for
highway widening projects that includes urban areas, it should be
considered given the number of affected receptors, primarily
residences that would be impacted to predicted resultant noise
levels above 67 dBA Leq. At least for those substantive cases that
would be elevated to resultant levels above the 70 dBA Leq range,
we recommend that further consideration be provided. Forms of
mitigation could include a vegetation screen (possibly implemented
as part of landscaping), vegetative earthen berms (in more rural
sections) , installation of central air in low income areas (so that
windows can be closed to reduce noise). Relocation of residents
just outside the normal width of the right of way should also be
considered since such remaining residents would typically be the
7
most impacted by noise. The relocation or buying out of such
residents (if preferable to those residents), would likely be more
effective than noise abatement methods.
We also note (pg. 42) that certain noise barriers were listed as
only providing a 4 dBA level of relief. While perhaps not cost
effective, it should be noted that such a decrease in noise is
perceptible and can be substantive for this project since it could
reduce predicted levels to near the 67 dBA Leq guideline.
The document (pg. 42) also states that "[c]hanging the highway
alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement for the
subject project, since it calls for the widening of an existing
highway." We wish to emphasize that because noise abatement is
difficult, the greatest emphasis should be placed on alignment
shifts as a method to minimize noise impacts (i.e., avoidance may
be more effective than mitigation).
? Endangered Species - We note (pg. 21) that one federally-
protected (endangered) plant species is listed for Davidson County
by the FWS (i.e., Schweinitz's sunflower). In general, EPA
principally defers to the FWS regarding endangered species
assessments.
Based on a field survey, the DEA concludes that the proposed
project would have "no effect" on the species. We assume that the
survey was conducted by NCDOT staff. It is unclear whether the FWS
has concurred with staff observations. The FEA should clarify.
We also note that habitat for the sunflower exists along the
corridor. Given the presence of suitable habitat, was the survey
conducted during flowering season or is the species otherwise
readily identifiable in the field?
? Hazardous Wastes - We note from page 50 that "[t]wo Groundwater
Incidents in the vicinity of the project corridor and a Superfund
site with an associated landfill have been reported." We further
note that it is stated that "[i]t is not anticipated that the
proposed project will impact any of these sites." We assume,
therefore, that the new ROW will not encroach onto these sites, or
that the sites would be cleaned up through coordination with the
state or EPA prior to construction.
? Cultural Resources - We note and appreciate NCDOT's coordination
with the SHPO regarding cultural resources. Concurrence on NCDOT
survey determinations were well documented, except for the Miller-
Everhart Farm. Was SHPO concurrence achieved for the "no effect"
determination for this structure which is eligible for listing in
the National Register? The FEA should specify.
8
We also wish to add that if the project is implemented, and if
additional archaeological finds are unearthed during such
construction, the work at that site must stop until the SHPO
approves its continuation.
? Environmental Justice (EJ) - Page 14 states that:
Due to the demographics of the area, there is a probability
that there are some minority residences and business owners.
However, due to the nature of the project, widening along an
existing alignment with some asymmetrical widening to correct
vertical curvature (to improve sight distance at some high
accident areas), it is not believed to disproportionately
impact any minority populations in Davidson County.
While an EJ concern may not exist for this project, the FEA should
provide census data (percentage minority) for the state, county,
and census block group (if available) for comparison against
the proposed percentage of minority relocatees. Based on the
alternatives section of the DEA, the exact alignment may not yet
be finalized. Once finalized, however, the percentage of minority
relocatees can be determined for comparison (as an impact) against
the above census data. Areas of concern would be if most of the
alignment residents were minorities (especially given that no other
action alternative alignments were offered) or if communities or
pockets of minorities existed where asymmetrical widening was
proposed.
Similarly, low-income groups should also be considered in terms of
disproportionate impacts. The poverty level should be provided for
Davidson County. Would the two families in the less than $15,000
per year category (pg. 15) qualify as being under the poverty level
amount? Are any of these two families also minorities?
Would relocation benefit the minority and/or low-income groups
in any way, especially if impacts are determined to be dispro-
portionate? The FEA should address.
This same kind of comparison should also be made for the numerous
families (and to a lesser extent businesses) that would be
impacted/affected by the above-discussed highway noise, i.e., will
noise impacts disproportionately affect minorities and low-income
populations relative to the state, county, and block group census
percentages?
? Induced Impacts - Page 16 indicates that "[t]he widening of
NC 8 will enhance the economic growth of the surrounding area by
alleviating traffic congestion in the immediate area." Considering
this probability of development in the area and that undeveloped
sections still exist along the corridor, the FEA should acknowledge
the potential for induced development impacts associated with
9
the proposed widening. Environmental impacts associated with
development often include water quality degradation (erosion),
air quality degradation, wetland loss, habitat loss, etc.
We were pleased to comment on this DEA at this time. Should
you have questions on our comments, please contact either Chris
Hoberg (x6845) or Ted Bisterfeld (x6843) of my staff at
404/347-3555.
Sincerely,
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
Environmental Policy Section
Federal Activities Branch
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
July 24, 1996
r'
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
50 C EI
,lUt 3 C 1906
Subject: Federal environmental assessment for the proposed improvement of NC 8, from
SR 2412 to I-85, Davidson County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-2300B
In your letter of July 3, 1996, you requested our comments on the subject document. The
following comments are provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the environmental assessment, this project will involve the widening of an existing
segment of the US 64 Bypass from two lanes to a three-lane curb and gutter section from
SR 2412 to NC 47 and a five-lane facility from NC 47 to north of I-85, for a total distance of
9.9 miles. No control of access is proposed for the new facility. The widening of NC 8 will result
in 1.15 acres of impacts to.jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters. Specifically, an unnamed
tributary to Abbotts Creek will be impacted due to the replacement or extension of the existing
pipe culvert, and a forested wetland area and a manmade pond will be impacted. The purpose of
this project is to improve traffic flow and safety along this section of the NC 8.
The Service has no objection to this project and believes it will not result in significant
environmental impacts. The Service appreciates the fact that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation will attempt to avoid the one wetland area located just north of Rosebriar Drive on
the east side of NC 8--"efforts will be made to minimize if not totally avoid direct impacts to this
site by asymmetric widening to the west side of NC 8." Additionally, we have reviewed our
records and concur with your determination that the project as proposed should have "no effect"
on federally endangered or threatened species. In view of this, we believe the requirements under
Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions regarding
our comments, please contact Ms. Janice Nicholls of our staff at 704/258-3939, Ext. 227. In any
future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-96-102.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 320 S. Garden Street,
Marion, NC 28752
?u? I I I I 4rAM iNtlP1UUJC
?M2C5 OEPA EI?T ION
116 JONES STREET
RALE II NCKV CoRM?N 603-8003
PROJECT MANAGEMENT ---
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
MAILED TO: FROM:
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT UNIT
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MS. JEANETTE FURNEY
WgIT WEBR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
PROGRAM DEV. BRANCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSPORTATION BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
F")V. ASSESS. - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 8t FROM SR 2412 TO I-85
IN DAVIDSON COUNTY; TIP #R-23008
TYPE - ENV. ASSESS.
Tw= N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS PEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 97742200009. PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE.
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED 0K OR BEFORE 08/08/96.
St4OULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone].
ON O
AUG 0 % 1996
U.VISIGN 0?-
HIGHWAYS
cp ?N?RONNIE?"I,
FM209
08-09-96
MAILED TO:
FROM:
N.C. 7EPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
WAIT WEBS DIRECTOR -
PROGRAM DFV. BRANCH N C STATE vS® r
TRANSPORTATION BLDG./INTER-OFF
o '
? ? 2 yes
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
FNV. ASSESS. - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 89 FROM SR 2, i9clWONAGEMENT
IV OAVIOSON COUNTY; TIP #R-23008
SeI NO 97E42200009 PROGRAM TITLE - ENV. ASSESS.
T4F AaOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
I"1TERGOVERNMEP11TAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULn YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. REGION G
E 1
T AUG 1 4 1996
NORTH CARCLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
? AUG 12 1996 ? i J?l ?
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT UNIT
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 • •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary pEHN F:Z
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee V"
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 97-0009 EA for NC 8 from SR 2412 to I-85, Davidson County
DATE: July 22, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for your consideration. All
other commenting agencies had no objections.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
RECEIVED
attachments
AUG 21996
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. Box 27687, N ?#y? FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
919-715-4148 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Nc- DEM WO ENVSCi rax;yly-r??-==?=
State of North Carolina.. IVA
Department of Environment,
A4
Health and .Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
A-
JamesEL Hunt, 'w,e; ove m r [D F F1
Jonathan B. Howes, secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 31 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for: NC 6 from Sr 2412 to 1-85
Davidson County
:State Project DOT No. 8.1600701, TIP # R-23008
EHNR V 97-0009
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(DWO) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
for activities which impact Waters of the state including wetlands. The subject project
may impact 0:47 *hect r he document o'i waters including wetlands. The following
comments are based t review:
ng the f nal measures. On
1) The document does not adequately describe will occur avoidance
page 33, 'DOT states, that minimization efforts w design.
These measures include employing asymmetrical widening away from ponds
and wetlands. DWQ requests that asymmetrical widening investigations occur
prior to FONSI so that these efforts can be included in the document.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. 'Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Raleigh COE
Michelle Suve.rkrubbe
nc8dav.ea
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
FAX # [phone]
Telephone [phone] w" C-umer Pr4-
An Equal opponunoy Alfim%Wa Action EmPbYar
NCWRC,HCP,FRLLS LAKE
TEL:[phone] Jul 31'96 10:27 No .001 F .0",
a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
r?-
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project (.oor ' tar
Habitat Conservation Program
&4.? 4?<
DATE: July 31, 1996
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for NC 8 improvements, from SR 2412 to 1-85, Davidson
County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-23008, SCH Project No. 97-0009.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
FA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain previsions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife. Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C:. 661-6674).
NCDOT Proposes to widen existing NC 8 from two-lanes to a three-lane curb and gutter
section from SR 2412 to NC 47 and a five-lane curb and gutter section NC 47 to north of 1-85,
The proJe;ct length is approximately 9.9 miles. Estimated wetland impacts from the
recommended improvements could total 1.1 acres, although through design changes the actual
impact will likely be reduced.
We support NCDOT in the decision to improve existing facilities rather than to construct
new roadways. Improving existing roadways avoids new stream and wetland crossings. does not
further fragment wildlife habitat, and does not promote secondary development.
We feel the LA does a good job of describing impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources.
However, no actual discussion of wetland avoidance is included. We request that NCT)01'
fVl Wr,i_ , nl.r , r rnLL Lr71.C. LL • V t
Memornndum
2
July 31, 1996
include a comprehensive discussion of wetland avoidance opportunities in the Finding ol'No
Significant Impact (FQNS1).
At this time, we concur with the EA for this project We remain concerned over possible
wetland impacts that could result from the construction of this project. We agree that there are
opportunities to avoid these wetlands and feel this discussion should be included in the YONSI.
Thank YOU for the opportunity it) comment on this EA. If we can he of ally Further
assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: U.S. Dish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
APPENDIX B
PROGRAMMATIC 4(f)
EVALUATION
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS
WITH HISTORIC SITES
F. A. PROJECT STP-3531(3)
STATE PROJECT 8.1600701
T.I.P. NO. R-2300B
Description:
Two-lane, three-lane, and five-lane improvements are proposed along a 15.9-
kilometer (9.9-mile) portion of NC 8 from SR 2412 (Rothrock Road), north of High Rock
Lake, to I-85 in Davidson County. Just north of NC 47 in Lexington, the project acquires
land from the Junior Order United American Mechanics (J.O.U.A.M) National Orphans
Home (American Children's Home), a property listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
YES NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics, ?
safety, and/or physical condition of the X
existing highway facility on essentially
the same alignment?
2. Is the project on new location? ?
X
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the ?
existing highway? X
4. Does the project require the removal or ?
alteration of historic buildings, X
structures, or objects?
5. Does the project disturb or remove
archaeological resources which are ? X
important to preserve in place rather
than to recover for archaeological
research?
6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f) ?
site considered minor (i.e. no effect, X
no adverse effect)?
YES NO
b. If the project is determined to have
"no adverse effect" on the historic ? X
site, does the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation object to the
determination of "no adverse effect"?
7
Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the
assessment of impacts and the proposed X
mitigation?
Does the project require the preparation
of an EIS? F-1 X
8.
ATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
1. Do nothing
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? ? X
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? ? X
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ? X
and (d) create a cost or impact of ? X
extraordinary measure?
2. Improve the highway without using the
adjacent historic site
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes ?
in standards, use of retaining walls, X
etc., or traffic management measures
been evaluated?
YES NO
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in: ?
(circle, as appropriate) X
(i) substantial adverse environmental
impacts
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance, or
safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the historic site. X
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or iii a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1. The project includes all possible planning ?
to minimize harm necessary to preserve the X
historic integrity of the site.
YES NO
2. Measures to minimize harm have been
agreed to, in accordance with 36 CFR X
Part 800, by the FHWA, the SHPO,
and as appropriate, the ACHP.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
described as follows:
The proposed alignment has been adjusted to acquire a maximum of 6 meters
(20 feet) of right of way from the American Children's Home property (refer to Figure 2).
The widening improvements will disturb approximately 0.1 hectare (0.3 acre) of grassed
frontage along a portion of the property, most of which will be restored upon completion of
the project. The project will also require only minor turning radius improvements at the
driveway connections.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer see attachment
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation see attachment
c. Property owner see attachment
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies not applicable
e. US Coast Guard (for bridges requiring bridge permits) not applicable
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project. There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic site.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and the measures to minimize
harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed with local and state agencies.
Approved:
at Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
ate / "Kvision ministr, or, WA
Federal Aid m TIP ;T e- 23 00 P? County _2 1( ly
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSNI IMNT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
On DEL. 5. tqI (P , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FI WA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential erect. Tice property/properties and of ect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Siened
Representative, NI CDOT, Historic Architectural Resources Section Date
FH%Vil, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, S 0 Date'
l/ JL%z3
State istoric Preservation Officer lop' Dat
(over)
J/ 5
Federal Aid m cam - 3J?jl )TIP -9 &2?.o f:5 County ?4J1C)5o- "
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.

-Chi S ?ind; 0F Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).

Initialed: NCDOTi F BVA ;,/ 4.'') SHPO 1/

VERNON L. WALTERS, JR.
E.eoueve D-1.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chairman
James A. Wolle
WO-ti N.C
Vice Chairman
Steven O. Davis
Mdld.w N.C
Secretary
John L. Allsbrook
Soodand Neck, N.C
Treasurer
Gerald L. Winfrey
Nigh P-1, N.C
Past Chairman
John L. Allsbrmk, III
Sooe.nd Neck, N C
Ernest C. Allen
Enka, N C
David J. Bradley
Benson, N C
Thomas A. Corley, Jr.
Morg..io , N.C
William D. Crawford
P.evil., N C
Lonnie I Curtin
SI-11. N C
Olen C. Easter
L-g'nn. N C
Wanda W. Hinshaw
SW, N C
William D. Howington
ArohdaI., N C
Daniel R. Idol
S-th-t, N C
Delbert L Lockamy
Co-l., N C
Jamie McGuire
kk w. Cn NC
Charles E Neville
Roaly Mounl, N C
Robbie Owens
L-glon, N C
Roland N. Price
PAwile. N C
Gene Pruett
Mag.nlon, N C
Ann Sebastian
North Wdkeabao. N.C.
Sherman L. Shell
Bi9ok M-lain, N.C.
Charles J. Ward
Nigh Panl, N C
Edwin L. Welch, Jr.
Mo<A crude, N.c
Tommy Williford
Coals, NC
Lewis H. Wilson
Rosbao, N.c
Archie L. Worley, Jr.
Sooil-d Neck. N C
? yye
AMERI?AN C ILDRE 'S HONZE
November 5, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. D.O.T.
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Dear Mr. Vick,
Mr. Winfrey and I am writing on behalf of the American
Children's Home. We have met with Center Hill Baptist Church
which is located directly across from the Children's Home
property. Due to the church request concerning the,
possibility of them losing all of their road frontage to the
new highway that is coming down Highway 8 South in the next
couple of years we are willing to negotiate with the state
possibly 20 ft from our side of the road as long as it does
not effect our main entrance into our campus.
Mr. Winfrey and I
convenience to discuss
to Center Hill Baptist
We look forward to
8-5 Mo ay thru Friday
or (9 0) 357-7129.
would like to meet with you at your
this matter further before we commit
Church. We want to be good neighbors.
hearing from you. My office hours are
and my phone number is [phone]
Sjllcerely,
Vernon L. Walters,
Executive Director

.
Af
V
z 1996
Z p rV? /?
G)?NIrN1C^rn- 1?i
VLW/jj

Post Office Box 1288 a Lexington, North Carolina 27293-1288 e Telephone [phone] e Fax [phone]
Junior Order United American Mechanics Children's Home, Inc. • Serving Children Since 1928
7o09 1
en dW A a ?>.fl?X(?l-
5769 NC Hwy 8
e
LEXINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 27292
Mr. Franklin Vick
Planning and Envirnmental Branch
NC DOT, Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

I6 O`,

Re: Project No. 8.1600701
Dear Mr. Vick
Our church is located in the path of the proposed widening of Highway 8, across
from the Junior Order property housing the American Children's Home. The home-has
buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and your engineers have
located the proposed addition to Highway 8 on our side, thus taking forty feet our our
frontage. Needless to say, our church is upset. In talking with the Directors of the Junior
Order, they indicate a willingness to share some of their property for the new road.
Would your department consider a re-survey for the road by our church? With the
Children's Home willing to share their property, we are askin?that the road be shifted
their way in order for us to have some parity.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Lamar L. Moore
Church Pastor
AMERICAN CHILDREN'S HOME
VERNON L. WALTERS,JR.
Eseiajwe Ddecw
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Chairman
James A. Wolfe
Wi-nglm, N.C.
Vice Chairman
Steven 0. Davis
NdldaW N.C
Secretary
John L. Allsbrook
Scotland Neck, N.C
Treasurer
Gerald L. Winfrey
High Pont. N.C.
Past Chairman
John L. Allsbrook, 111
Scotland Neck, N.C
Ernest C. Allen
Enka, N.C
David J. Bradley
Ban-, N.C
Thomas A. Corley, Jr.
Molganon. N.C.
Wilham D. Crawford
PAevile, N.C
Lonnie 1. Curren
Stavsll, WC
Olen C. Easter
Laynglon, N.C.
Wanda W. Hinshaw
Sea. N.C
William D. Howington
Alchdala, N.C.
Daniel R. Idol
S-thniml, N.C
Delbert L. Lockamy
Coals. N.C
Jamie McGuire
Mli- Gawk. N.C
Charles E Neville
Rocky Moonl. N.C
Robbie Owens
L-glon, N C
Roland N. Price
PAevsia, N.C.
Gene Pruett
Maganon, N.C
Ann Sebastian
North Wtlkssbao. N.C
Sherman L. Shell
Black Mountaln, N.C.
Charles J. Ward
High Pont, N.C
Edwin L. Welch, Jr.
Modksvile, N.C.
Tommy Williford
Coals, NC
Lewis H. Wilson
Roybao. N.C
Archie L. Worley, Jr.
Scotland Neck, N.C.
February 21, 1997
Mr. S. E. Keith, Jr., Project Planning Engr.
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Keith,
On behalf of American Children's Home, we want to thank you for your efforts in helping
all of us here, regarding Center Hill Baptist Church's request for parity concerning Highway
8, South. Our Board oaccess voted o February 1, 1997
s de
more than twenty feet of property on Carolina
Department of Transportation
of the right of way.
Again, we want to thank you and your staff for all of your efforts in making this possible
for American Children's Home and the Church.
Congratulations on your promotion within the Department of Transportation. Please tell
Mr. Reep that if we can be of assistance to him, to please let us know.
Sincer ,
s
Vernon L. Walters, Jr.
Executive Director
VLWrw
Post Office Box 1288 a Lexington, North Carolina 27293-1 288 e Telephone [phone] e Fax [phone]
Junior order United American Mechanics Children's Home, Inc. - Serving Children Since 1928
Center Hill Baptist Church
3759 Highway 8
Lexington, NC 27292
Lamar L. Moore
Pastor
Mr. S. E. Keith, Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Ra;eigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Keith
February 5, 1997
On behalf of our church and myself, thank you and your office for the consideration
you gave our request for relief in the building and widening of Highway 8 by our church.
Thank you for working with all parties to route the road with as little damage to us and
the American Children's Home.
Taking a day yesterday to come and explain your efforts is appreciated. We are so
grateful that this has worked this well. You and your office have helped make it so.
Since, ely,
Lamar L. Moore
t OF TI6?.,_
?? oNO.A
o
OMM 0*
Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E.
Manager of Planning and
Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Vick:
M A? 2 ^c 1996 ,
? FM/IROt`l?
Subject: NC 8 Widening from SR 2412 to North of I-85, Davidson County, Federal-Aid
Project No. STP-3531(3), TIP No. R-2300B, State Project No. 8.1600701
Enclosed is a May 16, 1996 letter from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
stating that the Council agrees with the no adverse effect determination on the Junior Order
United American Mechanics National Orphans Home and the Captain John Miller House.
Sincerely yours,
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Region Four
310 New Bem Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
May 21, 1996
IN REPLY REFER TO
y HO-NC
?. G O
cc: Mr. David Brook, NCSHPO (w/enclosure)
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW, #E809
Washington. DC 20004
MAY 16 IM6
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
REF: Proposed Widening of NC 8 (SR 2412 to North of I-85)
Davidson County, North Carolina
Project No. STP-3531(3)
Dear Mr. Graf:
On May 10, 1996, the Council received your determination, supported by the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), that the referenced undertaking will have no adverse
effect upon properties listed on and eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places. Pursuant to Section 800.5(d)(2) of the Council's regulations, "Protection of Historic
Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), we do not object to your determination. Therefore, you are not
required to take any further steps to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act other than to implement the undertaking as proposed and consistent with any
conditions you have reached with the North Carolina SHPO.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
--IT
MaryAnn Naber _ T
c:
Historic Preservation Specialist
Eastern Office of Review - i^
Of
hh,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
a?"
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMDMI'RATION
Region Four
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
crr Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
October 28, 1997
Mr. Don Klima, Director
Eastern Office of Project Review
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. No. 809
Washington, D.C. 20004
Subject: Finding of No Adverse Effect, NC 8 widening from SR 2412 t
1-85, Federal-Aid Project No. STP-3531(3), State Project No. 8.
TIP No. R-2300B, Davidson County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Klima:
FMNA - Nc DNISION
RECD. NOV 241991
DIV ADMIN.
ASST DN ADMIN
SECRETARY
FIN MGR Nl. ASST I
PROG ctx
BRIDGE ASST BR I
RLTY OFC RLTV SP
i
TO 8 S CP SP
F 8 PO ENG
SECRETRAY ,
PL - A PL-8
PM PD
ENV TR
CPS cN~II
SECRcTARr

A-1 _
IA-2
--
A.3
A-5 AA=-
?
iBQ 7 %_-. . H a
Enclosed for your review and concurrence is the documentation to support our Finding'of No
Adverse Effect for the subject project. Your office concurred with the No Adverse Effect
determination on May 16, 1996. Since that date the Center Hill Baptist Church has requested
revision to the alignment to avoid impacts to their property. The church is located directly
across the street from the Junior Order United Mechanics National Orphans Home.
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with our determination of
No Adverse Effect on the Junior Order United American Mechanics National Orphans Home, a
property listed in the National Register of Historic Places. This information is being provided
in accordance with Title 36, Section 800.5(d)(1).
We would appreciate your review and concurrence with the Finding of No Adverse Effect. If
you need further information or have any questions, please contact Mr. Dan Hinton at
[phone].
Sincerely yours,
G
For icholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., NCDOT
Concur:
k-All? Date: It /9 97
A=0?
Ra nd V. Wa 1 c , Historic Preservation Technician
Office of Planning and Review
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
APPENDIX C
RELOCATION REPORT
RELOCATION REPORT
a E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR F? DESIGN (PAGE 1 OF 2)
MGT 13-7
North Carolina DepartoWr_an ation
7 = RkOC? U OFFICE
rcr ,• ?. r. n. ,? .;,,; ..r?.,?,,
PROJECT. 8.1600701 COUNTY DAVIDSON Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2300B F.A. PROJECT STP-3531 3
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 8 From SR 2412 (Rothrock Rd.) to 1-85 near Lexington

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 17 3 20 2 4 8 5 3 0
Businesses 8 2 10 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 5 so-ISO 0 0-20M 6 $ 0-160 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTI ONS 204N 5 150-250 2 2040M 0 150-250 1
Yes No Explain all 'YES' answers. 40-70M Z 250400 1 40-70M 4 250-400 11
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 4 4004500 0 70-100M 6 400800 5
X 2 Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 1 500 UP 0 100 UP 4 600 uP 1
1
1 19 18
displacement? TOTAL 173
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Similar business services are available in general area of
indicate size, type, estimated number of project not being affected.
employees, minorities, etc. 4. (A) Hardware House Restaurant-seasonal with 4 full time
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Employees and 4 part time employees.
6. Source for available housing (list). (B) Beauty Salon - full time employee
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? (C) High Rock Bait Barn - offers gas & auto service with 2
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? Full time employees & 1 part time employee.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. (D) Nolan's Quick Shop - Gas station & Food Mart with 2 full
families? time employees & 2 part time employees.
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? (E) Daddy Rabbit's bait and Tackle - one full time employee
X 11. Is public housing available? And one part time employee
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing (F) Lexington State Bank - Financial Institution with eight
housing available during relocation period? Full time employees & 3 part time employees.
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within (G) Granny's Bait & tackle Convenience Store with 2 full time
financial means? Employees and 1 part time employee.
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list (H) Becks Hair & Tanning Beauty Salon with 3 full time
source) _ Employees and 2 part time employees.
15. Number months estimated to complete 6. Visual survey, newspaper, MLS and Internet.
RELOCATION? 8. Will be implemented as necessary.
9. It is possible that there may be some elderly and disabled people affected by the project.
11. Local housing authority.
12. Yes, as indicated by the available housing list.
14. See item ltl6.

A. A Adams 12-1-97
Relocation Agent Date Approved b Date
Form 15.4 Revised 02195 d
Original 8 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
EIS Relocation Report
Davidson 8.1600701 R-2300 B
Comment - (A) Available housing list was compiled from a partial listing and does not indicate the total available
housing in Davidson County. (B) There Is a probability that there are some minority residents and business owners.
per a fair t?stiniate from the limited contact and present information cannot be determined until initial contacts
:,a ; (C) There are 5 abandoned business buildings within the project.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes a Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan & Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A ;1
IT:U VVA
E) EHNR
July 31 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney
From: Eric Galamb,'?
Subject: EA for NC 8 from Sr 2412 to 1-85
Davidson County
State Project DOT No. 8.1600701, TIP # R-2300B
E H N R # 97-0009
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The subject project
may impact 0.47 hectares (1.15 acres) of waters including wetlands. The following
comments are based on the document review:
1) The document does not adequately describe wetland avoidance measures. On
page 33, DOT states that minimization efforts will occur during the final design.
These measures include employing asymmetrical widening away from ponds
and wetlands. DWQ requests that asymmetrical widening investigations occur
prior to FONSI so that these efforts can be included in the document.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Raleigh COE
Michelle Suverkrubbe
nc8dav.ea
r-AXED
J U L 3 1 1996
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recyc"l0% post consumer paper
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs El Project located in 7th floor library
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due,(firm deadline):
NL 7oi' _ N? g t ?? (522?}IZl.-f3S'
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ?AII R/O Areas oil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
El Water El Water Resources ? Environmental Health
El Mooresville
?Groundwater
Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
? Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington REC'11\11 C? Others rttt0lf l?Iitffitt+?@ment
? Winston-Salem .400g Nwihert
Jul. 16 1996PWS
ENVIRt)W,11-NIra. .??,it:rdC S
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
f? ?Applicant has not been contacted
L Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS 104
A
M
r
NC 8
From SR 2412
To I-85
Davidson County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-3531(3)
State Project No. 8.1600701
R-2300B
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
Date H. Frinkfin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
3? ,94
Date Tic o Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 8
From SR 2412
To I-85
Davidson County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-3531(3)
State Project No. 8.1600701
R-2300B
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
April, 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Angela 'H. Smith
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
.•`ig?H CAROI '0''
r
S 6 ??Q?EESSION1%
SE AL
721
chard B. Davis, P. E., Assistant Manager
644
9 y
Planning and Environmental Branch =
R iC, ?,1• Pyc V •V.
'•, ti4- be
c,\ r
r 1 _
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
This document calls for the following environmental commitments:
A. The size of the pipe located 15 meters (49 feet) south of SR 1101 will be
investigated and addressed in the final hydraulics design.
B. Expressway gutter will be used in front of the Captain John Miller House to reduce
impacts to this architecturally significant structure.
C. Best Management Practices will be applied to this project to minimize impacts.
D. Any potential right of way involvement with the UST sites mentioned in Section
IV. D. 3. c. will be fully evaluated by the geotechnical unit prior to right of way
acquisition.
E. The final design will reflect efforts to minimize if not totally avoid direct impacts to
the wetland site located just north of Rosebriar Drive on the east side of NC 8 (see
Section IV. D. 3. f. for additional information and Figure 2 for site location).
F. Concurrence from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) will be
included in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) due to the "no adverse
effect" determinations on the Captain John Miller House and the Junior Order
United American Mechanics National Orphans Home, see section IV. A. 3. a. for
more information.
SUMMARY
Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), Division of Highways, proposes to improve a 15.9 kilometer (9.9 mile)
section of NC 8 in Davidson County, from SR 2412, north of the High Rock Lake
bridge to north of I-85 (see Figures IA and 1B for project location). The
proposed cross section is a 3-lane, 12.3 meter (40 feet) variable curb and
gutter/shoulder section from SR 2412 to NC 47, and a 5-lane, 19.2 meter (64
feet), curb and gutter section from NC 47 to north of 1-85.
The subject project is part B of the originally programmed project, R-2300. The
1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) shows the limits of
R-2300 extending from NC 49 to SR 2212. R-2300 is shown in the TIP with the
total cost estimated at $19,425,000 including $7,550,000 for right of way,
$6,150,000 for construction, $525,000 for preliminary engineering work, and
$5,200,000 for post year construction. The current total estimated cost for the
recommended improvement to R-2300B is $31,600,000 which includes
$15,600,000 for construction and $16,000,000 for right of way acquisition. The
project is scheduled in the TIP for right of way acquisition in federal fiscal year
(FM 1997 and construction in FFY 1998.
2. Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a positive overall impact
on travel along NC 8 by reducing the potential for rear-end collisions and accidents
involving turning movements. The proposed improvements are in conformance
with the Davidson County Thoroughfare Plan and will be a step towards its
implementation.
The proposed project will have some negative impacts. These impacts include the
displacement of fifteen (15) businesses and ten (10) residences. The Division of
Highways offers relocation assistance to help minimize the effects of these
displacements. Construction of the project will also result in a total of 123
receptors experiencing noise levels above the criteria where noise abatement is
considered. The predicted noise increase is expected to range from +2 dBA up to
+9 dBA. No traffic noise abatement measures are proposed (see Section IV. D. 4.
Traffic Noise for findings of the noise study). Construction will result in some
delay and inconvenience to motorists, but this will be short-term in nature. The
potential increase in urbanization resulting from construction of the proposed
project can be managed through the implementation of land use controls and
zoning regulations by local government.
3. Alternatives - Due to the nature of the project, the widening of an existing segment
of roadway, no alternative corridors were studied. The recommended variable
symmetnetasytnmetric widening best uses the existing right of way, and minimizes
impacts to the project area.
The "do nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected. The
proposed cross section will provide a safer travelway to accommodate the current
and projected volumes.
4. Coordination - Federal, State, regional, and local agencies were consulted during
the preparation of this environmental assessment. In addition to agency responses,
local residents offered verbal and written comments at a citizens informational
workshop, and provided additional written comments after the workshop.
Actions Required by Other Aggencie - Based on information currently available, it
will be necessary to apply to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for the following
permits for the discharge of fill material into "Waters of the United States".
• General Permit No. 198200031 and/or
• Nationwide Permit No. 14, 26, and/or 33
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for any
activity which may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is required
and must be obtained through the Department of Environmental Management
(DEMO Water Quality Section.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Description Of The Proposed Project ........................................................1
A. General Description ...................................................................1
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements ............................................2
1. Project Length ...................................................................2
2. Cross Section ................................................................... 2
3. Right of Way Width ........................................................... 2
4. Access Control .................................................................. 3
5. Bridges ................................................................... 3
6. Design Speed and Speed Zones .......................................... 3
7. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ....................... 3
8. Parking ................................................................... 4
9. Sidewalks ................................................................... 4
10. Utilities ................................................................... 4
11. Bicycle Provisions .............................................................. 4
12. Greenways ................................................................... 4
13. Cost Estimate ................................................................... 4
14. Railroad ................................................................... 5
15. Detour Routes ................................................................... 6
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................6
A. Existing Roadway Inventory ..........................................................6
1. Cross Section ................................................................... 6
2. Right of Way ................................................................... 7
3. Type of Roadside Development ......................................... 7
4. Access Control .................................................................. 7
5. Structures ................................................................... 7
6. Speed Zones ................................................................... 7
7. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control ............................ 7
8. Sidewalks ................................................................... 8
9. Utilities ................................................................... 8
10. Greenways ................................................................... 8
11. Geodetic Markers .............................................................. 8
12. School Buses ................................................................... 8
13. Railroads ................................................................... 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
M.
IV
Page
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan ............................9
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity ........................................................9
1. Signalized Intersections .................................................... 10

2. Unsignalized Intersections ................................................ _
I l
D. Accident History ................................................................. 11
RECONNIENDED MPROVEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES TO
THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................. 12
A. Recommended Improvements ...................................................... 12
B. Other Alternatives Considered ..................................................... 12
ENVIRONMENTAL ]IMPACTS ............................................................ 13
A. Social Environment ................................................................. 13
1. Neighborhood Characteristics .......................................... 13
2. Public and Private Facilities .............................................. 13
3. Cultural Resources ........................................................... 13
a. Architectural Resources ........................................ 13
b. Archaeological Resources ..................................... 14
4. Relocation Impacts .......................................................... 14
B. Economic Environment ............................................................... 16
C. Land Use ................................................................. 16
1. Scope and Status of Planning ........................................... 16
2. Existing Land Use ............................................................ 17
3. Future Land Use .............................................................. 17
4. Farmland ................................................................. 18
D. Natural Environment ................................................................. 18
.
1. Ecological Resources ....................................................... 18

...............................................
a. Plant Communities 18
b. Wildlife ................................................................ 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2. Protected Species .............................................................21
a. Federally Protected Species ..................................21
b. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species ..........22
3. Physical Resources ...........................................................23
a. Topography .......................................................... 23
b. Geology and Soils ................................................ 24
C. Contaminated Properties ...................................... 25
d. Water Resources .................................................. 31
e. Floodplain Involvement ........................................ 32
f. Wetlands .............................................................. 33
g. Permits ................................................................. 33
4. Air Quality and Traffic Noise ........................................... 34
a. Air Quality ........................................................... 34
b. Traffic Noise ........................................................ 38
E. Construction Impacts .................................................................43
V. CONMENTS AND COORDINATION ..................................................45
A. Government Response .................................................................45
B. Public Response .................................................................45
FIGURES

Figure 1 A: Vicinity Map
Figure 1B: Detailed Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Aerial photograph
Figure 3A: Cross Sections for 3 & 5-lane curb and gutter facility
Figure 3B: Cross Section for 3-lane shoulder section
Figure 4A: 1998 Average Daily Traffic
Figure 4B: 2018 Average Daily Traffic
Figure 5A: NC 8 and NC 47 Intersection Geometrics
Figure 5B: NC 8 and Northbound I-85 Ramp Geometrics
Figure 5C: NC 8 and Southbound I-85 Ramp Geometrics
Figure 6A: Hearing: Sounds Bombarding Us Daily
Figure 6B: Noise Abatement Criteria
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 6C: Ambient Noise Levels
Figure 61): Leq Traffic Noise Exposures
Figure 6E: FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary
Figure 6F: Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary
APPENDIX
Relocation Report
Correspondence
NC 8
From SR 2412
To I-85
Davidson County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-3531(3)
State Project No. 8.1600701
R-2300B
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes improvements to an 15.9 kilometer ( 9.9 mile) section of NC 8 in
Davidson County, from SR 2412 (Roth Rock Road), north of the High Rock Lake bridge
to I-85 (see Figures IA and 1B for project location). The proposed cross section is a 3-
lane, 12.3 meter (40 feet) variable curb and gutter/shoulder section from SR 2412 to
NC 47, and a 5-lane, 19.2 meter (64 feet), curb and gutter section from NC 47 to north of
I-85.
The TIP description of R-2300 shows the northern limit extending to SR 2212
(just north of I-85). The Division requested that the traffic on the segment from I-85 to
SR 2212 be evaluated. The improvements required to attain a reasonable level of service
are beyond the scope of this project but are described in Section IL C. 1.
The project is divided into three parts for construction purposes (these limits are
shown in Figure 2). The sections are as follows:
Section BA: From SR 2412 (Roth Rock Road) north of the High Rock Lake
Bridge, to SR 1115 (Wrenn Road). It is proposed to construct a 3-
lane, curb and gutter section between SR 2412 and north of SR
1349 (Wall Road) and a 3-lane shoulder section between SR 1349
and SR 1115.
Section BB: From SR 1115 to south of SR 1126 (Trantham Drive). It is
proposed to construct a 3-lane shoulder section between SR 1115
and SR 2277 transitioning to a 5-lane curb and gutter section
immediately south of SR 1126.
Section BC: From SR 1126 (Trantham Drive) to south of I-85. It is proposed
to construct a 5-lane, curb and gutter section.
2
The proposed widening will be accomplished symmetrically about the centerline
where practicable and asymmetrically at other locations to avoid and minimize right of
way damages to historical properties, active businesses, wetlands, and the railroad. There
are also several sections on NC 8 that will need to be relocated so the grade can be
adjusted in order to improve sight distance. Temporary pavement will need to be used in
some of these locations in order to maintain traffic during construction. Figure 2 shows
the areas of new location and areas of selected asymmetrical widening.
The subject project is part B of the original programmed project, R-2300. The
1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) shows the limits of R-2300
extending from NC 49 to SR 2212. R-2300 is shown in the TIP with the total cost
estimated at $19,425,000 including $7,550,000 for right of way, $6,150,000 for
construction, $525,000 for preliminary engineering work, and $5,200,000 for post year
construction. The current estimated cost for the recommended improvement to R-2300B
is $31,600,000 which includes $15,600,000 for construction and $16,000,000 for right of
way acquisition. The project is scheduled in the TIP for right of way acquisition in federal
fiscal year (FFY) 1997 and construction in FFY 1998.
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements
Project Length
Total length of the project is 14.9 kilometers (9.3 miles).
2. Cross Section
The cross sections proposed along the project include a 3-lane, 12 meter
(40 feet), curb and gutter section, a 3-lane, 10.8 meter (36 feet) shoulder section,
and a 5-lane, 19.2 meter (64 feet), curb and gutter section. See the description in
Section I. A. for a detailed description of the cross section location in addition to
Figure 3A and 3B.
Right of W &y Width
The proposed widening will be accomplished symmetrically about the
centerline where practicable and asymmetrically at other locations to minimize
right of way damages and improve several locations experiencing sight distance
problems. The proposed right of way width for each section is shown as follows:
Section BA: 30 meters (100 feet) from SR 2412 to north of SR 1103
(Southmont Pond Road) in front of the Macedonia Methodist
Church, 24 meters (80 feet) from north of SR 1103 to north of
SR 1349 (Wall Road), and 36 meters (120 feet) between north of
SR 1349 and SR 1115 (Wrenn Road).
Section BB: 36 meters (120 feet) throughout most of the section and
transitioning to 30 meters (100 feet) starting 800 meters (2600 feet)
south of SR 1126 (Trantham Drive).
Section BC: 30 meters (100 feet) throughout the entire section
Temporary construction easements will be necessary at some locations and
permanent drainage easements may be required at some pipe outlets in addition to
the proposed right of way. The use of retaining walls at some locations may be
necessary to avoid excessive right of way damages.
4. Access Control
No control of access is present on the proposed project and none is
recommended.
Bridges
There are two structures located on the proposed project. Both bridges
are within the limits of Section BC anti both are expected to be retained. Bridge
#83 over the Winston-Salem Railroad was constructed in 1986 and has a current
sufficiency rating of 76.4. The current bridge has a width of 9 meters (30 feet) and
is striped for two lanes of traffic. This bridge is anticipated to be retained and
widened to a five lane structure with 1.5 meter sidewalks on each side. The other
structure is Bridge #92 over I-85. This structure was built in 1980 and has a 23
meter (75.7 feet) clear roadway width and is striped for four lanes of traffic. This
structure has a sufficiency rating of 99.0 and is anticipated to be retained with no
widening.
6. Design Speed and Speed Zones
A 100 km/hr (60 mph) design speed will be used for NC 8 in rural areas
along the project where a three lane shoulder roadway section is proposed. The
posted speed limit is anticipated to be 90 km/hr (55 mph). In the more densely
populated and commercial areas along the project where three and five lane curb
and gutter roadway are proposed, an 80 km/hr (50 mph) design speed will be used.
A 60 km/hr (40 mph) design speed will be used for the NC 8 widening through
Southmont and along the section of NC 8 between Bridge #83 and I-85. A 56
km/hr (35 mph) posted speed is anticipated for these locations.
7. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
Traffic signals will be retained and upgraded at the NC 8/NC 47
intersection and at the northbound and southbound 1-85/NC 8 ramp terminals. It
is recommended by the NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch that the 1-85 ramp
4
signals be operated as a coordinated signal system to facilitate traffic movement
through this area. The capacity analysis identified no additional locations requiring
a signal. The final determination on signals will be made by the Area Traffic
Engineer in the final design phase. The existing traffic signals at NC 8/SR 1254
and NC 8/SR 2212 will be retained.
Parking is presently not permitted and will not be provided for or permitted
along the project.
9. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are located along the project and none are recommended.
10. Utilities
Utility involvement along the project is heavy. Aerial utilities include a
three phase electrical distribution service along most of the project and aerial
telephone intermittently along NC 8. Underground utilities include telephone,
power, water, gas, and sewer.
11. Bigycle Provisions
No bicycle accommodations will be included as a part of this project.
According to the NCDOT Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, this
section of NC 8 does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request and it is not a
designated bicycle route. There has been no indication that an unusual number of
bicyclists use this roadway.
12. Greenways
No greenway corridors are located or planned within the project area
and no plans for greenways have been incorporated into this project.
13. Cost Estimate
The proposed project is expected to cost as follows:
Construction $15,600,000
Right of Way $16,000,000
Total Cost $31,600,000
The construction cost estimate includes 15% for engineering and
contingencies. The right of way cost estimate includes the costs of acquisition,
utilities, and relocations.
14. Railroad
The Winston-Salem Railway parallels NC 8 throughout the project length.
The railway is close to NC 8 at several locations and crosses NC 8 in Southmont.
This crossing involves 2 trains per day and is protected by flashing light signals.
The running speed of the trains through this crossing is approximately 50 km/hr
(30 mph). The exposure index at this crossing in the design year is 15,600 which
slightly exceeds the 15,000 index suggested for considering a grade separation at a
railroad crossing in a rural area. An attempt to grade separate this crossing would
result in major impacts to the Town of Southmont. The existing terrain through
the area is basically flat and would not be conductive to the grade changes
associated with a grade separation. The proposed at-grade crossing will be
widened and the flashing light signals relocated. Additional right of way will most
likely be required for this crossing to improve sight distance. The use of automatic
gates will be further studied during the design process.
NC 8 also has another at-grade crossing with a Railroad Spur Track
servicing "PPG Industries" located approximately 0.70 km (0.44 mile) south of the
NC 8/NC 47 intersection. This crossing has two trains per day which run Monday
through Friday. The running speed of the trains through this crossing is
approximately 16 km/hr (10 mph). The rail crossing intersects NC 8 on a curve
and has very poor sight distance. This at-grade crossing will need to be widened
and the flashing light signals relocated with additional right of way obtained to
improve sight distance. The use of automatic gates will be studied further in the
design process.
The following -Y- lines which intersect the Winston-Salem Railroad are
expected to have some limited crossing improvements:
SR 1101
SR 2287 (Wafford Road)
SR 2284 (Feezor Road)
SR 2281 (Hunt Road)
SR 2279 (Pine Lodge Road)
SR 2408 (Abbid Street)
SR 1265 (Cedar Lane Road)
NC 47
The existing "SR" at-grade railroad crossings are currently protected by RR
crossing signs and RR crossing pavement marking. The SR 2287 crossing
involves two trains per day. The approximate running speed of the trains through
6
this crossing is 50 km/hr (30 mph). The exposure index at this crossing in the
design year is 5,760 which would warrant flashing light signals.
The existing NC 47 at-grade crossing has two train crossings per day and is
protected by flashing light signals. The exposure index at this crossing in the
design year is 28,280 which exceeds the 15,000 exposure index recommended fro
rural grade separations but is less than the 30,000 exposure index required for
considerations of urban grade separations. The NC 47/Railroad crossing is located
approximately 53 meters (175 feet) east of the NC 8/NC 47 intersection. The
terrain is basically flat and there is a church and cemetery in the southeast quadrant
of the crossing. A grade separation at this location is not feasible and virtually
impossible to design due to the many physical restraints. The proposed NC
47/Railroad crossing will need to be widened to accommodate a five lane crossing.
The crossing should be protected with flashing light signals and gates and
coordinated with the traffic signal timing at the intersection. (See Figure 5A for
the proposed geometrics). NC 8 crosses the railroad with a grade separation
(Bridge #83) north of the NC 8/NC 47 intersection. SR 2284 (Feezor Road also
crosses the railroad with a grade separation (Bridge #260) but no construction
involvement is expected. See Figures 1 and 2 for locations of the railroad grade
separations.
15. Detour Routes
One detour route is anticipated to be required to construct Section BA
SR 2284 (Feezor Road) will be upgraded to serve as a temporary detour during
the construction of the segment of NC 8 from SR 1110 (Gray Road) in Feezor to
just south of SR 1115 (Wrenn Road). SR 2284 crosses the Winston-Salem
Railroad twice along the route. The northern crossing is grade separated and the
southern crossing is at-grade. The at-grade crossing is currently signed and
recommended to be upgraded to serve the detour traffic, the Area Traffic Engineer
and division office will determine appropriate upgrades to the crossing in the
design phase of the project.
H. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. DdstiM Roadway Invent
oly
The existing roadway consists of a 2-lane, variable width (6.6 meter to 7.2
meter [22 feet to 24 feet]) shoulder section between SR 2412 and NC 47 and
widens to a 3-lane, 12 meter (40 feet), shoulder section from NC 47 to I-85.
2. Right of Way
Existing right of way throughout the project is approximately 18 meters
(60 feet).
Type of Roadside Development
Roadside development consists mainly of residential with some commercial
development interspersed in Southmont. The section of NC 8 between NC 47 and
I-85 consists of heavy density mixed uses, including businesses, residences, a
church, a school, and several industries.
4. Access Control
Currently no control of access exists along NC 8.
5. Structures
Two structures are located on the proposed project. The bridge over the
Winston-Salem Railroad (Bridge #83) on the northern end of the project was
constructed in 1986 and has a 9 meter (30 feet) clear roadway width striped for
two lanes of traffic. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 76.4 (out of a possible
100) and is anticipated to be retained and widened. The other structure is the I-85
bridge (Bridge #92) which was built in 1980 has a 23 meter (75.7 feet) clear
roadway width. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 99 out of 100. The bridge
is currently striped for four lanes of traffic and is anticipated to be retained with no
widening.
6. Speed Zones
The statutory speed limit at the beginning of the project is 90 km/hr (55
mph) and transitions down to a posted 60 km/hr (35 mph) through the Southmont
town limits. The speed limit increases back to a posted 90 km/hr (55 mph) north
of Southmont and is reduced to a posted 70 km/hr (45 mph) north of the Cotton
Grove Community. The posted 70 km/hr (45 mph) speed limit is maintained to
just south of Bridge #83 where it is reduced to a posted speed limit of 60 km/hr
(40 mph) approaching the I-85 interchange area.
7. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control
All streets intersect NC 8 at grade and are stop sign controlled with the
exception of NC 47, and the I-85 ramps, SR 1254, and SR 2212 which are
signalized. A flashing caution light is located at the NC 8 intersection between SR
1110 (Gray Road), SR 2287 (Wafford Road) and SR 2284 (Feezor Road). See
Figure 2, sheet 3 of 10.
Sidewalks
No sidewalks are currently located along NC 8.
9. Utilities
Aerial utilities include a three phase electrical distribution service along
most of the project and aerial telephone intermittently along NC 8. Underground
utilities include telephone, power, water, gas, and sewer.
10. Greenwavs
No greenway corridors are located or planned within the project area.
11. Geodetic Markers
This project will impact seven geodetic survey markers. The N. C.
Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
12. School Buses
The proposed widening is expected to have a positive effect on the
Davidson County school system by improving traffic flow through this section to
area schools. Approximately 21 buses use this section of NC 8 daily (42 trips per
day).
13. Railroads
The Winston-Salem Railway parallels NC 8 throughout the project length.
The railway is close to NC 8 at several locations and crosses NC 8 in Southmont.
This crossing involves 2 trains per day and is protected by flashing signal lights.
The current exposure index at this crossing is 9,840 which is less than the 15,000
index suggested for considering a grade separation at a railroad crossing in a rural
area. The approximate running speed of the trains through this crossing is 30 mph.
NC 8 crosses the railway with a grade separation north of NC 47 (see Figures 1 A
and 1B).
NC 8 also crosses a railroad spur track which serves "PPG Industries".
This crossing is located approximately 0.71 km (0.44 mile) south of the NC 8/
NC 47 intersection. There are 2 train crossings per day operating Monday through
Friday. The crossing is protected by flashing signal lights. The approximate
running speed of the trains using this crossing is 16 km/hr (10 mph).
NC 47 crosses the Winston-Salem Railroad just east of the NC 8/NC 47
intersection. This crossing involves 2 trains per day and is protected by flashing
signal lights. The current exposure index at this crossing is 17,760 which is more
than the 15,000 index suggested for considering a grade separation at a railroad
crossing in a rural area but less than the 30,000 index for an urban grade
separation. The approximate running speed of the trains using this crossing is 40
km/hr (30 mph).
NC 8 crosses the railway with a grade separation (Bridge #83) north of the
NC 8/NC 47 intersection.
B. Functional Classification and Thorou are Plan
NC 8 provides an important connection between NC 49 and I-85 in addition to
providing access to the recreational areas of High Rock Lake. The route is classified as a
major collector in the Functional Classification System and is designated as a major
connector on the Davidson County Thoroughfare Plan.
C. Traffic Volumes and Cagacb
The estimated 1998 and 2018 volumes and major turning movements are shown in
Figures 4A and 4B. The 1998 traffic on NC 8 ranges from 3,900 vehicles per day (vpd)
near the High Rock Lake bridge to 26,820 vpd near I-85. The 2020 traffic ranges from
6,140 vpd to 41,760, respectively.
The traffic carrying ability of a roadway is described by levels of service (LOS)
which range from A through F. Level of service A, the highest level of service, is
characterized by very low delay in which most vehicles do not stop at all. Typically,
drivers are unrestricted and turns are freely made. In level of service B, traffic operation is
stable but more vehicles are stopping and causing higher levels of delay. Level of service
C is characterized by stable operation with drivers occasionally having to wait through
more than one red indication. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted in these
circumstances. At level of service D, the influence of congestion becomes more
noticeable. Delay to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short periods of the
peak hour. Level of service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay and
represents the theoretical capacity of the facility. Level of service F represents over
saturated or jammed conditions which are considered unacceptable to most drivers. It is
preferable that all projects be designed so that they at least operate with a level of service
(LOS) D or better in the design year.
The project has five signalized intersections (NC 47, the I-85 ramps, SR 1254, and
SR 2212) and numerous unsignalized intersections. These intersections were analyzed
using 1998, and design year, 2018, traffic projections.
to
1. Signalized Intersections
NC 8/NC 47 Intersection
Based on the projected traffic volumes, the intersection of NC 47 with
NC 8 is expected to reach LOS E by 1998. The Traffic Engineering Branch
recommended the following improvements: the 5-lane section be extended south
through the intersection to SR 1124; provision of dual left turns on eastbound and
westbound NC 47; provision of an exclusive right turn lane for westbound NC 47
and for both approaches of NC 8. These geometries would result in a LOS D in
1998. Major improvements will be required to both NC 8 and NC 47 to obtain an
acceptable LOS in 2018. Major adjustments to the lane configuration would be
required on NC 8 and NC 47 to obtain an acceptable LOS in the design year
(2018). The geometries proposed by the Traffic Engineering Branch for the
intermediate year of 1998 can be incorporated by widening the western side of
NC 47 approach south of the National Register property (Junior Order United
American Mechanics National Orphans Home) located on the northwest comer of
the intersection. NC 8 is also shifted east to avoid the historic property. A
diagram of the proposed intersection geometries is shown in Figure 5A.
It is proposed to add an additional right turn lane for northbound NC 8 at
the intersection of NC 8 with the northbound I-85 ramp intersection. With the
proposed geometries as shown in Figure 5B, this intersection will function at a
LOS D in 2018. Traffic Engineering noted that dual lefts would be desirable at
southbound NC 8, however, this would require widening the structure at I-85
which is beyond the scope of this project. See Figure 5B for intersection
geometries.
At the intersection with the southbound I-85 ramps, it is proposed to add
an exclusive right turn lane to northbound NC 8 and dual left turns off the
southbound I-85 ramp. These geometries were recommended by Traffic
Engineering and will result in a LOS C in 2018. See Figure 5C for intersection
geometries.
The intersections of NC 8 with SR 1254 and SR 2212 (see Figures IA and
1B for the location) are not included in the actual widening of NC 8 but have been
analyzed to determine feasible improvements by adding additional turn lanes within
median sections where possible within the existing right of way to improve overall
capacity. These improvements may be completed by the Division, as a separate
TIP project.
The descriptions for the intersections of NC 8 with SR 1254 and SR 2212
are included for informational purposes.
11
NC 8/SR 1254 Intersection
At the intersection of NC 8 with SR 1254, it is recommended to add an
additional left turn lane (to provide dual lefts) on westbound SR 1254, which is
anticipated to be accommodated in the existing median. This improvement will
result in a LOS D in 1998. It would be desirable to construct an additional left
turn (to provide dual lefts) on southbound NC 8, but SR 1254 currently has only
one receiving lane. (A large shopping center is located on the east leg of SR 1254
which generates this heavy traffic movement). Widening this portion of SR 1254
is beyond the original scope of this project. It is desirable to construct an exclusive
right turn lane on all approaches (one already exists on northbound NC 8) even
though traffic volumes making right turns are low, to remove this slower turning
traffic from the through traffic. Even with all the improvements discussed, this
intersection will function at a LOS F in 2018. Major improvements to NC 8 and
SR 1254 will be required to achieve a LOS D or better in 2018 which is beyond
the scope of this project.
NC 8/SR 2212 Intersection
At the intersection of NC 8 and SR 2212, it is recommended to construct
an additional left turn on SR 2212 (to provide dual left turns) and carry the
additional lane through the intersection. These improvements are anticipated to be
accommodated within the existing median. The exclusive left turn lane on the
southbound approach of NC 8, as provided by the proposed 5-lane design, will
remove the slower turning traffic from the through traffic lanes. With these
improvements, this intersection is expected to operate at a LOS B in 1998, but
drop to a LOS F in 2018. To improve the capacity in 2018 would require
additional through lanes be added to NC 8 north of SR 2212, which is beyond the
scope of this project.
2. Unsismalized Intersections
The unsignalized intersection with the highest traffic volumes (SR 2287)
was analyzed using 2018 PM peak hour volumes. This intersection is'expected to
function at a LOS C using the "worst case" PM peak volumes. All other
unsignalized intersection are expected to operate at a LOS C or better in 2018.
D. Accident Historv
A total of 240 accidents were reported along the studied section of NC 8 during
the period from December 1, 1992 to November 30, 1995. The primary types of
accidents were rear-end collisions (41.70/6), accidents involving turning movements
(21.1%), and ran off road collisions (14.3%). These three types of accidents account for
77.1 % of all accidents. Accidents occurred most frequently at the intersections.
12
The total accident rate for the studied section of NC 8 is 178.54 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles of travel (acc/100 mvm) compared to the state average for similar
routes of 203.93 acc/100 mvm. This rate is slightly less than the statewide average for
similar routes and is anticipated to increase unless provisions are made to better
accommodate the projected traffic volumes. The fatal accident rate along NC 8 is 1.34
fatal ace/ 100 mvm which is lower than the state average of 2.47 fatal acc/100 mvm. The
proposed widening improvements will reduce the potential for the types of accidents
occurring along the project. The proposed project will improve the overall safety and
convenience of motorists.
III. RECOMAENDED BAPROVEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Recommended Improvements
It is recommended to widen NC 8 as described in Section I. A., with the proposed
realignments of NC 8 at selected locations (see Figure 2).
The proposed widening will be accomplished symmetrically about the centerline
where practical and asymmetrically at other locations to mir i e right of way damages to
historical properties, active businesses, wetlands, and the railroad. There are also several
locations on NC 8 that will need to be relocated so the grade can be adjusted in order to
improve sight distance. Temporary pavement will need to be used in some of these
locations in order to maintain traffic during construction.
B. Other Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of the project, the widening of an existing segment of roadway,
no alternative corridors were studied. The recommended symmetric/asymmetric widening
best uses the existing right of way and minimizes impacts to the project area.
The "do-nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected. NC 8 is an
important connector between NC 49 and I-85. The proposed cross section will provide a
safer environment to accommodate the current and projected traffic volumes.
13
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Environment
Neighborhood Characteristics
Various commercial and industrial developments are located along NC 8
between NC 47 and I-85. The remainder of the project area consists of sparsely
located residential uses with some commercial development interspersed. Refer to
Section IV. C. for more details on land use.
2. Public and Private Facilities
Public facilities located in the project area include a post office, volunteer
fire department, the Southmont-High Rock Community Center (formerly
Southmont Elementary School), Southwood Elementary School, the Junior Order
United American Mechanics National Orphans Home (an orphanage and church
founded in 1925) and numerous churches throughout the project length.
Private facilities include a printing company, Lexington Furniture, Link
Taylor Furniture, Leggett and Pratt, and the High Rock Shopping Center, Green
Printing Company, PPG Industries, in addition to various other commercial
establishments. The majority of the businesses in the area are located between NC
47 and I-85 and include gas stations, fast food restaurants, a car wash, and the City
of Lexington Light and Power Cotton Grove substation.
3. Cultural Resources
a. Architectural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) identified ten
properties with historical or architectural importance in the project area
(including one National Register site, the Junior Order United American
Mechanics National Orphans Home) and requested a survey to locate any
additional properties.
A survey was conducted by staff architectural historians. The
results of that survey concluded that eight of the properties were
determined not eligible for listing in the National Register (see Concurrence
Form dated June 8, 1995). One house (the Sink House) was left out of this
list, but was also determined not eligible (see SHPO letter dated November
17, 1995). Two structures were determined eligible, the Miller-Everhart
Farm and the Captain John Miller House. It was determined that there was
no effect on the Miller-Everhart Farm (no widening on property) and no
adverse effect on the Captain John Miller House if freeway gutter is used in
14
front of this property as proposed by Roadway Design (see Concurrence
from dated September 7, 1995 and typical section showing use of freeway
gutter compared to a full shoulder section).
The only structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places
is the Junior Order United American Mechanics National Orphans Home,
located on the west side of NC 8 just north of NC 47. It was determined
that the project will have no adverse effect on this property since all
widening will be accomplished on the opposite side of NC 8 thus requiring
no right of way from the National Register property (see Concurrence form
dated January 31, 1996).
Due to the "no adverse effect" determinations on the Captain John
Miller House and the Junior Order United American Mechanics National
Orphans Home, concurrence must be obtained from the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP). ACHP concurrence will be included in
the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and will complete
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
b. Archaeological Resources
Three prehistoric archaeological sites (31Dv582, 31Dv583, and
31Dv584) were discovered in the Area of Potential Effect (APE).
Although all three are situated within the proposed APE, they were
determined to be non-significant due to post depositional disturbances
associated with erosion, previous highway and railroad construction, and
the lack of intact subsurface cultural deposits. Accordingly they do not
meet the criteria for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places
due to lack of integrity. The SHPO concurred with this finding in their
January 12, 1995 letter (see Appendix for letter). No further
archaeological investigations are necessary or warranted for the widening
of NC 8 from I-85 south to SR 2412. This completes compliance with
Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
4. Relocation Impacts
Based on preliminary designs, the recommended improvements req#e the
displacement of seventeen (17) residences and ten (10) businesses. The Division
of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Program to help minimize the effects
of displacement on the families and the businesses.
Of the seventeen families displaced by the project, 23 are owners and 5 are
tenants. Due to the demographics of the area, there is a probability that there are
some minority residences and business owners. However, due to the nature of the
project, widening along an existing alignment with some asymmetrical widening to
15
correct vertical curvature (to improve sight distance at some high accident areas),
it is not believed to disproportionately impact any minority population in Davidson
County. The majority (47 percent) of the displaced families are estimated to have
annual incomes ranging from $15,000 to $25,000. Two (12 percent) of the
remaining residences have annual incomes less than $15,000 and seven have
incomes that exceed $25,000. Although the project is disruptive to several lower
and moderate income families, it provides the most desirable alignment that uses as
much of the existing road as possible and greatly improves safety along NC 8.
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 and Rent Supplement.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina
Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed
to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in
which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior
to displacement, for negotiations and possession of replacement housing which
meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-
day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced
persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property
will be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced and will
be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will
also assist owners of displaced businesses; non-profit organizations, and farm
operations in searching for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of
r lacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or
(31 moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The
relocation officer will also supply information concernin* 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 Expenses Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displaces 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,
16
surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for
any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to
owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments,
and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except
under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including
incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down
payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the rent
supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's
state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable
replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displaces within a
reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No relocation payment received
will be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any
person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial
means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The
purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation
by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided.
Last Resort Housing will be implemented as necessary on this project.
B. Economic Environment
The widening of NC 8 will enhance the economic growth of the surrounding area
by alleviating traffic congestion in the immediate area.
The project study area lies in Davidson County and includes agricultural,
residential and commercial areas. The area has experienced intensive urban development
between NC 47 and I-85 while little to no urban development has occurred south of NC
47. The remaining portion of the project includes agricultural, low-density single family
residential, and undeveloped land uses. The project site lies within the central portion of
the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
C. Land Use
1. Scope and Status of Planning
The proposed improvement is located within two local governmental
jurisdictions, the City of Lexington and Davidson County. The City of
Lexington's 1978 Land Development Plan is the city's most recent land use policy
guidance document. The City also enforces a zoning ordinance and zoning
17
regulations. Davidson County's last land use plan was also completed in 1978,
and is no longer used. The County's current primary land development policy
guide is its zoning ordinance.
2. Existing Land Use
The section of NC 8 from SR 2412 to NC 47 is characterized by rural to
suburban transitional development patterns. At its southern terminus is the High
Rock Lake. Low density resort-residential development has occurred along the
lake shore, and is accessed by NC S.
Just north of the lake is the unincorporated community of Southmont. This
area is a small rural community, with several stores and commercial services, as
well as a post office, volunteer fire department, and the Southmont-High Rock
Community Center (formerly Southmont Elementary School). All are accessed
from NC 8 except the community center which is accessed by SR 1396 (Linwood-
Smith Southmont Road).
The land in this area, from Southmont north to NC 47 can be characterized
as rural, with linear residential development scattered among farms. Scattered
small businesses are also located along the roadway.
Several businesses, including a gas station, are located at the intersection of
NC 47 and NC 8. Also located at the intersection is the Junior Order United
American Mechanics National Orphans Home, an orphanage and church founded
in 1925. Land use in the vicinity of NC 47 becomes more intense and suburban in
character. Numerous residential and commercial uses front the roadway. Several
industries are located in the vicinity of NC 8 and the railroad, including Green
Printing Company, Lexington Furniture, Link Taylor Furniture, and Leggett and
Pratt. All are located on the east side of the roadway.
The High Rock Shopping Center is located on the west side of the
roadway. Strip commercial development is the prevailing land use along the
section of NC 8 between NC 47 and I-85. Businesses in the area include gas
stations, fast food restaurants, a car wash, and the City of Lexington Light and
Power Cotton Grove substation.
3. Future Land Use
The mix of development within the City of Lexington municipal limits is
expected to remain, with Industrial zoning districts dominating the east side of the
roadway, and a mix of commercial and residential districts through the remainder
of the project area within the City's jurisdiction. The 1978 Land Development
Plan indicates that additional industrial development is desired on the west side of
NC S.
18
According to the Davidson County planning staff, resort development is
occurring rapidly in the High Rock Lake area, particularly in the vicinity of NC 8.
Many resort residential developments along the lake are accessed from the
roadway. Trends indicate that residential development in the area is transitioning
from primarily vacation homes to more permanent residences, with workers
commuting to Winston-Salem and High Point. This trend is expected to continue.
Most of the area is zoned for low density residential development.
4. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. Land which is previously
developed or is committed to urban development is exempt from the requirements
of the Act. The northern half of the project is already urbanized with a mix of
residential, commercial, and industrial development. Residential development,
with some supporting commercial development is expected in the southern portion
of the project area, and is being encouraged by the Davidson County elected
officials. Residential and community commercial zoning is in place throughout the
area. Therefore, no fiuther consideration of potential impacts to farmland is
required.
D. Natural Environment
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project route by
Resource Southeast biologists on September 26-27, 1994. Plant communities and their
associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation techniques, including
active searching, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying characteristic signs of
wild life (sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows).
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of
associated plants and animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and
fauna in each community and the relationship of these biotic components.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the
plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the same species
include the common name only.
a. Plant Communities
Man-dominated and Mixed Hardwood Forest are the two terrestrial
communities found in the project study area.
19
Man-Dominated Communi
This highly disturbed community includes road shoulders, utility
line easements, residential lawn habitats and agricultural fields. Many plant
species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas.
Regularly maintained areas are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass
(Lolium sp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium
pratense), plantain (Plantago rugehi), wild onion (Allium sp.) and dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale). Irregularly maintained areas are dominated by
those species previously listed as well as Japanese honeysuckle (L,onicera
japonica), tick-seed sunflower (Bidens aristosa), and wild blackberry
(Rebus sp.).
Mixed Hardwood Forest Communitx
This forested community occurs in small fragmented areas along the
project corridor. Gently sloping to nearly flat topography in these areas
supports a variety of mixed hardwoods including white oak (Quercus alba),
tulip poplar (Lu7odendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), and Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). The
herbaceous layer includes such species as Japanese honeysuckle, wild
blackberry, greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
bedstraw (Galium sp.), bracken fern (Ptendium aquilinum), and muscadine
grape (Vitis rotundifolia).
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within the
unnamed intermittent tributary to Abbotts Creek, the above-the-headwater
forested wetland area south of SR 2287, and the man-made pond north of
SR 2284. The widening of NC 8 will result in 0.47 hectares (1.15 acres) of
impact to aquatic communities. Construction of the project is likely to
temporarily increase sediment loads to this aquatic habitats. Construction-
related sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates
which are important parts of the aquatic food chain. Less mobile organisms
such as many of the filter feeders may be covered by this sedimentation,
preventing their feeding. Potential adverse effects will be minimized
throe the utilization of erosion and sediment control measures as
specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
The aquatic community in the study area includes natural and man-
made surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands. North of SR 2289, NC 8
crosses an unnamed intermittent tributary to Abbotts Creek. The creek
banks are gently sloping on the upstream side and deeply eroded
downstream of NC 8. The creek flows west to east through residential
development and the channel appears to have been modified by residential
activity. Vegetation typical of man-dominated areas occurs to the water's
surface. This vegetation includes lawn grasses such as fescue and ryegrass,
broadleaf weeds such as plantain and clover, and secondary colommng
species such as greenbrier, blackberry, and sumac. Natural vegetation in
20
the streambed itself included nutgrass (Carex sp.), lizard tail (Saururus
cernuus), and panic grass (Panicum sp.). No fish or invertebrate organisms
were observed in this creek during the site visit.
Sm&,of SR 2287, an above-the-headwater wetland associated with
an off-site unnamed intermittent tributary to Abbotts Creek occurs between
NC 8 and the Winston-Salem Railroad. This forested wetland includes
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), red maple, dogwood, and sweet gum in
the canopy. Understory vegetation is limited due to canopy density and
includes greenbrier and honeysuckle.
North of SR 2284, a shallow pond containing an adjacent wet
meadow occurs between NC 8 and the Winston-Salem Railroad. This
pond appears to be man-made due to the presence of an earthen dam
parallel to NC 8. Vegetation in the pond includes arrow arum (Peltandra
virginica), duck potato (Sagittaria latifolia), and panic grass. The
surrounding wet meadow includes dogwood, Eastern sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), sweet gum, panic grass, honeysuckle, and blackberry.
b. Wildlife
Terrestrial Communities
The animal species present in the man-dominated and mixed
hardwood forest community are opportunistic and capable of surviving on
a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and
seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carohnensis), red-wing
blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna),
bluebird (Sialia sialis), starlings ( Sturnidae), vultures (Cathartidae), and
red-tail hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) are often attracted to roadside and
agricultural habitats. Many faunal species, such as the Virginia opossum,
which migrate across heavily traveled roadways become vehicular fatalities
and forage items for other animals, such as the turkey vulture (Cathartes
aura).
Due to the proximity of agricultural land uses in the mixed
hardwood forest community, large mammals such as white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) would be expected to regularly inhabit this area.
Small mammals such as the gray squirrel, Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), Virginia opossum, raccoon (Procyon lotor) and field mice may
take advantage of food and protective resources offered in this habitat.
Natural communities occur within the project area, and those
communities have been fragmented and reduced due to past and present
agricultural activity. The man- dominated community will receive the
greatest impact from project construction, resulting in the loss of existing
habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence.
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic
communities by habitat type.
21
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMTACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
NC 8 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined
Widening Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Community Community
Impacts 33.91 9.85 0.47 44.22
(83.79) (24.34) (1.15) (109.28)
NOTES:
Impacts are based on 30.48 meters (100.0 feet) of Right-of-Way limits.
Actual construction impacts may be less than those
indicated above.
Values given are in hectares (acres).
Anticipated at Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are
addressed separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However,
impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations exhibiting
gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment
loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to understand that
construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the
construction activity occurs. Efforts will be made to ensure that no
sediment leaves the construction site.
2. Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are in the process
of decline either due to natural forces or due to their inability to coexist with man.
Rare and protected species listed for Davidson County, and any likely impacts to
these species as a result of the proposed project construction, are discussed in the
following sections.
a. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT)
are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one
federally protected species for Davidson County as of September 15, 1994.
No change in status or new additions have been made in Davidson County
since the March 28, 1995 update.
22
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower Endangered
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: 5/7/91
Distribution in N.C.: Cabarrus, Davidson,
Mecklenburg, Montgomery, Randolph, Rowan,
Stanly, Stokes, Union.
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb
approximately 1-2 meters (3.28-6.56 feet) tall from a carrot-like tuberous
root. Stems are usually solitary, branching only at or above the mid-stem,
pubescent, and often purple in color. The leaves are opposite on the lower
stem and charge' g to alternate above, lanceolate, pubescent, and have a
rough and thick texture. From September until frost, Schweinitz's
sunflower blooms with rather small heads of yellow flowers. The nutlets
are approximately 3.3-3.5 millimeters (0.13-0.14 inches) long and are
glabrous with rounded tips.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont region of the
Carolinas, and occurs in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to
dry clays, clay loams, or sandy clay loams with a high gravel content. The
sunflower usually grows in open habitats such as the edge of upland
woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat exists in the project area for this species. All roadside
margins and woodland fiinges were searched for the presence of
Schweuntz's sunflower. No individuals of this species were observed in or
adjacent to the study area during the site visit. It can be concluded that the
proposed project will not impact this Endangered species.
b. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, until they are forma y proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Table 3 includes 1 federal candidate species
listed for Davidson County and its state classification. Candidate 2 (C2)
species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are insufficient data to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Pro osed Threatened
at this time. Organisms which are listed as Endangered Threatened
(T), or Candidate (C) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list
23
of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under the
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES AND THEIR STATE STATUS
DAVIDSON COUNTY
Scientific Name Status Habitat
(Common Name) Federal/State Present
Lotus purshianus var. helleri
(Heller's trefoil) C2/C No
NOTES:
* Species presented in bold are afforded state protection.
* C denotes Candidate species, which are afforded protection by state
laws.
Summary of Anticipated acts
Habitat does exist in the study area for the federally-protected
Schweinitz's sunflower. A search for this species was conducted along the
project corridor, and no plant individuals were observed in or adjacent to
the project corridor during the site visit. No habitat exists in the project
area for any candidate species known to occur in Davidson County. Also,
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed, and
no records exist for rare species or habitats in the project area.
Physical Resources
e. Tooomsohv
Davidson County is located on a plateau at the boundary of the
Charlotte Belt and Carolina Slate Belt. The topography of the project area
is characterized as gently sloping. Two surface water features, an unnamed
intermittent tributary to Abbotts Creek and a man-made pond, were
observed along the project corridor. Elevations within the project corridor
range from approximately 199.03 meters (653 feet) near the project's
beginning south of the community of Southmont to approximately 234.70
meters (770 feet) near the project's terminus in Lexington. The project
area is located on a low ridge separating the Abbotts Creek watershed to
the east and the Yadkin River watershed to the west. The project study
area has experienced intensive urban development near the project terminus
in Lexington, with the remaining portion of the project being mostly
agricultural, low-density single family residences and undeveloped land
uses.
24
b. Geology and Soils
At the beginning of the project limits, the bedrock is felsic
metavolcanics of the Cid Formation. These are composed of
metamorphosed dacitic to rhyolitic tuffs and flows interbedded with mafic
to intermediate metavolcanics, matargillites and metamudstone. Over the
rest of the southern half of the project corridor, bedrock is composed of
thin to thick bedded metamudstone and metargillite interbedded with
metasandstone, metaconglomerate and metavolcanics. The Gold Hill and
Silver Hill faults he across High Rock Lake, trending north-northeast.
They mark the transition to Charlotte Belt bedrock. This bedrock is
composed of metagabbro, metadiorite and mafic plutonic rock complexes
interbedded with felsic to mafic metavolcanic tuffs and flowrocks. Depth
to bedrock varies along the corridor from 10 to greater than 60 feet.
This portion of Davidson County contains soils from the Cecil-
Pacolet-Hiwassee soil association and the Georgeville-Herndon soil
association. Soils from the Cecil-Pacolet-I-iiwassee soil association are
characterized as having loamy surface layers and moderately permeable
clayey subsoils on very broad, long gently sloping ridges and sloping to
strongly sloping side slopes. Soils from the Georgeville-Herndon soil
association are characterized as having loamy surface layers and
moderately permeable clayey subsoils on broad, moderately long gently
sloping ridges and short side slopes.
These soils come primarily from the Georgeville, Cecil, Alamance
and Davidson series. They are well to excessively well drained. The
surface soils are crumbly, silty, fine to coarse sands with various amounts
of clays. The Georgeville soils are gravelly or stony in areas, containing
quartz, diorite or slate fragments. Subsoils are red to yellowish brown,
crumbly, brittle silty clays with various amounts of fine to coarse quartz
sand and mica. In some sections the subsoil is yellowish brown plastic,
sticky, silty clay.
Engineering properties for the soils along the corridor indicate
slight to moderate equipment limitations. Grassed waterways and bare
soils erode easily. Shallow excavations carry moderate limitations due to
high clay content. Usage for local roadways is moderately to severely
limited due to low strength. In the northern half of the project, excavated
soils are fairly suitable for roadfll material, however they have relatively
low strength. In the southern halm soils are well suited for roadfill material.
Embankment construction is severely affected by soil compressibility in the
northern half and is severely affected by soil compressibility in the northern
half and by soil being hard to compact in the southern half. Shrink-swell
potentials range from low to moderate. Soil reactivity, measured in pH,
25
ranges from very strongly to moderately acid, pH 4.5 to 6.0. Soils in the
southern half are highly corrosive to concrete and uncoated steel while in
the north corrosivity is moderate. AASHTO classifications are given to be
A-2, A-4, A-6 and A-7.
Due to the clay content of the subsoil, precipitation percolates
slowly and runoff can be destructively fast. Effective erosion control
measures shall be utilized to minimize erosion damage.
There are no mineral resources of economic significance known to
be present within the vicinity of this proposed construction.
C. Contaminated Properties
A field reconnaissance was conducted along NC 8 to identify
potential environmental hazards such as: underground storage tanks
(UST's), hazardous waste sites, dumps, or similar sites that could cause
delays in construction schedules or result in environmental liabilities. A
records search of all appropriate environmental agencies was also
conducted in order to identify any additional problem sites.
The field reconnaissance survey identified eighteen (18) potential
sites for UST's. Of these, twelve (12) are still operational, actively using
UST's for petroleum storage and dispensing. The sites identified are as
follows:
Knok-Knok's Bait and Tackle
Route 7, Box 3412
Lexington, N. C. UST Owner: Ken Michael
Hwy. 8, Box 539
Southmont, N. C.
Facility ID: 0-200897
This facility is located approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the intersection
of NC 8 and SR 2292/2291. There is one (1) 1000 gallon kerosene UST
registered with the DEM at this site. During December, 1982, two (2)
1000 gallon gasoline UST's were removed. Installation of the tank system
was completed during January, 1976. The distance from the centerline of
NC 8 to the closest possible UST was not determined. The active
kerosene tank is expected to be on the north side of the building and
approximately 30 to 40 feet from the NC 8 centerline. Tank construction
materials and protective measures are unknown.
26
2. Speedy's Bait and Tackle
P. O. Box 9, Hwy. 8
Southmont, N. C. UST Owner: Unknown
Facility ID: Unknown
This facility, formerly a Texaco station, is located approximately 200 feet
southwest of the intersection of NC 8 and SR 2292 (Frankfleer Road)/
SR 2291 (Cunningham Road). There are two (2) UST's suspected to be
present at this site. The proposed tank location is south of the building and
approximately 84 feet from the NC 8 centerline. According to the present
owner, the UST's have been filled with foam. Information on the size,
contents and construction of the tanks is not available.
3. Abandoned Building
Cool Springs, N. C. UST Owner: Unknown
Facility ID: Unknown
This facility is located approximately 0.9 mile northwest of the intersection
of NC 8 and SR 1110 (Gray Road). Most recently, this building was a
beauty salon. Prior to this, it was a service station. There are two (2)
UST's suspected to be present at this site. The approximated tank location
is on the north side of the building and approximately 54 feet west of the
NC 8 centerline. Information on the size, contents and construction of the
tanks is not available.
4. Wyatt's Bait and Tackle
Route 7, Box 7666
Lexington, N. C. UST Owner: Unknown
Facility ID: Unknown
This facility is located approximately 2300 feet southeast of the intersection
of NC 8 and SR 2284. There are two (2) UST's suspected to be present at
this site. The proposed tank location is on the north side of the building
and approximately 45 feet east of the NC 8 centerline. Information on the
size, contents and construction of the tanks is not available.
5. J and R Salvage
Route 7, Box 7163
Lexington, N. C. UST Owner: Unknown
Facility ID: Unknown
27
This facility is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of NC 8
and SR 2284 (Feezor Road). This facility contains a possible UST site
between SR 2284 and the south side of the building. Information on the
size, contents and construction of UST's that may have been at this site is
not available.
6. Granny's Bait and Tackle
Route 7, Box 7850
Lexington, N. C.
UST Owner: Jerry W. Weisner
Rt. 21, Box 1650
Lexington, N. C.
Facility ID: 0-028173
This facility is located on the west side of NC 8. There are three (3) UST's
registered with the DEM at this site; two 3000 gallon and one 1000 gallon
tank. The contents of these tanks have not been reported to or by the
DEM. Installation of the tank system was completed during September,
1987. The tanks are located on the south side of the station building and
approximately 51 feet from the NC 8 centerline. The tanks are constructed
of steel with on cathodic protection.
7. Micana, Inc., Texaco
Route 9, Box 4330
Lexington, N. C.
UST Owner: Holden Bros. Oil Co.
Kannapolis-Concord,
N. C.
Facility ID: Unknown
This facility is located approximately 4300 feet northeast of the intersection
of NC 8 and SR 2281 (Hunt Road). There are three (3) UST's suspected
to be present at this site. They are located on the south side of the station
building and approximately 141 feet from the NC 8 centerline. Information
on the size, contents and construction of the tanks is not available.
8. Nolan's Quick Shop
2434 Cottongrove Road
Lexington, N. C.
UST Owner: Rusher's Oil Co.
Salisbury, N. C.
Facility ID: Unknown
This facility is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of NC 8
and NC 47. There are three (3) UST's suspected to be present at this
facility. They are located on the north side of the station building
approximately 67 feet from the NC 8 centerline and 165 feet north of the
NC 47 centerline. Information on the size, contents and construction of the
tanks is not available.
28
9. Abandoned Station
UST Owner: Unknown
Facility ID: Unknown
This facility is located approximately 800 feet northeast of the intersection
of NC 8 and NC 47. There are two (2) UST's suspected to be at this site.
Information on their size, contents and construction is not available. The
proposed tank location is on the north side of the station building and
approximately 93 feet from the NC 8 centerline.
10. Reese's Tackle Shop
Route 16
2213 Cottongrove Road UST Owner: Unknown
Lexington, N. C.
Facility ID: Unknown
This site is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of NC 8
and SR 1266 (Owens Road). A property owner in the area stated that
petroleum products were dispensed here approximately 20 years ago. The
site is no longer active. The area on the property that may have contained
UST's is located approximately 73 feet from the NC 8 centerline. No
additional information is available.
11. Snellings Oil Co.
2008 Cottongrove Road
Lexington, N. C.
UST Owner: Snellings Oil Co.
2008 Cottongrove Rd.
Lexington, N. C.
Facility ID: 0-003569
This facility is located approximately 2000 feet southeast of the intersection
of NC 8 and Southview Road. There are two (2) 10,000 gallon gasoline
UST's registered with the DEM at this site. During May, 1991, a 2000
gallon gasoline UST was permanently removed. Installation of the present
tank system was completed during November, 1971. The tanks are located
approximately 69 feet from the NC 8 centerline on the south side of the
building. The tanks are of steel construction with no cathodic protection.
12. Unnamed Store (Former gas station)
1724 Cottongrove Road UST Owner: Unknown
Lexington, N. C.
Facility ID: Unknown
29
This facility is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of NC 8
and South Avondale Road. Two (2) UST's are suspected to have been at
this location and may still be in the ground. The store, however, has not
been used for petroleum distribution for at least the past five (5) years.
Information on the location, size and contents of the tanks is not available.
13. Citgo Gasttrack # 122
1709 Cottongrove Road
Lexington, N. C.
UST Owner: Fasttrack, Inc.
Hwy 421, Box 410
Wilkesboro, N. C.
Facility ID: 0-032360
This facility is located approximately 1000 feet southwest of the
intersection of NC 8 and I-85, at the intersection of NC 8 and Mayfair
Road. There are two (2) 10,000 gallon gasoline UST's registered with the
DEM at this location. Installation of the tank system was completed during
September, 1990. The tanks are located approximately 47 feet from the
NC 8 centerline, in front of the station building. The tanks are constructed
of steel with FRP coating.
14. Quick-N-Easy Phillips 66
1705 Cottongrove Road
Lexington, N. C.
UST Owner: Highfall Oil Co.
Highpoint, N. C.
Facility ID: Unknown
This facility is located approximately 600 feet southwest of the intersection
of NC 8 and SR 1265. There are three (3) UST's suspected to be present
at this site. The size, contents and construction of the tanks is not
available. The proposed tank location is approximately 83 feet from the
NC 8 centerline on the north side of the building.
15. Texaco Food Mart #3
1700 Cottongrove Road
Lexington, N. C.
UST Owner: Holden Bros. Oil Co.
Kannapolis-Concord,
N. C.
Facility ID: Unknown
This facility is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of NC 8
and SR 1265. There are five (5) UST's suspected to be present at this site.
Information on the size, contents and construction of the tanks is not
available. The proposed tank locations are approximately 81 feet from the
NC 8 centerline and are situated on either side of the station building.
30
16. Rushco #3 Amoco
1703 Hwy 8
Lexington, N. C.
UST Owner: Rusher Oil Co.
P. O. Box 1483
Salisbury, N. C.
Facility ID: 0-011748
This facility is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of
NC 8 and SR 1265. There are four (4) UST's registered with the DEM;
three (3) 8000 gallon gasoline tanks and one (1) 8000 gallon diesel tank.
In April, 1961, two (2) 3000 gallon diesel tanks were permanently
removed. Installation of the gasoline tank system was completed during
April, 1981, and for the diesel system during January, 1991. The gasoline
tanks are located approximately 105 feet from the NC 8 centerline and 54
feet from the SR 1265 centerline. The diesel tank is located on the south
side of the station building and approximately 163 feet from the NC 8
centerline. All tanks are of steel construction with no cathodic protection.
17. Quality Mart #30
NC 8 and Brown St.
Lexington, N. C.
UST Owner: Quality Oil Co.
Box 2736
Winston-Salem, N. C.
Facility ID: 0-033013
This facility is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of NC 8
and SR 1254 (Brown Street). There are three (3) UST's registered with
the DEM, two (2) 8000 gallon and one (1) 12,000 gallon gasoline tanks.
Installation of the tank system was completed during February, 1992. The
tank system was completed during February, 1992. The tanks are located
approximately 147 feet from the NC 8 centerline and 55 feet from the
SR 1254 centerline. Tanks are constructed of fiberglass reinforced plastic
(FRP) with no cathodic protection.
18. Fairmont Exxon
988 Cottongrove Road
Lexington, N. C.
UST Owner: Ripple Oil Co.
P. O. Box 59
Welcome, N. C.
Facility ID: 0-011278
This facility is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of I-85
and NC 8 (Cottongrove Road). There are five (5) UST's registered with
the DEM; four (4) gasoline (6000, 6000, 12,000 and 4000 gallons) tanks
and one (1) diesel (4000 gallons) tank. Installation of the tank system was
completed for the 12,000 gallon UST during May, 1984. The closest UST
to NCDOT right of way is located approximately 97 feet from the NC 8
centerline. The remainder of the tanks are located behind the station
31
building, approximately 144 feet from the NC 8 centerline. All tanks are of
steel construction with cathodic protection available only on the 12,000
gallon tank.
Purchasing property containing UST's creates the liability for any
leakage that may occur and the possibility for long-term, costly
remediation. Therefore, any potential right of way involvement with the
above UST sites will be fully evaluated by the geotechnical unit prior to
right of way acquisition.
. The files of the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Sections of the
Division of Solid Waste Management were consulted to identify any
regulated or unregulated landfills or dump sites within the project limits.
The EPA's Superfund list was also consulted. Based on the field
reconnaissance and the records search, no additional environmental hazard
sites are expected to affect this project.
d. Water Resources
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to
major water systems. The proposed project lies along a low ridge
separating the Abbotts Creek watershed to the east and the Yadkin River
watersheds to the west.
Water Resource Characteristics
The project area is well drained by the Yadkin River and its
tributaries, and by Flat Swamp and Abbotts Creeks. The depth to the
seasonal high water table is greater than six (6) feet throughout the project.
In the vicinity of the major waterways, groundwater will be closer to the
ground surface.
Two surface water bodies were observed within the project
corridor. North of SR 2289, NC 8 crosses an unnamed intermittent
tributary to Abbotts Creek. This creek is approximately 0.30 meters (1.0
foot) wide and 0.15-0.30 meters (0.5-1.0 foot) deep with a silt and cobble
substrate. The creek banks are gently sloping on the upstream side and
deeply eroded downstream of NC 8. The creek flows west to east through
residential development, and vegetation typical of man-dominated areas
occurs to the water's surface. North of SR 2284, a shallow pond
containing an adjacent wet meadow occurs between NC 8 and the
Winston-Salem Railroad. This pond appears to be man-made due to the
presence of an earthen dam parallel to NC 8. Due to the intermittent
nature of the creek, the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management does not include information on the classification rating of
these surface waters, nor do they maintain any fish or macroinvertebrate
monitoring stations in this location. A cursory examination during the field
reconnaissance did not reveal any fish or macroinvertebrate organisms in
these surface waters.
32
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resources Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-H are
located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area. No impacts to
sensitive water resources of any kind will take place as a result of the
project construction.
According to the NCDEHNR DEK Abbotts Creek, from its
source near I-85 to SR 2294 near High Rock Lake, is classified as a WS-
V&B streath. The unnamed intermittent tributary to Abbotts Creek would
also be classified as WS-V&B. This best usage classification means that
these waters are protected as water supplies which are generally upstream
and draining to Class WS-IV waters; no categorical restrictions on
watershed development or wastewater discharges are required. The Class
B rating indicates that these waters are also suitable for primary recreation.
Anticipated acts to Water Resources
Temporary impacts to water resources in the project area will result
from sedimentation and turbidity associated with project construction.
Permanent impacts to the streambed will result at the crossing of the
unnamed intermittent tributary to Abbotts Creek under NC 8 due to the
replacement or extension of the existing pipe culvert. Sedimentation and
erosion control measures (Best anagement Practices and Sediment
Control Guidelines) will be strictly enforced during the construction stage
of this project. Grass berms along construction areas help decrease erosion
and allow potentially toxic substances such as engine fluids and particulate
rubber to be absorbed into the soil before these substances reach
waterways. Poorly managed application of sedimentation control policies
will result in serious damage to the aquatic environment.
e. Floodplain Involvement
Davidson County currently participates in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. The proposed improvements do not involve
any designated flood hazard areas. A 2.4 kilometer (1.5 mile) segment of
the project between SR 2412 and SR 2289, is located in a water supply
watershed. The project is not located in a high quality water zone nor in a
critical intake area. Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through
the appropriate specification, installation, and maintenance of standard
erosion and sedimentation control measures. Existing drainage patterns
will be maintained to the extent practicable. Groundwater resources shall
be evaluated during final hydraulics design to ensure that appropriate
measures are taken to prevent groundwater contamination.
Signs are posted near High Rock Lake indicating that the road is
subject to flooding. An undersized Pipe 380 millimeters (15 inches) is
located approximately 15 meters (50 feet) south of SR 1101 is responsible
for causing flooding covering about half of the roadway on NC 8 between
three and five times a year. This problem will be investigated further and
addressed in the final hydraulic design.
33
Wetland
Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE).
The above-the-headwaters forested wetland area south of SR 2287
and the man-made pond with the adjacent wet meadow north of SR 2284
will be impacted by the proposed project. Investigation into wetland
occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using methods of the
1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Anticipated surface water impacts fall
under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and
project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on
jurisdictional surface waters. Approximately 0.47 hdctares (1.15 acres) of
jurisdictional wetlands and surface water impacts will occur due to the
proposed widening of NC 8. This site is located just north of Rosebriar
Drive on the east side of NC 8 (between NC 8 and the railroad), see Figure
2 for site location. It is proposed to replace th e existin 2-lane shoulder
section with a 3-lane shoulder section. Functional d show symmetrig
widening in the vicinity of the wetland site. In the ° design, efforts will
be made to minimize if not totally avoid direct impacts to Mite by
asymmetric widening to the west side of NC 8. Best Management
Practices will be followed to further minimize damages to the site resulting
from construction.
9. Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General
Permit No. 198200031 and/or Nationwide Permit Nos. 14, 26, and/or 33,
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Also, Section
401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water quality
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result
in a discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE
permits. Nationwide Permits 14 and 33 and General Permit No.
198200031 require a Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN) to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management before certification can
be issued.
Mi i i n
Mitigation for wetland impacts may be necessary if the project is
authorized under a general permit or if wetland impacts exceed the impact
criteria for the nationwide permits. Mitigation for impacts to surface
waters is generally not required by the COE. A final determination
regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
34
Air Quality and Traffic Noise
a. Au Quality
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions
from industrial and internal combustion engines are the most
prevalent sources. Other origins of common outdoor air pollution
are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting
from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air conditions. The
traffic is the center of concern when determining the impact of a
new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway facility.
Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur diomde (S021 and
lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles
are considered to be the major source of CO in the project area.
For this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned with
determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the
project due to traffic flow.
To determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor
closest to the highway project, two concentration components must
be used: local and background. The local concentration is defined
as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near
vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location.
The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as "the
concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions
outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind
edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the
NCDOT Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer
modeling and the background concentration was obtained from the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration components
were resolved, they were added to*ether to determine the ambient
CO concentration for the receptor in question and to compare to
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from
cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight
to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Automotive emissions of HC
and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new
cars. However, regarding area-wide emissions, these technological
improvements maybe offset by the increasing number of cars on the
transportation facilities of the area.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen
dioxide require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak
levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of
35
the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are
regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and
highways. The emissions of all sources in an urban area mix
together in the atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the
mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other
photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air
pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than 7 percent of particulate matter emissions and
less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-
highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic
on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can bum regular
gasoline. The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of
regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead which is added by
refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with
catalytic converters bum unleaded gasoline eliminating lead
emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of
leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in
1974 was 0.5 grams per liter. By 1989, this composite average had
dropped to 0.003 grams per liter. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the
lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded
gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995.
Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the
proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to
determine future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed
highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology
For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the
nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal
conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors,
and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are
based on the annual average daily traffic projections. The traffic
volume used for the CAL3QHC model was the highest volume
within any alternative. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors
were calculated for the completion year of 1998 and the design year
of 2018 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission
Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer
model.
36
The background CO concentration for the project area was
estimated to be 1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm
is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be
receptor #243 at a distance of 15 meters from the proposed
centerline of the median. The "build" and "no-build" one- hour CO
concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of
1998 and 2018 are shown in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest Build No-Build
Sensitive
Receptor
1998
2018
1998
2018
R-243 5.2 5.3 5.5 8.6
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the
NAAQS maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35
ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 p pm) indicates no violation of
these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1- hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO
level does not exceed the standard. See Tables Al through A4 for
input data and output.
The project is located in Davidson County, which is within
the Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point nonattainment area for
ozone (03) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate"
nonattainment area for 03 However, due to improved monitoring
data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance" for 03 on
November 7, 1993. Section 176(C) of the CAAA requires that -
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent
of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP
does not contain any transportation control measures for Davidson
County.
In nonattainment and maintenance areas outside
metropolitan planning areas, only USDOT makes a conformity
finding for these areas. Conformity determinations for these areas
are based on the conformity analysis report of the adjacent MPO.
Projects in these areas are included in the conformity analysis,
which USDOT bases their conformity finding. The subject project
was not included in a conformity analysis report of any adjacent
MPO, so a USDOT conformity finding was not made. Because of
this, a project level conformity analysis was completed for the
subject project for 03. This analysis indicated the project will
37
result in no change
compounds (VOC)
following tables:
in the emissions of either volative organic
or oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as shown in the
Emissions Analysis for Existing Condition
Year NOX
(Kg/Day) VOC
(Kg/Day)
1996 143.90 107.14
2005 146.31 104.31
Emissions Analysis for Five Lane
Year NOX
(Kg/Day) VOC
(Kg/Day)
1996 143.90 107.14
2005 146.31 104.31
Since the project will result in no change in the emissions of
VOC and NOX, the results of the conformity analysis above
demonstrate conformity that is consistent with the final conformity
rule found in 40 CFR Part 51.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other
operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise
disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and
regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance
with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that burning
will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to
the public. Burning will only be conducted under constant
surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to
reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust
is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area
residents. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements
for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the
NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
38
Traffic Noise
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed widening of NC 8 from SR 2412 to I-85 in Davidson
County on noise levels in the immediate project area (Figure 6A).
This investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive
land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise
levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise
impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project.
Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures
for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise,
appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and
evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted
from many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power
generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic
noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in
vehicle noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on
the frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive
(1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a weighted-A
decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report,
all noise levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of
noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Figure 6A.
Review of Figure 6A indicates that most individuals in
urbanized areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many
sources as they go about their daily activities. The degree of
disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on
three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
39
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important
to note that individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud
noises bother some more than others and some individuals become
upset if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of noise also
enter into an individual's judgment of whether or not a noise is
offensive. For example, noises occurring during sleeping hours are
usually considered to be more offensive than the same noises in the
daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge
the annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to
noise from other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car
horn at nit when background noise levels are approximately 45
dBA would generally be more objectionable than the blowing of a
car horn in the afternoon when background noises might be 55
dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with
activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal
conversation would be possible while sleep might be difficult. Work
activities requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted
by loud noises while activities requiring manual effort may not be
interrupted.to the same degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted
intervals and are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises
which intrude into their lives. Attempts have been made to regulate
many of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory
noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to
highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have
developed rapidly over the past few years.
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or
are not compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria
(NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in
the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A
summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is
presented in Figure 6B. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the
level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period
has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words,
the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms
of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of
the project to determine the existin* background noise levels. The
purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise levels along NC 8
40
as measured at 15 meters from the roadway ranged from 62.0 to
71.1 dBA. The ambient measurement sites and measured exterior
Leq noise level are presented in Figure 6C.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with
the most current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate
existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually
measured. The calculated existing noise levels were within 1.2 to
2.7 dBA of the measured noise levels for the locations where noise
measurements were obtained. Differences in dBA levels can be
attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual
vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and
single vehicular speed.
PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars driving at
different speeds through a continual changing highway
configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of
the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications must be made
to predict highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this
study was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA
2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost
Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic
noise prediction model uses the number and type of vehicles on the
planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the
road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and
height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and
barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only prelnYUnary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The project
proposes to widen the existing two lanes of NC 8 to a three lane
section from SR 2412 to NC 47, and widen the existing 3 lanes to a
5 lane section from NC 47 to I-85. Only those existing natural or
man-made barriers were included insetting up the model. The
roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be
flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case"
topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in this report
are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions
during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes
were compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions
were used with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all
other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
41
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be
impacted during the peak hour of the design year 2018. A land use
is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria
and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The basic
approach was to select receptor locations such as 7.5, 15, 30, 60,
120, 240, and 480 meters from the center of the near traffic lane
(adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The location of these
receptors were determined by the changes in projected traffic
volumes and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed project.
The result of this procedure was a grid of receptor points along the
project. Using this grid, noise levels were calculated for each
identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project
are listed in Figure 6D. Information included in these tables consist
of listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their
ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level
increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category
that are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is
shown in Figure 6E. These are noted in terms of those receptors
expected to experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or
exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior
noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, Section 1 contains 77
residential and 3 commercial impacted receptors and Section 2 has
24 residential and 19 commercial impacted receptors due to
highway traffic noise in the project area. Other information
included in Table N5 is the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA
noise level contours. This information should assist local
authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local 'ur?sdiction.
For example, with the proper information on noise, the ?ocal
authorities can prevent further development of incompatible
activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an
adjacent highway.
Figure 6F indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted
noise level increases for this project range from +2 to +9 dBA.
When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise
level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily
noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a
doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement
criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Figure 6B
value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower
42
portion of Figure 6B. Consideration for noise abatement measures
must be given to receptors which fall in either category. There are
123 impacted receptors in the project area.
Highway Alismment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or
vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as
to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative
alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance
between noise impacts and other engineering and environmental
parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is
primarily a matter of placing the roadway at a sufficient distance
from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not
a viable alternative for noise abatement.
raffic Svstem Management
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project, traffic management measures
are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their
effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the proposed
roadway.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels
can often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
ap lica 'on of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid
mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial
abatement walls.
The project will maintain only limited control of access,
meaning most commercial establishments and residences will have
direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all
intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it
must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from
significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a
small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways,
crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a
concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to
the receptor. For example, a receptor located 15 meters from the
barrier would normally require a barrier 120 meters long. An
access opening of 12 meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its
noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND
ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No.
FHWA-EM-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2,
page 5-27).
43
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related
establishments located along a particular highway normally require
accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for
traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities,
and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
"DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the proposed widening did not
occur, 78 residential and 1 commercial receptors would experience
traffic noise impact by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC.
Also, the receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in
exterior noise levels in the range of +0 to +5 dBA. As previously
noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA.
A 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The major construction elements of this project are
expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving.
General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech
interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working
near the project, can be expected particularly from paving
operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading
operations. However, considerin -term nature
g the relatively short
of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime
hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The
transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and
man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the
effects of intrusive construction noise.
SUMMARY
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement
is not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are
proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project
change develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for
this project.
E. Construction Impacts
There are some potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the
construction of highways. These are generally of short term duration and measures will be
taken to minimize these impacts.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition, and other operations will be removed from the project, burned,
or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning done will be in accordance with
the applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations of the North Carolina State
44
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air Quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care
will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practicable from
dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will be made under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction when the
control of dust is necessary for protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered in Article
107-3 of the Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, which is entitled "Control
of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution". The N. C. Division of Highways has also developed
an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program which has been approved by the N. C.
Sedimentation Control Commission. This program consists of the rigorous requirements
to minimize erosion and sedimentation contained in the Standard Specifications together
with the policies of the Division of Highways regarding the control of accelerated erosion
on work performed by State Forces.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of way and
provided by the contractor, unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the
Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be
permitted without prior approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be permitted
when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding areas for
mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious disruptions in
service to any of the utilities serving the area. Prior to construction, a determination will
be made regarding the need to relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project area.
A determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible will be
made at that time. In all cases, the contractor is required to notify the owner of the utility
in advance as to when this work will occur. In addition, the contractor is responsible for
any damages to water lines incurred during the construction process. This procedure will
insure that water lines, as well as other utilities, are relocated with a minimum of
disruption of service to the community.
Traffic service in the immediate area may be subjected to brief disruption during
construction of the project. Every effort will be made to insure the transportation needs of
the public are met both during and after construction.
General construction noise impacts such as temporary speech interference for
passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project can be expected,
particularly from paving operations and from earth moving equipment during grading
45
operations. However, considering the relatively short term nature of construction noise,
these impacts are not expected to be significant. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby structures will moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Government Response
During the planning study, local, state, and federal agencies were contacted.
Requests for environmental input were sent to the following agencies and replies were
received from those marked with an asterisk (*):
*State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*Davidson County Schools
*N. C. Department of Environmental, Health, and Natural Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
Davidson County Commissioners
City of Lexington
Mayor of Lexington
In addition to the above comments, the subject project was finther coordinated
with local government and NCDOT officials.
The Division requested that the intersections (SR 1254 and SR 2212) north of I-85
be included as a part of this project for upgrading. A preliminary investigation was
conducted and is included in Section H. C. 1., however, the improvements needed were
determined to be beyond the scope of this project.
B. Public Response
In addition to the written requests for input from appropriate agencies and
governmental bodies, a citizens informational workshop was held on September 15, 1994
at the Southmont Civic Center to discuss the subject road improvement. The meeting was
advertised by the major local media prior to its being held. Approximately 30 persons
attended the informal gathering including representatives of the NCDOT and local
municipalities. The residents/business owners were mainly interested in the construction
46
schedule and how the proposed project would affect their individual properties. All
comments received thus far in the planning process have acknowledged the need for a
wider roadway to improve safety and accommodate current and projected traffic volumes.
AHS/plr
FIGURES

..°°d - a I wl --
?° 5 Hig oint
1rua?a w` 9
sA 9 8?, iAr+a9 6A1
y alcorna
w 9 ?? Tdomasv Ile
"[e ct 9 ,K n!s {
D G VLAO O 1?

\\1
POP. 15,111

PROJECT

Prwaw

0
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENN IRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 8
FROM SR 2412 TO 1-85
DAVIDSON COUNTY
R-23008
0 MILES 2
FIG.ta
` `~ 'p r IIM W I
PHIL JUL 11 NIa I • ?'
q,`O I)Y 1W ? Ills UIr 1
lut Lard,
n) .?• /iji' '°•YI QliI.,1b.z-?-ro /r?wl l,.rrri°I ,°, •i° ,. qlc' `"_ITnii Ali '"?-,• M.r:d'
Grl
? ?1? ? 1•- Il i J° INI
' 1111
N
l°dlylan /d«Il.ly°l IIM I •t
IuIpN 4 ,'+ LN u«
.14 ° "'1 IN Ha l ?i 1»I
J}V Inr ?•1
to 1111 a y 't II IVI ' >M
11•
N,1 .1 $ Y in1 E v'y,
? "'s d I µr
/Iva
I uN 2 m W
b m o a«......
IIM ?° (7 • IW I L IrII CA
a IM• a NI Il.rr •{:, I I$ ?: III. '•II
? NIL ? N•1 Rit?i.
ILa
111E 1- °IO - ' Ir INI
1 w? c w• ... _..: I ?syss :
.0. Ck
1 1 ?'? ulr
u :.
IouwM
Iln• III w}q; 1'I owe N/• yjl
i .1 ull ?° I ( N
In•1y 1r '
1 ull? 1 w
Iwo....- ?
.r.r p:
111 I•.•1 cx .b `• °
INI 1„lit au
1 r ,? nN I ?-
lw
Iw ? / 1•„
1' I •? 1•I) n11N "1 •1
111
IVI I I Y Cwr 4. I.A 1••. •J1"'?
' .111 I .,1 1••1
J ,I„ of
INI I ,
IW
• 1111 °•• I ,I ,»• [.+r O..K•n
•4h Ma.
•• ItM C-G•.•
r I J
Inl IVI J
r.r. C
M
I
N
q
I M. .
last " NN till
w « l !j
uu l
R ? I
Ulf °° I 1
1 r?
wl
I At"
a«• l '
t '
_ - ? 1111
1111
It l
1
;. IMI
1114 1111
.W p•I 6 N•I INI
i 1°°I q
s •NII d rut.
II
nu ? .
INI 1181
?i11• also
1
t Il M 1
No
l 1 r' I
1111 all
I I N,
l IW ...l
l r
_ JNI
NN . nN NI •^
a111 J' Q all. , ,111
?' IVI If .t f ,
11 P•1 r' J",
V `y 111, / I
1+11 asp to
1117
1 1111
1 // 1111 N« ,
IIM I/rl
rim
1111
lost •• 1.11 i
IIV IIW
1111 11.1
INI 1],., •P
1J+lm l INI rN'
'All 11
IYI ?1? Inr. 1,.• 1?. I,tI a NI 11x1.-•,. p
1 ? ? Ills `' A ? /`"l rn. INI ?
n.. \
INI IN•
INI
NN .111 1111 IM
IY.I a•oI till
G. '
ua a ,In
J ? uft INI
III. ,?' Np ,•I
io
WI ?' 1111 M. N 1'N IIt1
LL
l 471 .N •ha 1 up r-w
1111 J--- -•I I-
V--,
• ?.ll.° JarNN y;I 1111
IIN I•h 1 , II.I `
1 ,III 3••IA•?•1 ? 1111 ,III ? 11.1
»I ,1» I,?• ul
NII
l / INa•MN. 11.1? 01
( 1? 1111 1 1111
•I • ?I\ • •1111 •1»I
. •(,`1x7/?•NII?/?? 1 I• ml
J •bq IM +" I
1 n« ?
.l T d'tV?OfHU 'I, A INI
till
5 0t '0, 50
!, iC N 7 --i O m ... off 1411 11
0 "V is,
yy n2 n o>
i n Z oIII
•\ Q ? ON o HA lilt jilt
If. wt __t.
m mz;m iroyo ,I.I, ,».
nN dlX?? ?I, -
oil n 0 7.
•Z•? ? Yyl ?°I ? IM
-C m o N 111 '? -
z 4 ,>~
to Ham. .1
A
fF:p q
l/`j ?g ?[ J1Y T
Mew.

IT ft
r ? ki+' ?i, i _ '' r x.e't..s, f'? ? ? q?? ? ?? J 'r iP,..
E? r RAF r +n I l
Air
AL IF:-
64 J
16
J.
f.
E,.
r a
t -
14
V" 4
... ? P ' tom/ ? ?,?.; v-.}• , s
a
*1 ?'-+ y i iT
or.
" ? ? ?T?y,C-• ?4.r:_YY ry y.1` ?, . .a,r ., ltj .? 3 ?' - " ??} i ?i'_ ?'9? .?,f.. f ??.t ? sxs` jai _ .??? s ,e ? ,
IF'
1• ? ? w. may, ?? ? !..
d
b
IV - ?•- "J ?. r
Y - , i-O
bb ,
OrM
4 44,
'?i?4 IIR- ' _ f f -' T

J

V/a
r
r
rr y ! . ue ?
' ?1 r II _ ? v 4
?,;,¢ { ? ?' - i ? - '?'?? ,r " ? ,'•>?, ??'. '?.. ? :aF ? rap ?`s -
V ?`kf M??//yy ,':.,? o- gi ,gIP•?,.,?- ??
fir
- {? - - T_
r' ? r
I-IV
r{ ? G
5 4 ?
+ r
{ r
y
? ,"f?.?? 1.:: ?_ f "1 a? x•77 iY ?4f
"?hRkis'`;?`t,_
;4a, ., ,* r*? ter # {?:,a t k
-w 00 0 a 0 0

r
17
z
O
U
w
W
I--
F-
0
D
z
Q
m
cf:
U
w
z
'f /

G
>M_
LY
O
O
T
F+
fV
L1.
LL
co
W
m
T7
:M1

0
tn
N ?
r
N ?
r M
N V
T
Tv
C
N ?
r M
N
r M
v
T
`rte
N ?
rM..•i
J
U ?
N
z
0
U
W
Cf)
W
E--
0
D
z
Q
m
U
w
z
Q
CY)
i
l
N
O
O
00
e
u
m
N
ll..
O
M
u
m
FIGURE 3A
3-LANE SHOULDER SECTION
120' ROW (36 m)
4'
m)
36' (10.8
4N
441
12' 12' 12'
(3.6 m) (3.6 m) (3.6 m)
PAVED SHOULDER

FIGURE 3
1 998 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LINE A
MATCH
0
-? I
' =oM
1930
S? I-lJd 18630
?-- t-? ?- 16530
2100
$ 18630 1180 -?
16530
?- ? eaeo 920 -''
?- a4so
an self
gg 8
L;Bca
N e:eo
o
?

m Q?1°m
NFN
2660

o I Q
N
980 880
? 900 14440
NC47 ?
3960
4440
0
88
0 -?

y
280 --? 1
o
$
' o0o ?o
NF?
III 'L _ laeo
<-
an 1284

? > ?}-
1410 {lo ?-•? >
170
-?
7170
XIQ
°os m?
790
E?
W

. W1'ICN WIL A 8810172 _
780
64O--T
140'
I
O
!
` o
?I 1 n

i W I
i
i
• ? ? 320
??
8011 r ra Aso I
E-? I
y 80 E420 8012201
1?so
420
--T
20
so
8?8

' - - - _ - . .
MATCH LINE 8 FIGURE 4A
N
MATCH
Ag
y?
ANE B
100 i-°
m?szee
T r -?
?8
a?ttto r-20 I ? s1o
80
170
410 780
400
70
ne??g N
o O h
IN O lee
?W 1 B
cgs
NNE
O O
02
N 1
gg °.cf
8Flgi ? y
T- 2=
S1t 1J?? i ?I 1- -- 40 2460 os?z <-- o00oI ossl
F--- ostt E--
54o
50
10 -?
14Rttos
246 OGW? os1?
Oyu -?
?Tr Ss?
ego .
T?
OSBI
FIGURE 4A

201 8 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC MATCH LINE A
1'I, r
CEO
bee almm J! L.1 um 240

I \ T 90
---777 ? !0230 1

10320

$

= F _
m
m
F
O
A
e
O
so
O O F
O e =
e . O
n
e

' "C- 1170
IA 1864 210
2?- r-- 2510

2370
9E0

-J 10

4-?
210 -?
1260
o '
men
e
e
r
e
n

. . .
MATCH'uec
.I
31060 1840
27"10 -?
1310 -?
I
1 I
$ WWW
..
? I ?
3490 44 _
3490
3421P
°i$
T? .
4180
14460
6330
144330 0-??0
460
Z!K
IE_
ref fs7s
IT.r
sh
pO
N
T?
7070
1230 2
O
??8 L
_sw
eJ40
Jf1111 f - .L- 40 4.?eo 1Rt: Sao>
250 130
40
80
o
RI ?R
. MATCH .LINE B . .
FIGURE
4
N
MATCH LINE B

00
I I

I
y r- 20 l l30
?-
W emssee

!I ?
saettto
421-1

T r?
°
T?
do soessea
? ?j 'VAp ? X10
fr-?//// eotsse7
40
ISO
330
I?440
6®D
3-s
40
110 -1,
M
itI
?? O N p
It IN OA
oA -3
,
I I 'L '?- osl
` ss 13W4 3170
t-? y Tito
3wo
E?-oouz
-T 0rz
aso 130 06
710 ougz
zo ---1 11 r
R53?
at is
amtto:
0109

FIGURE 4B
INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
NC 8 AND NC 47

HISTORIC
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
..........................................
-A
4

all widening to the east
and south of NC 8
(away from historic property)
co
u
Z

0
cn ?
z?
A

'10?-

NC 47
FIGURE 5A
INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
NC 8 AND NB 1-85 RAMP
00
U
Z

1-85 NB Entrance Ramp
Additional right
turn lane
FIGURE 5B
INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
NC 8 AND SB 1-85 RAMP

i
1 la
00
U
Z
To Salisbury --T
Additional right
turn lane
_ Resurface and designate
?--- as dual left turns
1-85 SB Entrance Loop
I
Additional right
turn lane
I
FIGURE 5C

HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m away MCDERATELY LOUD
B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 I
0 I THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
FIGURE 6A
•
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Sourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and nerve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)

Existinq Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
FIGURE 6B
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Laq)
NC 8, From SR 2412 to I-85, Davidson County
STATE PROJECT #8.1600701, TIP # R-2300 B
SITE
LOCATION
DESCRIPTION
NOISE
LEVEL
(dBA)
1. NC 8, 61 Meters South of SR 1102 Gravel 62
2. NC 8, 670 Meters North of SR 2281 Grassy 67
3. NC 8, 61 Meters North of SR 2408 Grassy 66
4. NC 8, 153 Meters South of SR 1307 Grassy 71
5. NC 8, 91 Meters South of SR 2238 Paved 69

Notes The ambient noise level sites were measured at 15 meters from the
center of the nearest lane of traffic.
FIGURE 6C
1/9
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 8, From SR 2412 to I-85, Davidson County
State Project Y 8.1600701, TIP N R-2300 B
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID I LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m) -L- -y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
NC, 8 From Beginning to SR 2291
1 Residence B NC 8
2 Residence B 11
3 Residence B
4 Residence B
5 Residence B
6 Residence B "
7 Residence B "
8 Residence B
9 Residence B
10 Residence B "
11 Business C "
12 Residence B
13 Residence B
14 Residence B "
15 Residence B
16 Residence B
17 Residence B "
18 Church E "
19 Business C
20 Business C
21 Business C
NC 8, From SR 2291 to SR 1102
22 Residence B NC 8
.1 2,3 Business C
24 Business C
25 Business C "
26 Residence B
27 Business C
28 Residence B "
' 29 Ballfield B "
30 Residence B
48.8 L 53 NC 8 48.8 L - - 59 + 6
27.4 R 58 " 27.4 R - - 64 + 6
24.3 R 59 " 24.3 R - - 65 + 6
30.5 R 57 " 30.5 R - - 63 + 6
30.5 R 57 " 30.5 R - - 63 + 6
33.5 R 57 " 33.5 R - - 63 + 6
39.6 R 55 " 39.6 R - - 61 + 6
42.7 R 55 " 42.7 R - - 61 + 6
21.3 R 60 " 21.3 R - - " 66 + 6
18.3 L 61 " 13.3 L - - " 67 + 6
15.2 L 62 " 15.2 L - - 68 + 6
22.9 L 59 " 22.9 L - - 65 + 6
45.7 R 54 to 45.7 R - - 60 + 6
36.5 R 56 It 36.5 R - - 62 + 6
24.4 R 59 " 24.4 R - - 65 + 6
22.9 R 59 " 22.9 R - - 65 + 6
30.5 R 57 " 30.5 R - - 63 + 6
25.9 L 591<40 " 25.9 L - - 65/40 + 6/1
25.9 L 59 " 25.9 L - - 65 + 6
24.4 R 59 is 24.4 R - - 65 + 6
45.7 L 54 it 45.7 L - - 60 + 6
45.7 L 54 NC 8 45.7 L - - 56 + 2
21.3 R 60 " 21.3 R - - 62 + 2
15.2 R 62 " 15.2 R - - 65 + 3
15.2 R 62 " 15.2 R - - 65 + 3
9.1 R 64 " 9.1 R -------------------- R/W--------------
9.1 R 64 " 9.1 R -------------------- R/W--------------
9.1 R 64 " 9.1 R -------------------- R/W--------------
47.5 L 54 " 47.5 L - - 56 + 2
15.2 R 62 " 15.2 R - - 65 + 3
• NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (56/48). Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
FIGURE 6D
2/9
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 8, From SR 2412 to 1-85, Davidson. County
State Project N 8.1600701, TIP M R-2300 B
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID 1 LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(m)
..................
NC 8, From SR 1102 to First Baptist Church
31 Residence B NC 8 15.2 R 62 NC 8 15.2 R
32 Church E •' 15.2 L 62/<40 " 15.2 L
33 Residence B " 18.3 R 61 " 18.3 R

34
Residence
B
25.9 R
'•
59
" 25.9
R
35 Residence B •' 21.3 R 60 21.3• R
36 Residence B 15.2 L 62 " 15.2 L
37 Business C 21.3 R 60 " 21.3 R
38 Business C
" 30.5 R
57
" 30.5
R
39 Business C
" 9.1 R
64
" 9.1
R
40 Business C " 21.3 L 60 " 21.3 L
41 Residence B " 45.7 L 54 " 45.7 L
42 Residence B 21.3 L 60 " 21.3 L

43
Residence
B
24.4 R
"
59
" 24.4
R
44 Residence B
15.2 L
62
" 15.2
L
45 Residence B 21.3 R 60 '• 21.3 R

46
Residence
B
38.1 L
•'
56
" 38.1
L
47 Residence B " 33.5 L 57 33.5 L
48 Residence B 30.5 R 57 " 30.5 R
49 Residence B 33.5 R 57 " 33.5 R

50
Residence
H
45.7 L
"
54
" 45.7
L
51 Residence B
38.1 R
56
" 38.1
R
52 Residence B 45.7 L 54 " 45.7 L
53. Residence H
•' 51.8 L
53
" 51.8
L

63
Residence
B
45.7 L
"
54
" 45.7
L
55 Residence B
" 18.3 A
61
" 18.3
R
56 Residence B " 39.6 A 55 " 39.6 R

57
.
Residence
B
42.7 R
'•
55
" 42.7
R
58 Residence B 24.4 R 59 " 24.4 R

59
Residence
B
56.6 L
„
52
" 56.6
L
60 Residence B " 27.4 R 58 " 27.4 R
NC 8, From First Baptist Church to SR 1110
61 Residence B NC 8 21.3 L 65 NC 8 21.3 L
62 Residence H •' 54.8 L 57 " 54.8 L
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
........................
_ - * 66 + 4
66/41 + 4/+1
65 + 4
- - 63 + 4
64 + 4
_ - " 66 + 4
64 + 4
61 + 4
-------------------- R/W--------------
- 64 + 4
_ - 58 + 4
_ - 64 + 4
_ - 63 + 4
_ - * 66 + 4
64 + 4
60 + 4
61 + 4
61 + 4
61 + 4
58 + 4
60 + 4
58 + 4
57 + 4
58 + 4
65 + 4
59 + 4
59 + 4
63 + 4
56 + 4
62 + 4
• 67 + 2
60 + 3
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
-Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). " -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFA Part 772).
FIGURE 6D
3/9
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 8, From SA 2412 to I-85, Davidson County
state Project i 8.1600701, TIP k R-2300 B
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
OR INFORMATI ON NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
RECEPT LEVEL N AME DISTANCE(m)
_L_ _Y_ MAXIMUM
INCREASE
ID t LAND USE CATEG
................... ORY
... NAME DIST
.......... ANCE(m)
........ ..... . ............
NC 8, From First Baptist Church to SR 1110 (Cont'd)

63 Residence
B
NC 8
54.8 L
57
NC 8 54.8 L _ - 60 + 3

+ 3
64 Residence B 33.5 L 61 11 33.5 L - - 64 + 3
6S Residence B 38.1 L 60 1. 38.1 L - - 63
+ 2
66 Residence I B •' 39.6 L 60 '. 39.6 L - - 62 + 3
67 Residence B '• 54.8 L 57 11 54.8 L - - 60
+ 3
68 Residence H
"
54.8 L
57
0. 54.8 L
- - 60

+ 2
69 Residence B 51.8 L 58
•' 51.8 L
- - 60
+ 2
70 Residence B " 45.7 L 59 11 45.7 L - - 61 + 2
B 45.7 L 59 to 45.7 L - - 61
71 Residence
- 61 + 3
72 Residence B
"
48.7 L
58
'. 48.7 L
-
+ 2
73 Residence B " 50.3 R 58
50.3 R
- - 60
+ 3
74 Residence H '• 33.5 A 61
1' 33.5 R
- - 64
+ 3
75 Residence B "
54.5 R
57
54.5 R
- - 60
*
+ 2
76 Residence B " 21.3 L 65
'• 21.3 L
67
- -
+ 2
77 Residence B " 24.4 L 64 11 24.4 L
* 66
-
+ 3
78 Residence s "
42.7 L
59
" 42.7 L
- - 62
+ 2
79 Residence B
21.3 L
65
" 21.3 L
- - * 67
80 Residence B
21.3 R
65
21.3 R
- - * 67
+ 2
81 Residence H
48.8 R
58
" 48.8 R
- - 61
+ 3
C
'•
15.2 A
67
of 15.2 R
- - 69
+ 2
82 Business - 57 + 3
83 Residence H
to
73.1 A
54
" 73.1 A
-
+ 3
84 Residence B
'•
30.5 R
62
" 30.5 R
- - 65
+ 2
85 Residence H
'•
41.1 L
60
" 41.1 L
- - 62
+ 3
86 Residence H "
30.5 L
62
•' 30.5 L
- - 65
to
+ 2
87 Residence B
"
24.4 R
64
" 24.4 R
66
- -
+ 2
-• 88 Residence B
"
45.7 R
59
" 45.7 R
- - 61
`89 Residence B
'•
30.5 L
62
to 30.5 L
- - 65
+ 3
90 Residence B
••
24.4 R
64
" 24.4 R
- - to 66
+ 2
91 Residence H
33.5 L
61
to 33.5 L
- - 64
+ 3
92 Residence B "
33.5 R
61
" 33.5 R
- - 64
+ 3
93 Residence B
30.5 L
62
to 30.5 L
- - 65
+ 3
f
t the existi ng or propo sed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
NOTE: Distances are fro er o
m cen -Y--> Noise level from other contrib uting roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise level s.
Category E noise levels sham as exterior/interior (58/48). * ?> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
FIGURE 6D
4/9
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 8, From SR 2412 to I-85, Davidson County
State Project N 8.1600701, TIP N R-2300 H
AMBIM NaAFIEST NOISE
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NAME DISTANCE(m)
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m)
...................... .................. LEVEL
..... .................. .................
NC 8, From SR 1110 to SA 2254

94 Residence H NC 8
33.5 R
61
NC 8 33.5 R - 65 + 4
_ *
+ 3
.. 4 L
24 64 .. 24.4 L 67
- -
95 Residence B . - 68 + 3
96 Business C " 21.3 L 65
It 21.3 L
-
+ 3
*
B " 21.3 R 65 21.3 R 68
- -
97 Residence - to 66 + 3
98 Residence ? B " 25.9 R 63
•• 25.9. R
-
- 64 + 3
99 Residence H it 35.1 R 61
35.1 R
-
+ 3
100 Residence H " 35.1 R
61
" 35.1 R
- - 64
+ 3
'•
101 Residence H
36.5 R
61
" 36.5 R
- - 64
- 64 + 3
"
102 Residence H 36.5 R 61 " 36.5 R -
63 + 3
-
••
103 Residence B 41.1 R 60 " 41.1 R -
63 + 3
104 Residence B " 41.1 R 60 " 41.1 R -
- 62 + 3
105 Residence B " 45.7 R 59
'• 45.7 R
-
- 63 + 3
106 Residence B " 39.6 A 60
" 39.6 R
-
- It 67 + 3
107 Residence H " 22.8 L 64
'• 22.8 L
-
- It 68 + 3
••
108 Residence B 21.3 R 65 " 21.3 R -
to 69 + 3
-
109 Residence B " 18.3 L 66 " 18.3 L -
- * 69 + 3
110 Residence B " 18.3 L 66
" 18.3 L
-
- 62 + 3
111 Business C " 45.7 A 59
•• 45.7 R
-
- 65 + 3
112 Residence H " 30.5 L 62
" 30.5 L
-
- 65 + 3
113 Residence B " 30.5 A 62
•• 30.5 R
-
- 63 + 3
114 Residence a " 39.6 L 60
" 39.6 L
-
- 65 + 3
115 Residence B " 30.5 L 62
•' 30.5 L
-
- 64 + 4
116 Residence B " 38.1 L 60
" 38.1 L
-
- 65 + 4
ti17 Residence H to 33.5 L 61
" 33.5 L
-
- 65 + 3
118 Residence H It 30.5 R 62
" 30.5 R
-
+ 3
119 Residence 8 " 30.5 R 62
•. 30.5 R
- - 65
- 65 + 3
120 Residence B " 30.5 R 62
to 30.5 R
2 L
•• 12
-
--------------
--------------------R
121 Residence B of 12.2 L 68
.
- " + 4
6
122 Residence H 11 29.0 R 62
•' 29.0 R
-
- 65 + 3
123 Residence H to 32.0 L 62
•. 32.0 L
-
- 64 + 3
126 Residence B " 35.0 R 61
" 35.0 R
-
- 57 + 3
125 Residence B " 77.7 L 54
to 77.7 L
-
- * 69 + 3 '
126 Residence 8 " 18.3 L 66
r. 18.3 L
-
- * 67 + 3
127 Residence B " 22.6 R 64
•• 22.3 R
-
- * 66 ? 3
128 Residence H It 25.9 L 63
•' 25.9 L
-
- 65 + 3
129 Residence H it 30.5 L 62
it 30.5 L
-
roposed roadways. -L- Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
or
ti
i
NOTE: Distances are from center of s
the ex p
ng s
roadwa
i
.
y
ng
-Y-=> Noise level from other contribut
l
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise lev s.
e
* ?> T
ffic noise impact (per 23 CFA Part 772).
Categcry E noise levels shown as exter
ra
ior/interior (58/48).
FIGURE 6D
5/9
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 8, From SR 2412 to I-85, Davidson County
State Project ? 8.1600701, TIP A R-2300 B
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
t ID M LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m)
e..........o........ .............s... LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m)
..... .................. -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
........................ INCREASE
........

NC 8, From SR 1110 to SR 2254 (Cont'd)
130 Residence B NC 8 24.4 L 64 NC 8 24.4 L - - • 67 + 3
131 Residence B " 21.3 R 65 " 21.3 R - - to 68 + 3
132 Residence B " 57.9 L 57 to 57.9 L - - 60 + 3
133 Residence B " 30.5 L 62 to 30.5 L - - 65 + 3
134 Residence B " 45.7 L 59 " 45.7 L - - 62 + 3
135 Residence B " 48.8 L 58 " 48.8 L - - 61 + 3
136 Residence B " 35.1 L 61 35.1 L - - 64 + 3
137 Residence B " 48.7 L 58 " 48.7 L - - 61 + 3
138 Residence B " 61.0 L 56 " 61.0 L - - 59 + 3
139 Residence B " 45.7 L 59 " 45.7 L - - 62 + 3
140 Residence B " 39.6 L 60 " 39.6 L - - 63 + 3
141 Residence B " 30.5 L 62 " 30.5 L - - 65 + 3
142 Business C " 33.5 R 61 " 33.5 R - - 65 + 4
NC 8, From SR 2254 to SR 2281
143 Business C NC 8 27.4 R 63 NC 8 27.4 R - - 68 + 5
144 Residence B It 22.4 L 64 " 22.4 L - - " 70 + 6
145 Residence B It 24.4 L 64 " 24.4 L - - to 69 + 5
145 Residence B " 25.9 R 63 " 25.9 R - - " 69 + 6
147 Residence B " 27.4 L 63 " 27.4 L - - • 68 + 5
146 Residence B " 24.4 R 64 " 24.4 R - - to 69 + 5
149 Reside:ce B " 33.5 L 61 " 33.5 L - - " 67 + 6
150 Residence B " 36.6 R 61 " 36.6 R - - " 66 + 5
L
2 - - " 68 + 5
151 Residence B .7.4 L 63 7.4
152 Residence B " 64.0 R 56 to 64.0 R - - 61 + 5
153 Residence B it 24.4 L 64 to 24.4 L - - " 69 + 5
154 Residence B " 24.4 L 64 of 24.4 L - - * 69 + 5
155 Residence B " 15.2 L 67 of 15.2 L - - to 72 + 5
156 Residence B " 30.5 R 62 of 30.5 R - - " 67 + 5
157 Residence B to 21.3 R 65 of 21.3 R - - to 70 + 5
158 Residence B " 30.5 L 62 of 30.5 L - - " 67 + 5
159 Residence B " 30.5 R 62 " 30.5 R - - to 67 + 5
160 Business C " 18.3 L 66 It 18.3 L - - to 71 + 5
161 Residence B " 38.1 R 60 " 38.1 R - - 65 + 5
162 Residence B " 39.6 L 60 " 39.6 L - - 65 + 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existi ng or proposed roadways. -L--> P roposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
FIGURE 6D
6/9
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 8, From SR 2412 to I-85, Davidson County
State Project M 8.1600701, TIP #-R-2300 B
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m
..... ................ )
.. -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
........................ INCREASE
........ J
NC 8, From SR 2281 to SR 2277
163 Residence B NC 8 39.6 L 60 NC 8 39.6 L - - * 66 + 6
164 Residence H " 61.0 R 56 " 61.0 R - - 62 + 6
165 Church E " 51.8 R 58/<40 " 51.8 R - - 63/<40 + 5/0
166 Business C 32.0 R 62 " 32.0 R - - 68 + 6
167 Residence • B " 30.5 R 62 30.5 R - - * 68 + 6
168 Residence B " 30.5 L 62 " 30.5 L - - * 68 + 6
169 Residence B " 39.6 R 60 " 39.6 R - - * 66 + 6
170 Residence B " 62.5 R 56 " 62.5 R - - 62 + 6
171 Residence B " 36.5 R 61 " 36.5 R - - * 67 + 6
172 Residence B " 35.1 R 61 " 35.1 R - - * 67 + 6
173 Business C " 41.1 R 60 " 41.1 R - - 66 + 6
174 Residence B " 39.6 R 60 " 39.6 R - - * 66 + 6
175 Residence B " 21.3 R 65 " 21.3 R - - * 71 + 6
176 Residence B
" 15.2 L
67 "
15.2
L
- - * 72
+ 5
177 Residence B " 15.2 R 67 " 15.2 R - - * 72 + 5
178 Business C " 36.6 L 61 36.6 L - - 67 + 6
179 Business C " 56.4 R 57 " 56.4 R - - 63 + 6
180 Church E " 45.7 R 59/<40 " 45.7 R - - 65/40 + 6/+1
181 Church E " 36.6 L 61/<40 " 36.6 L - - 67/42 + 6/+2
182 Residence B " 48.8 R 58 " 48.8 R - - 64 + 6
183 Residence B '• 48.8 R 58 " 48.8 R - - 64 + 6
184 Residence H " 27.4 L 62 " 27.4 L - * 69 + 7
185 Residence B " 30.5 L 62 " 30.5 L - - * 68 + 6
186 Residence B " 36.6 L 60 " 36.6 L - - " 67 + 7

187
Residence H
" 30.5 L n
62
30.5
L
- - * 68
+ 6
188 Residence B " 24.4 L 63 of 24.4 L - - It 70 + 7
189 Residence B It 21.3 L 64 " 21.3 L - - * 71 + 7
~ 190 Residence B " 45.7 R 58 It 45.7 R - - 65 + 7
191 Residence B " 44.2 L 59 " 44.2 L - - 65 + 6
192 Residence B " 36.6 L 60 It 36.6 L - - It 67 + 7
193 Residence B
" 36.6 L
60 "
36.6
L
- - * 67
+ 7
194 Residence B ^ 45.7 L 58 " 45.7 L - - 65 + 7
195 Residence B " 24.4 R 63 It 24.4 R • 70 + 7
196 Residence B
" 24.4 R
63 "
24.4
R
- - * 70
+ 7
' 197 Residence B
" 24.4 A
63 "
24.4
R
- - * 70
+ 7
188 Residence H
'• 38.1 R
60 "
38.1
R
- - * 66
+ 6
ter of the existi ng or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
NOT E: Distances are fro m cen -Y --> N oise level from other contribut ing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels.
48 Traffic noise impact (par 23 CFR Part 772).
Category E noise ).
levels shown as exterior/interior (58/
FIGUn 6D
7/9
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 8, From Sr, 2412 to I-85, Davidson County
state project M 8.1600701, TIP N R-2300 B
AMBIT-IT NvOREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m)
...................... .................. LEVEL
----- NAME DISTANCE(m)
......
NC 8, From SR 2277 to NC 47
199 Residence B NC 8 21.3 R 64 NC 8 21.3 R
200 Business C " 21.3 L 64 " 21.3 L
201 Residence B " 21.3 L 64 " 71.3 L
202 Residence B 21.3 L 64 21.3 L
203 Residence ., B " 24.4 L 63 " 24.4 L
204 Residence B " 19.8 R 64 '• 19.8 R
205 Business C 10.7 L 68 10.7 L
206 Residence B " 21.3 R 64 " 21.3 R

"
207 Residence B
21.3 L
64
21.3 L
"
208 Residence B 21.3 R 64 " 21.3 R
209 Residence B 30.5 L 62 " 30.5 L

'
210 Residence B 35.1 L 61 35.1 L

r'
211 Residence B
20.7 R
64
" 20.7 R
212 Residence B " 21.3 R 64 " 21.3 R
213 Business C 21.3 L 64 " 21.3 L
214 Residence B 32.0 L 61 32.0 L

"
215 Residence B
30.5 L
62
" 30.5 L
216 Business C 15.2 R 66 " 15.2 R
NC 8, From NC 47 to SR 2243
217 Business C NC 8 30.5 R 67 NC 8 30.5 R
218 Business C '• 48.8 R 63 " 48.8 R

"
219 Residence B
19.8 R
69
" 19.8 R
230 Business C " 29.0 R 67 " 29.0 R
"
221 Business C
35.1 R
66
" 35.1 R

"
222 Recreation H
24.4 L
68
" 24.4 L
"
.223 Church E 32.0 R 66/41 " 32.0 R
224 Residence B " 36.6 R 65 " 36.6 R
225 Residence B 30.5 L 67 30.5 L

"
226 Business C
30.5 L
67
" 30.5 L
227 Residence e 25.9 R 68 25.9 R

'•
228 Residence H
27.4 R
67
" 27.4 R
"
229 Business C
30.5 L
67
" 30.5 L

"
230 Business C
15.2 R
71
" 15.2 R
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
........................
_ - • 72 + 8
_ - * 72 + 8
72 + 8
72 + 8
71 + 8
73 + 9
-------------------- R/W----- ------ ---
_ _ • 72 + 8
72 + 8
_ - + 72 + 8
70 + 8
69 + 8
73 + 9
_ _ • 72 + 8
72 + 8
69 + 8
70 + 8
74 + 8
70 + 3
66 + 3
73 + 4
70 + 3
69 + 3
72 + 4
70/45 + 4/+4
69 + 4
70 + 3
70 + 3
71 + 3
_ _ • 71 + 4
70 + 3
_ _ • 75 + 4
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
* ?>
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
FIGURE 6D
8/9
Laq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 8, From SA 2412 to I-85, Davidson County
State Project / 8.1600701, TIP M R-2300 B
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID R LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(m)
..................
NC 8, From NC 47 to SR 2243 (C ont'd)
231 Residence H NC 8 18.3 R 70 NC 8 18.3 R
232 Residence H 11 24.4 R 68 to 24.4 A
233 Business C " 45.7 L 63 " 45.7 L
234 Residence B 21.3 L 69 21.3 L
235 Business C
"
45.7 R
63
" 45.7 R

236 Residence B
21.3 R
69
21.3 R
"
237 Residence B " 33.5 L 66 " 33.5 L
238 Residence B " 45.7 L 63 " 45.7 L
239 Business C 10.7 R 73 " 10.7 R
240 Business C " 33.5 R 66 " 33.5 R
NC 8, From SR 2243 to I-85
241 Business C NC 6 24.4 L 66 NC 8 24.4 L
242 Residence B " 21.3 R 67 21.3 R
243 Business C " 15.2 R 69 15.2 R
244 Church E 30.5 L 65/40 " 30.5 L
245 Business C
24.4 R
66
to 24.4 R
246 Recreation B " 21.3 R 67 " 21.3 R
247 Business C 21.3 R 67 " 21.3 R
248 Business C " 65.5 L 56 " 65.5 L

249 Residence H
27.4 R
65
27.4 R
"
250 Residence B
30.5 A
65
" 30.5 R

251` Residence B
33.5 R
64
33.5 R
"
252 Business C
"
35.0 L
63
" 35.0 L
253 Business C " 21.3 R 67 ° Z1.3 R
254 Business C
•? 19.8 L 67 01 19.8 L
`255 Residence B " 18.3 R 68 " 18.3 R

256 Residence H
30.5 L
65
30.5 L
"
257 Business C to 30.5 L 65 " 30.5 L
258 Business C It 48.8 R 61 " 48.8 R
259 Residence H it 57.9 L 59 " 57.9 L

260 Residence H
24.4 R
66
24.4 R
"
261 Business C
24.4 R
66
" 24.4 R
262 Business C 30.5 L 65 to 30.5 L
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
........................
* 74 + 4
_ _ * 72 + 4
_ - 66 + 3
- _ * 73 + 4
_ - 66 + 3
_ _ * 73 + 4
_ _ * 69 + 3
- - * 66 + 3
-------------------- R/W--------------
_ - 69 + 3
* 72 + 6
* 73 + 6
75 + 6
70/45 + 5/+ 5
72 + 6
73 + 6
73 + 6
63 + 5
71 + 6
70 + 5
_ - * 69 + 5
69 + 6
73 . 6
* 73 + 6
to 74 + 6
70 + 5
70 + 5
66 + 5
64 + 5
* 72 + 6
72 + 6
70 + 5
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
---
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
It -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48).
FIGURE 6D
8/9
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 8, From SR 2412 to I-85, Davidson County
State Project 18.1600701, TIP N R-2300 B
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME DISTANM m)
.................. Lyra
..... NAME DISTANCE(m)
................
NC 8, From NC 47 to SR 2243 (Cont'd)
231 Residence B NC 8 18.3 R 70 NC 8 18.3 R
232 Residence B 24.4 R 68 10 24.4 R
233 Business C
45.7 L
"
63
" 45.7 L
234 Residence B " 21.3 L 69 " 21.3 L
235 Business C 45.7 R 63 11 45.7 R
236 Residence B " 21.3 R 69 " 21.3 R
237 Residence B 33.5 L 66 33.5 L
238 Residence B " 45.7 L 63 " 45.7 L
239 Business C " 10.7 R 73 " 10.7 R
240 Business C " 33.5 R 66 " 33.5 R
NC 8, From SR 2243 to I-85
241 Business C NC 8 24.4 L 66 NC 8 24.4 L

242 Residence
B
21.3 R
67
21.3 R
"
243 Business C
15.2 R
69
" 15.2 R
244 Church E 30.5 L 65/40 " 30.5 L
245 Hueiaee¦ C
24.4 R
66
" 24.4 R
246 Recreation B 21.3 R 67 21.3 R
247 Business C
21.3 R
67
" 21.3 R
248 Business C 65.5 L 58 " 65.5 L
249 Residence B
27.4 R
65
" 27.4 R

250 Residence
B
30.5 R
65
30.5 R
"
251 Residence B " 33.5 R 66
" 33.5 R
252 Business C 35.0 L 63 " 35.0 L
253 Business C " 21.3 R 67 to 21.3 R

254 Business
C
19.8 L
"
67
1. 19.8 L
255 Residence B
" 18.3 R
68
" 18.3 R

256 Residence
B
30.5 L
65
30.5 L
"
257 Business C
30.5 L
65
" 30.5 L

258 Business
C
48.8 R
"
61
" 48.8 R
259 Residence B
57.9 L
59
" 57.9 L

260 Residence
B
10 24.4 R
66
24.4 R
"
261 Business C 11 24.4 R 66 " 24.4 R
262 Business C It 30.5 L 65 " 30.5 L
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -'!- MAXIMUM
........................
* 74 + 4
_ _ * 72 + 4
_ - 66 + 3
_ - * 73 + 4
_ - 66 + 3
- - * 73 + 4
- _ to 69 + 3
* 66 + 3
-------------------- R/W------ ----- ---
_ - 69 + 3
to 72 + 6
* 73 + 6
to 75 + 6
70/45 + 5/+ 5
to 72 + 6
- - * 73 + 6
* 73 + 6
63 + 5
It 71 + 6
* 70 + 5
to 69 + 5
69 + 6
;3 . 6
* 73 + 6
to 74 + 6
70 + 5
70 + 5
66 + 5
64 + 5
to 72 + 6
to 72 + 6
70 + 5
NOISE
LEVEL
ItTCREASE
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). * - Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
FIGURE 6D
TABLE N4 9/9
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 8, From SR 2412 to I-85, Davidson County
State Project M 8.1600701, TIP ? R-2300 B
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME
...... DISTANCE(m)
............ LEVEL
..... NPIS DISTANCE(m)
.................. -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
........................ INCREASE
........
NC 8, From SR 2243 to I-85 (Cont'd)
263 Business C NC 8 24.4 R 66 NC 8 24.4 R - - * 72 + 6
264 Residence B " 27.4 L 65 " 27.4 L - - * 71 + 6
265 Residence B " 24.4 R 66 " 24.4 R - - * 72 + 6
266 Residence B " 24.4 R 66 24.4 R - - * 72 + 6
267 Residence B " 24.4 L 66 " 24.4. L - - " 72 + 6
268 Business C " 26.0 L 66 " 26.0 L - - * 71 + 5
269 Business C " 27.4 R 65 " 27.4 R - - * 71 + 6
270 Business C " 21.3 L 67 " 21.3 L - - " 73 + 6
271 Business C " 19.8 R 67 " 19.8 R - - " 73 + 6
272 Business C " 51.8 L 60 " 51.8 L - - 65 + 5
273 Business C " 24.4 R 66 •• 24.4 R - - * 72 + 6
274 Business C " 25.9 L 66 " 25.9 L - - * 71 + 5
275 Business C " 18.3 R 68 " 18.3 R - - " 74 + 6
276 Business C " 24.4 L 66 " 24.4 L - - " 72 + 6
277 Business C " 21.3 R 67 " 21.3 R - - " 73 + 6
278 Business C " 53.3 L 60 53.3 L - - 65 + 5
279 Business C " 24.4 R 66 " 24.4 R - - " 72 + 6
280 Business C " 30.5 L 65 " 30.5 L - - 70 + 5

NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
FIGURE 6D
FSWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 8, From SR 2412 to I-85, Davidson County
State Project 0 8.1600701, TIP i R-2300 B
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Lev els Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
Description 15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

Sectio n 1 :
1. NC 8, From Beginning to SR 2291 67 63 57 <14.7m 23.2m 0 2 0 0 0
2. NC 8, From SR 2291 to SR 1102 64 60 54 <14.7m <14.7m 0 0 0 0 0
3. NC 8, From SR 1102 to First Baptist Chr. 65 61 56 <14.7m 17.1m 0 3 0 0 0
4. NC 8, From First Bapt. Chr. to SR 1110 69 64 59 <14.7m 26.7m 0 7 0 0 0
5. NC 8, From SR 1110 to SR 2254 69 65 60 <14.7m 29.5m 0 13 0 0 0
6. NC 8, From SR 2254 to SR 2281 71 67 61 19.5m 37.6m 0 16 0 0 0
7. NC 8, From SR 2281 to SR 2277 72 68 62 22.2m 40.7m 0 22 0 0 0
8. NC 8, From SR 2277 to NC 47 74 70 64 27.4m 48.5m 0 14 3 0 0

Total 0 77 3 0 0
Section 2:
?9. NC 8, From NC 47 to SR 2243 73 69 63 25.1m 45.2m
10.NC 8, From SR 2243 to 1-85 73 69 63 25.1m 45.2m
0 12 1 0 0
0 12 16 0 0
Total 0 24 19 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
FIGURE 6E
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 8, From SR 2412 to I-85, Davidson County

. 'r State Project R 8.1600701, TIP N R-2300 B
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both.
' Section <-0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2).
Section 1:
1. NC 8, From Beginning to 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 2291
2. NC 8, From SR 2291 to 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1396
3. NC 8, From SR 1396 to 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
First Baptist Church
4. NC 8, From First Baptist 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Church to SR 1110
5. NC 8, From SR 1110 to 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 2254
6. NC 8, From SR 2254 to 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 2281
7. NC 8, From SR 2281 to 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 2277
8. NC 8, From SR 2277 to 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
ti NC 47
TOTALS 0 116 94 0 0 0 0 0 0
Section 2:
9. NC 8, From NC 47 to 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 2243
. i
10.NC 8, From SR 2243 to
0 0 40 0 0 0
0
0 0
I-85
TOTALS 0 23 40 0 0 0 0 0 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial Increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
FIGURE 6F
APPENDIX

RELOCATION REPORT
F-71 -1
E.I.S. F CORRIDOR F DESIGN
AGER OE
1? GF W P? BE??C?
R1G
i NN Z 91996
North Carolina Deb wiWtW Transportnt
?FIW+ ? NAtRELOCATION OFT'
PROJECT: 8.1600701 COUNTY DAVIDSON Alternate 1 of 1 Alternr
1.D. NO.: R-2300 B F.A. PROJECT STP-3531 9
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 8 FROM SR 2412 (NORTH) OF HIGH ROCK LAKE BRIDGE -1'0 SR 22
:.? . .„:., ...?z. w?:. ORTH OF I-85

:..•::,•:.... :•', ,;: ESTIMATED.DISPLACEES..
..
.•........, ......,.. IIrCOb•IE LEVEL..
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50
Individuals 3 2 5 0' 2 2 1 0
Families 9 3 12 0* 0 6 4 2
Businesses 8 2 10 0" :, ..VALUE OF DWBI.LING ...:.::' :.:.• DSS DV EL ZiGAVAILABL
Fanns 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rel
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20m 0 SO-150 0 0-20%1 0 $ 0-150
:.•.:ANSWERALL UFSTIONS-::' ::. . ............ .
.. . 20-40st ] 150-250 4 20-40NI lg 150-230
tt. N. lais all "ITS" ans».ers. 40-70nt 5 2.10-400 1 40-%0!u 52 250.400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70400m 0 400-600 0 70-100st 16 400.600
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect b 100 up 0 600 up 0 100 ur 13 600 up
h,:,. displacement? TOTAL 7 S 99
X 3. Will business services still be available after ;::.•:: REhtutl.-s Res and by Number ,:...:.: .

1P - project? 3. SIMILAR BUSINESS SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE Ii`
1 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, GENERAL AREA OF PROJECT NOT BEING AFFECT
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4. (A) CHESAPEAKE BAY RETRIEVER STUD SERVICF
X I. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? DOG BREEDER - 2 FULL TIME & 0 PART TIME.
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? (B) CENTRAL CAROLINA CARPET CLEANING -
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. CLEANING SERVICE. 2 FULL TIME AND 1 PART TI1
-a families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available? (C) HOME SWEET HOUSE - RESTAURANT - 3 FULL
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing TIME AND 4 PART TI11E.'
t housing available during relocation period?
13. WM there be a problem of housing within
--- financial means? (D) BUSINESS LOCATED ON RUBY BIESECKER
14. Are suitable business sites available (list PROPERTY. DID NOT APPEAR TO BE IN OPERATI
,»::...:• ._:=:;:= j source).
15. Number months estimated to complete (E) BEARS TRADING POST - GROCERY, BAIT &
RF=CATION? TACKLE RETAIL OPERATION. 2 FULLTIME &
1 PARTTTIMF-
(F) GRANNY'S BAIT AND TACKLE GROCERY. BAIT & TACKLE RETAIL OPERATION. 2 FULLTIME & 2
PARTTINIE.

H. ALAN ROTHROCK 01-04-96
Relocation Astenl Dace yra ;a Approved b Date
form 1$ 4 ttemrl 51"
Original & I Copy- Slate Relocation Agen
2 Copy Area Relocation Offic
PAGE 2OF2

PROTECT 8.1600701 DAVIDSON CO.
R-2300 B
G. SERVISTAR - ROBERT HEDRICK SUPPLY- RETAIL HARDWARE 3 FULL TIME 2
PART TIME.
Hj,ECKS HAZ BOUTIQUE - HAIR SALON, 3 FULL TIME AND 2 PART TIIvIE.
1. CUSTOM FURNITURE SHOP -FURNITURE REUPHOLSTERING - 2 FULL TIME & 1
PART TIME.
J. SOUTH LEXINGTON BAIT CO. - ARTIFICIAL BAIT MANUFACTURING CONIPANY - 1
FULL TIME & 1 PART TIME.
6. LOCAL REALTORS, LEXINGTON NILS, NEWSPAPERS AND VISUAL SURVEY.*
8. WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AS NECESSARY.
9. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE MAY BE SOME LARGE FAMILIES, SOME
ELDERLY AND POSSIBLY A FEW DISABLED AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT.
HOWEVER, NO LARGE NUMBERS EXPECTED.
11. LEXINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY.
12. YES, AS INDICATED BY THE AVAILABLE HOUSING LIST.
14. SEE ITEM 6.
COMMENT - (A).AVAILABLE HOUSING LIST WAS COMPILED FROM LISTING IN THE
GENERAL AREA OF PROJECT AND DOES NOT INDICATE THE TOTAL AVAILABLE
" HOUSING IN DAVIDSON COUNTY. (B) THERE IS A PROBABILITY, DUE TO THE
DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE AREA, THAT THERE ARE SOME MINORITY RESIDENTS
AND BUSINESS OWNERS. HOWEVER, A FAIR ESTIMATE FROM THE LIMITED
CONTACTS AND PRESENT INFORMATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED UNTIL INITIAL
CONTACTS WITH THOSE AFFECTED ARE MADE.

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEAXC3-8003
FM206 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRAT116 WEST JONES STREET RALEIGH NCRTH CAROLINA 27 JUC' 2 2 1994. r
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OIVISIo. OF ?v
C? HIGHWAYS
MAILED TO: FROM: ??'??j?ON
N-C. DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION MS. JEANETTE FURNEY
H- FRANKLIN VICK ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
PLANNING E ENV- BRANCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG-/INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PRCPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 81 FROM SR 2412 TO I-85
IN DAVIDSCN COUNTY TIP #R-2300B
TYPE - SCOPING
THE N-C- STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATICN NUMBER 95E42200029- PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES CR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE-
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED CN OR BEFORE 08/15/94-
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL (919) 733-72329

r?
SNP o
NORTH CAROLINA
•`. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
MEMORANDUM
July 26, 1994
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
%hit)/
Auxiliary SBOB ETHERMGE
?
FROM: Charles H. Vices
Assistant S eri
State Superintendent .
4 ?0
JUL 2 9 1994 `
DIVISIC'V OF <<-
HIGHW"_\YS '
P
?v??RO(!tv1??
RE: NC 8, From SR 2412 to I-85, Davidson County, Federal-Aid Project
No. STP-3531(9), State Project No. 8.1600701, TIP Project R-2300B
Please find attached communication from Mr. A. Ray Murphy, Jr., Assistant
Superintendent for Davidson County Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Enclosure
,pS'?N COG
CH00?.
w
DAVIDSON COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION
POST OFFICE BOX 1229
LEXINGTON, N. C. 27293.1229
(704) 2438182
g J7
30/ n.L?
22

S _ 3,F3 /I -22 c)
ylo . ?. / 6 D o 7? / T/ ? -

"Educating For Today And Tomorrow"
Office Of
Superintendent

kq I te, t:v-
"itJ1
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
%Vl ?E,
FM209 DEPARTMENT CF ADMINISTRATION i-_
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 603-8003
.. 08-19-94 4z 2 ?gg0.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS `S\Nk
MAILED T0: FROM: N%
ENV1?
N-C- DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
H- FRANKLIN VICK DIRECTOR
PLANNING E ENV- BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 81 FROM SR 2412 TO I-85
IN DAVIDSON COUNTY TIP #R-23008
SAI NO 95E42200029 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSs PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]-

C-C- REGION G
State of North Carolina IT ?.
Department of Environment,
Health and Naturai Resources 4 •
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Linda Bray Rimer, Assistant Secretary
® ?--?
for Environmental Protection
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0029 Improvements to NC 8, to I-85 in Davidson
County
DATE: August 18, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The
list and describe information that is necessary
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
More specific comments will be provided during
review.
Natural Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.

attachments
?.t
P. O. Box 27687, Roleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
K2 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Ezl
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo inat r
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 10, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for NC 8, from SR 2412 to I-85,
Davidson County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-2300B,
SCH Project No. 95-0029.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
Land use in the project area includes residential and
commercial development from the northern terminus to NC 47
and residential development with some small woodlots and
agricultural fields from NC 47 to the southern terminus. No
impacts to streams or wetlands are anticipated. However,
NCDOT Best Management Practices should be followed to
prevent any impacts to off-site resources.
At this time NCWRC has no specific recommendations or
concerns regarding this project. However, to help
facilitate document preparation and the review process, our
general informational needs are outlined below:
Memo Page 2 August 10, 1994
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project construction
should be included in the inventories. A listing
of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered
Species Program maintains databases for locations
of vertebrate wildlife species. While there is no
charge for the list, a service charge for computer
time is involved. Additional information may be
obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Section
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project. The need for channelizing or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Prmy Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
Memo Page 3 August 10, 1994
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary
development facilitated by the improved road
access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be
coordinated with other state, municipal, or
private development projects, a description of
these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors
should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please contact David Cox, Highway
Project Coordinator, at [phone].
CC: Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
O&TWO
Health and Natural Resources / •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C) F= N N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 12, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swiharto, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0029; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 8, TIP No. R-2300B
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Cororina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
August 12, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10682er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources i • •
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor IL-! i
ED I=-
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretcry 1 i.
C. Dewey Botts, Director
July 26, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison -Pr/
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements to NC 8 South of Lexington.
Project No. 95-0029.
The proposed improvements involve widening the existing 3-lane
roadway between I-85 and NC 47 to a 5-lane facility and widening
the existing 2-lane roadway from NC 47 to SR 2412 to a 3-lane
facility. The Environmental Assessment should include an
estimate of the amount of prime, unique, and statewide important
farmland that will be impacted.

DH/tl
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Atfrmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10`36 past-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Stanford M. Adams, Director
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
July 27, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Policy Development
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester VW00hv-
r` 7*A
DE"NF1
RENE)t IiER.
sMrinir
?Swntrn rs?a?inn re-??Y
SUBJECT: DOT EA/Scoping for Proposed Widening of NC 8 from SR 2412 to I-85 in
Davidson County
PROJECT: #95-0029 and TIP #R-2300 B
DUE DATE: 8-9-94
To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed project, the Environmental
Assessment should contain the following information concerning the proposed widening for
possible right-of-way purchases and for the project:
1. The total forest land acreage by types that would be taken out of forest production as a
result of new right-of-way purchases and all construction activities.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series that would be involved
within the proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber that is to be
removed. This practice is encouraged to minimize the need for piling and burning during
construction. If any burning is needed, the contractor should comply with all laws and
regulations pertaining to debris burning.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Eauol opportunity Atfltrnatlve Acton Empwyer 50% recycled/ lo%post-consumer pow
Memo to Melba McGee
PROJECT: #95-0029
Page 2
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent
erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-way and
construction limits. Trees outside the construction limits should be protected from
construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that
impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances
over the root systems of trees.
We would hope that the widening would have the least impact to forest and related resources in
that area.
DHR:la
PC: Warren Boyette - CO
Vic Owen - D10
1":1 -
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Due Date:
After ritview of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) andlor approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
orcer for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form. ??
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. Tune
I
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS I Istatutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
? sewer system extensions. b sewer
facilities construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
.
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPOES - permit to discharge into surface water andlor 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 NPOES Reply IN;A)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
? Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
INCA)
7 days
? Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 days)
Application Copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Fining
90
? may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of days)
1
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct b operate Air Pollution Abatement
NIA 60 days
(90 days)
? lacilittes and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.0
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
01
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
? NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820. (90 days)
? Comptex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion 8 sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouslity Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the Dian (30 da si
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond tiled with EHNR. Bona amount
? Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
60 d
)
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond ays
1
must be received before the permit can be issued.
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
(NIA)
exceeds 4 days
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
" INIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned.
90120 days
Ci; Refining Facilities
NIA
(NIA)
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. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verily Hazard Classification. A minimum tee of 5200.00 must ac.
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
Percentage or Ine total project cost will be required upon completion.
Continued on reverse
a? ..r.
State of North Carolin pEHNR
Department of Environment, Health, an Natur TC
Division of Land Resourc
,1U1 2 2 1ag4 ,
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COME S Charles . Gardnei
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: 0c)2c/ County: /-t- 7QSO1?g ALITY SECTION
Project Name: 0029
Geodetic Survev
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior'to construction at P.O. Box'27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
V"L The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
42" 71z
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
\\l)'i''•1:\ I llJc/\i I?I•.\l )l.!IC? :I'.`, I ..
I L.UlulCy
Cnc?r-t\gcncy Pro-= Review response
Project Nzr!:? C o? to ?-SS I.YPe of Project rz? v?dpa
r-? 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 requ:-ed by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
?-? This project will be classified as a non-coinmunicy ouclic water supply and must comply with
?--? state and federal drinking water monitoring requireme ncs. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, (91°) 733-2321.
r--, If this project is constructed as proposed, we will reccrnmend closure of feet of adjacent
?--? waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information :Zgarding the.shellfisT•i sanitation progra
M, the applicant should contact the Shellfish SanicauDn Branch at [phone].
r--? The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project rna-.• produce a mosquito breeding•prablern.
?J For information concerning• appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should:
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919) 726-897C.
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, an extensive rodent control program mz= be necessary in order-co-prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. The
contact the local health department or the Public
733-6407.
formation. concerning rodent control;
Health Pest Managemenc.Section-.at (919)
r-? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
?---? requirements for septic tank installations (as requires under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq.).
For information concerning septic tank and other or:-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section -at.. [phone].
r-=-, The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
?--? facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated durin the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Fn•:ironinencal Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street. Raleigh, North Carolina, [phone].
_T `e??iewer Sectio ranch D ce
PIEDMONT TRIAD COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Intergovernmental Review Process
2216 West Meadowview Road, Suite 201
Greensboro, NC 27402-3480
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
REVIEW & COMMENT FORM
A L
The State Clearinghouse sent us the enclosed information about a proposal which
could affect your jurisdiction. Please circulate it to the people you believe need to be
informed.
If you need more information about the proposal, please contact the applicant directly.
The name and phone number of a contact person are listed on the attached
"Notification of Intent".
If you wish to comment on the proposed action, complete this form and return it to the
PTCOG office by August 10th, 1994.
We will send your comments to the State Clearinghouse to be included in a
recommendation to the proposed funding agency.
State Application Identifier #95-E-4220-0029 Improvements, NC 8
Commenter's Name & Title Norman Shronce, County Manager
Representing Davidson County Phone # [phone]
• Mailing Address County Courthouse, Lexinclion; NC 27292
Date Sig
COMMENTS: (You may attach additional sheets.)

05 Gwe6-41
?GEI V?
?. O
4UG 1 8 1994
2,L DIVISION OF
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources c HIGHWAYS
North HIV 8 NME?
Junes B. Hint, Jr, Governor Division of Archives
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
August 16, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook / 1
Deputy State is r c reservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widen NC 8 from SR 2412 to 1-85, Davidson County,
R-2300B, 8.1600701, STP-3531(9), 95-E-4220-0029
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Southmont General Store, DV 523. East side of NC 8 at junction with SR
2229, Southmont vicinity.
Anderson Owens Farm, DV 512. West side of NC 8, 0.25 mile south of NC
49, Lexington vicinity.
Sink Frame House, DV 513. West side of NC 8, 0.5 mile south of SR 1130,
Lexington vicinity.
Miller-Everhart Farm, DV 514. West side of NC 8, just north of junction.
with SR 1272, Lexington vicinity.
Cotton Grove Country Store, DV 515. East side of NC 8, just north of
junction with SR 1272, Lexington vicinity.
Captain Miller House, DV 516. East side of NC 8 at junction with SR 1272,
Lexington vicinity. •
Charles Yarborough House, DV 534. East side of NC 8 near junction with
Oak Avenue, Lexington vicinity (no file).
109 East Jones Strut • Raleigh, North Caroiiaa 27601-2307
H. F. Vick
August 16, 1994, Page 2
Owen-Taylor House, DV 529. West side of NC 8, 0.25 mile north of SR
1130, Lexington vicinity.
Lebanon Lutheran Church, DV 507. South side of SR 2380, 0.1 mile east
of NC 8, Lexington vicinity.
Junior Order United American Mechanics National Orphans Home, DV 506.
West side of NC 8, 1 mile north of junction with SR 1272, Lexington
vicinity. The property was included in the National Register on July 10,
1984.
Since the historic architectural survey of Davidson County was conducted over a
decade ago, additional properties which may be eligible for the National Register
may be located in the area of potential effect. We recommend that an
architectural historian survey and evaluate any properties over fifty years of age in
the area of potential effect which were not recorded during the 1981 survey, as
well as evaluate the National Register eligibility of the previously recorded
properties. Survey site files for Davidson County are available for use and located
at the Survey and Planning Branch at 515 North Blount Street in Raleigh.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
TIP , - 2 700 Federal Aid R STQ - 3 3 I (? county. C)k] i D<a
CCNCUP.RE\'CE FORZ\I
_ FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
1,it Ofc:U i'L 1,6, u" <1 qq' oF-1 t)?_
.On ]?( 6) representatives of the
/ s
V North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A:scoping meeting
I z'/ Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All pa;.ies present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of:pocential effect.
V there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of oocencial effect.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each properry, properties
identified as 2 are
considered not eligiole for the i ationa egister and no, further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
S igne,d:
Representative, NCD
F'rlwA,

i

tvtslof
Administrator, or other i eCerat Agency
;SHPO
State Historic Preservation Officer
k
6- < - ?s
Dace
Date
- g _gs
If a survey tepor: is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
n
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
August 31, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Reports for:
-NC 8 from SR 2412 to 1-85, Davidson County,
R-23008, Federal Aid Project STP-3531(9),
State Project 8.1600701, ER 96-7202;
NC 279 from NC 7 to Carolina and Northwestern
Railway, Gaston County, U-2523, Federal Aid
Project STPNHF-279(1), State Project
8.181 1301, ER 96-7275
Dear Mr. Graf:
cc) 11 1
?rl
4

V?4
A 5199
n5 . ?i
S?
EAdVI'rThank you for your letters of August 1 and 11, 1995, transmitting the historic
structures survey reports by Ed Davis for the above projects. We would like to
address the two reports in one letter since we have general comments about both
reports' format in addition to specific comments about the properties evaluated
therein.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The two reports include eligibility requirements based upon the historic contexts
developed by the author. This format is a departure from that described in the
North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) "Historic Architectural .
Resources Survey Procedures and Report Guidelines" dated April 15, 1994, and our
"Guidelines for the Preparation of Reports of Historic Structures Surveys and
Evaluations Submitted to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office"
dated 1989.
Eligibility requirements are ordinarily developed following a comprehensive survey of
a property type within a defined geographic area. The use of eligibility
requirements in these reports is problematic because they are based on general
overviews of the counties' history and architecture rather than comprehensive
county-wide surveys of property types. For example, the eligibility requirements for
residential design in the Gaston County report only addresses properties associated
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807P
Nicholas Graf
August 31, 1995, Page 2
with the textila industry. Clearly there may be residential buildings not associated
with the textile industry in Gaston County that are eligible for the National Register.
For these reasons, we do not believe that eligibility requirements, other than the
National Register criteria, are appropriate for survey reports. We are, however,
willing to discuss this matter with you and NCDOT.
f SPECIFIC COMMENTS
_I Gaston County, U-2523
Yr ` For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criteria cited:
Flint Grove Elementary School. The school is eligible under Criterion C as an
intact example of an early twentieth century school building and under
Criterion A for education as one of the first permanent public schools to be
constructed in Gaston County.
Until additional information is provided for Properties #11-23 and 25-31, we are
unable to make a determination of their eligibility for the National Register. The
architectural context and eligibility requirements focus on mill housing and high-
style, architect-designed residences. Please evaluate this neighborhood within the
context of trends in middle class housing in the early-to-mid twentieth century.
Davidson County. 13-23006
The following property is listed in the National Register under the criteria cited:
i5 Junior Order United American Mechanics National Orphans Home. This
v complex of Colonial Revival buildings is significant under Criterion C for
x0 architecture and Criterion A for social/humanitarian history.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register
under the criteria cited:
Miller-Everhart Farm. This property is eligible under Criterion C as an unusual
and important example of a high-styie antebeiium farmhouse in Davidson
County.
Captain John H. Miller House. This property is eligible under Criterion C as
the earliest example of the Italianate style found in the county.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register:
Southmont General Store (#1). This property has undergone numerous
character-altering changes.
Cotton Grove General Store (1#6). This building is in an advanced state of
deterioration.
Nicholas Graf
August 31, 1995, Page 3
Owen Taylor House (#13). This house was moved to its current location and
lacks integrity due to numerous alterations.
Until additional information for the Sink House (#8) is provided, we are unable to
make a determination of its eligibility for the National Register. This house appears
to be a relatively unaltered example of a Queen Anne cottage. Please provide more
specific information about the prevalence of this type throughout the county.
Please note that we did not review photographs of Property #9 at the June 8, 1995
meeting, as the report states. However, we do not believe that the property
appears to be eligible.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
/DD
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw j
cc. H. F. Vick
B. Church

V ~
??Or
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
November 17, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report Addendum for
NC 8 from SR 2412 to 1-85, Davidson County,
R-2300B, Federal Aid Project No. STP-3531(9),
State Project No. 8.1600701, ER 96-7734
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of October 16, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report addendum by Ed Davis concerning the above project.
We concur that the Sink House is not eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places because it is an undistinguished example of a relatively common type in
Davidson County. However, neither the original report nor the current addendum
provided the basic information needed to make this determination. We reached our
conclusion by comparing the Sink House to the other Queen Anne cottages
surveyed by Paul Touart in 1981 and included in the 1987 survey publication.
When requesting additional information about the Sink House, we expected a
description and analysis of the vernacular Queen Anne cottage type in Davidson
County. The original report provided no evaluation or analysis of the Sink House
beyond a standard paragraph stating that the house is insignificant. While the
addendum lists other similar properties in the county, it does not identify what
distinguishes them from the Sink House.
The report's lengthy review of high-style Queen Anne architecture was more than
rtacessary as background for this report. A brief explanation of what characterizes
the type in the county and descriptions of selected, more significant examples
would have sufficed and would have placed the Sink House in its context for
evaluation purposes.
We continue to be concerned about the use of eligibility requirements developed for
individual reports. The National Register Criteria provide an adequate framework
for evaluations of eligibility for Section 106 purposes. Eligibility requirements,
termed "registration requirements" by the National Register, are intended to be one
component of a multiple property documentation form (MPDF) prepared as part of a
multiple property submission to the Register. In a MPDF, historic contexts are
r,
t
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
November 17, 1995, Page 2
developed that organize information about related properties by theme, place, and
time. Property types that represent those historic contexts are then defined and
described, and registration requirements are developed that provide specific
information that can be used for comparing actual properties and for making
judgments about their relative significance.
Given the amount of information and documentation needed to develop historic
contexts and eligibility requirements, plus the time involved, we believe that, in
most cases, the development of registration requirements is not appropriate for
individual 106 reports. A good example of when developing historic contexts and
registration requirements is helpful and appropriate is the joint and very successful
metal truss bridge study which is about to be completed by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and us.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Should you have questions regarding the above comments, we are very willing to
discuss this matter with you and the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Sincerely,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:siw
cc: H. F. Vick
L,,A. Church
Federal Aid ??TP- 353 ?q 1 TIP-c0_ County 'DAU?o?oM
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
On 5axAowbtN -7 -,representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
/ area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
? there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
? there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Signed:
Representative. NCDOT. Historic Architectural Resources Section
Date
FH)N r the tvision Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
of - - g I-t 19s
Representative, SHPO
Estate Historic Preservation Off cer
(over)
Date
Federal Aid 5 - ?'S31 ?Q> TIP # ?- Z:ldO ?j County t7,WID<2A
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eiigioie (DE).
NI i ? lex - ?V?X?rw? ?aalrn ?, D ?)
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and.describe effect.
it ?reewoa/ ?e? is used .
o.in Jars Mi11cY Nous? 64
. ? 9
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
I he 2Fec . i5 Al aavvve-e, Dy,\ CW'&in Jo6\ Miller Oolksc..
1pP,CDU,ISC? ?? cyt, &,rQ no Sigri ( 6&V\t ?av?aSca.Qc? c0.-Ewan i,, 4-ke- o-ve a,,-
Initialed
,I
'? r
,.
:;
J r`,,
J ? V
3
;,,!
'1 s a
va ?_Z -
d .J
? ?
? ? ?
? ?
?_p??"
.. ??
r
? ?
F-
__
.,
T?
W ?
y--
J
i
-•?
? ?
?? ?
?n ?)

\
?
3 ?
?
?...
p ?
?
Q?
?w.'+?sa ? ?
? I
?
E ?
__...

?. ,o...?

? ?.
.?.o...

?
?
,e.,,,, ,,..,,?„ ,
,
?'?
?. ? ?"
? ?
?-z- Fe'erai Aid
??-' 3531?q) TIP is Q' Z3 ?) Countv QRulbSo?
CONCURRENCE FORM
_ FOR
ASSESStiIENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description ,
_ l_Mp°M,??. L S . : fi?dN1 . s Z4t2 -ta -R?"•
On --S AWax representatives of the
V North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHbVA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
` Representative, NCDOT, Historic Architectural Resources Section

F
l~ :
,t

reviewed the"subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
` RepresentativeJSHPO
1
;a
:•a
ca e Historic Preservation Officer
(over)
\JM. 3l / 149
Date .
Date
01 2t
ate
2Ao/9,/
Federal Aid 41 gyp" 353 TIP T E- 2300 E> County >dl?ti
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Regis:er-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
-ADD Mc E?C5 E PEN i?
1,t1(Tfti £Yi S-n NC
7
"j
M
,i
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
ti

Initialed: NCDOT ? FHtiVA , SHPO
A GE
F L 4
1., 1 V Z
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc JAN 17 1995
2 orvrsrc
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division 2 c4imis; cry
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William r•.,• ==`
January 12, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological Survey Report for widening of NC 8
from SR 2412 to 1-85, Davidson County, TIP R-
2300B, ER 95-8103
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of December 27, 1994, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by John J. Mintz concerning the above project.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
31 DV582-31 DV584, Lack of integrity
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
'concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
/ avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: -'--H' F. Vick
T. Padgett
J. J. Mintz
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
oAte
TRANSMITTAL SLIP 7161q,3
TO:
,Ff,l G 6alQ m b REF. 40. R ROOM, BLDG.
ISM- ?tF Q
FRO l REF. NO OR ROOM, SLDO.
1 5r vL 1 k-,.
-
ACTION
? NOT[ AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVKRSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO M[ ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RKTURN WIT. MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOT[ AND S[[ M[ ABOUT TMIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
,A SfA7j o
b?
i
JU(_ 1 21993
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA L
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR RO. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 8, 1993
ROUN
SECTIOtl
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor /
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager 9. a/atw,
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for NC 8 widening, from NC 49 to
SR 2212, Davidson County, R-2300
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of
the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for July 29, 1993 at 1:30 P. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date (please
reference page 5 of the scoping sheets). This is a federally funded project
and an Environmental Assessment is proposed to be followed by a Finding of No
Significant Impact.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If
there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call
Angela Smith, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-3141.
AHS/pl r O --I
/•S V
Attachment ..S, ' I W5 N
2- -127 -
L1,L c? w S ??-
2 ? ?osSrr- • FIB 5??? Ck- ? ? z - IZ3
CA I z - 6 z?, S

??v y]
. = ?? ? I '?iL ' Cam) 7 w J I z.
J I
eor,
eJ
fU
{p ' a I
3? '' G, ?I 1 F o, 4''
ti g END
PROJECT
o.4
a ??a
?" ty
¦ f I
rr i
¦ e
d
i
/ io?
s?
O l(?.
\ 1
s f I
I\. ` ? .? die
? ptNt.N • J
?\ ?? ? SJIl?4 / I
9
h
4 ?
f
i
? mJ
BEGIN
PROJECT
7: L
I? 1 n
1?'=aa
v J
' JJ
I ?
J JO
'a
J? ?yK 1
IJ J?? J?a I.T
70 CFIAR[077F f J
DAVIDSON COUNTY

L,
a NORTH CAROLINA DEPAR'T'MENT OP
TRANSPOR"T'A"T'ION
DIVISION OP HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 8
FROM NC 49 TO SR 2212
DAVIDSON COUNTY
R-2300
0 ES
?
FIG.

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 7-7-93
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # R-2300
Project # 8.1600701
F.A. Project # STP-3531(9)
Division 9
County DAVIDSON
r
Route NC 8
Functional Classification MAJOR COLLECTOR
Length 24.6 miles
Purpose of Project:
TO ADD ADDITIONAL LANES WHERE NEEDED TO PROVIDE CAPACITY AND
CONGESTION RELIEF AND WIDEN EXISTING LANES AND SHOULDERS ON
OTHER PORTIONS FOR SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE REASONS
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: (AS DETAILED IN APRIL 1988 FEAS. STUDY)
FROM NC 49 TO HIGH ROCK LAKE BRIDGE: widen to 26-foot section
with 4-foot soil shoulders (symm. on 70-foot ROW)
FROM BRIDGE TO SR 1272: widen to 28-foot section with 6-foot
soil shldr. (symm. on 70-foot ROW)
FROM SR 1272 TO NC 47: widen to 3-lane, 40-foot section with 6-
foot soil shldr. (symm. where possible on 80-foot ROW)
FROM NC 47 TO SR 2212: widen to 5-lane, 64-foot C&G section
(widen asymm. on 80-foot ROW)
Type of environmental document to be prepared:
EA TO BE FOLLOWED BY FONSI
Type of funding: Federal Aid Project
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)
How and when will this be paid?
, or (%)
Pace 1
PROJECT SCOPING_SHEET
Type of Facility: Major Connector
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway: Principal Arterial
Interchanges Grade Separations Stream Crossings 2
Typical Section of Roadway: see project description
Traffic: Current 15,000 vpd Design Year
% Trucks
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design speed: 55 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . . .
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . .
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$ 9,950,000
$ 7,398,070
$
$ 3 ,250 ,000
$ 5 ,100 ,000
$ 8 ,351, 000
PR OJ EC T S CC) PI NG SH EE T
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED ( } COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,146,717.5
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 979,867.5
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $ 465.059
X Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $ 668,800
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x $
X New Bridge 160' x 36' $ 276,480
X Widen Bridge 181' x 38' $ 412,680
X Remove Bridge 151' x 24' $ 18,120
New Culverts: Size Length $
Fill Ht.
X Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 67 600
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter. 21-6" . . . . . . . $ 219.310
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . . $
X Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 149,100
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 272.400
Signing: New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . $
RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms. . . . $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade . $
PROJECT SCOPING_SHEET
X Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo X $ 217,200
Markers X
Delineators . . $
X Other misc. & mob., clear & grubbing . $ 1,721,666
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 8,615,000
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,335,000
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subtotal: $ 9,950,000
X Right of Way: varies from 70 to
X Will Contain within Exist Right
2i- Existing Right of Way Width: al
- New Right of Way Needed: Width _
- Easements: Type Width-
- Utilities:
80 feet
of Way: Yes No X
Dprox. 40 feet
Est. Cost $
Est. Cost $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost $
(Includes R/W)
Prepared By: Angela H. Smith Date: 7-7-93
T -- A
PROTECT SCOPING SHEET
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Research
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traff,ic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Board of Tran. Member
Manager, Program and
Policy Branch
Asst. Highway Admin.
Secondary Roads off.
Construction Branch
Landscape
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Chief Engineer
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
DEHNR
INIT. DATE
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks section and
initial and date after comments.
Par rG r,

N. C. DEPART31ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE

TO:
G.
REF. NO. OR ROOM, OLD
c C RU A

F OM: ? REF. NO. OR R OM, OLOG,
1
M
2 1 c ??
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL

? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ?OR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
?G
t
C

d SLAT( o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA L-
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201
September 20, 1993
MEMORANDUM: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Angela H. Smith
Project Planning Engineer
SEP 2 21993
IYETLAI4DS GRQUP A
TER OUAMY SEC
R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: NC 8, from NC 49 to I-85, Davidson County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-3531(9), State Project No. 8.1600701, TIP Project
R-2300
This memo is a summary of the scope of studies for the subject project
based on the results of the July 29, 1993 scoping meeting.
The following were present at the meeting:
Mike Patton Division 9
Paul Worley Rail Division
Bobby Porter Roadway Design
J. A. Speer Roadway Design
Robin Stancil DCR-SHPO
Linh Ngyen Statewide Planning
David Foster DEHNR
David Yow NCWRC-Habitiat Conservation
Don Sellers Right of Way
Jack Matthews Photogrammetry
Keith Johnston Photogrammetry
Sid Autry Location & Surveys
Danny Rogers Program Development
Patrick Riddle Traffic Control
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Linwood Stone Planning & Environmental
Margaret Kluttz Board of Transportation Member
Frank Vick Planning & Environmental
Wady Williams FHWA
Ray Moore Structure Design
Angela Smith Planning & Environmental

September 20, 1993
Page 2
Planning studies will evaluate the widening of NC 8, from NC 49 to I-85.
To facilitate planning studies, the project will be broken into sections.
The existing 2-lane, variable width (from 20 to 24 feet) section is
recommended to be widened as follows:
Section A from NC 49 to the High Rock Lake bridge - (approximately 15.5
miles) recommended to be widened to current state standards for a
2-lane roadway
Section B from the High Rock Lake bridge to NC 47 - (approximately 7.5
miles) recommended to be widened to a 3-lane, 40-foot section
Section C from NC 47 to I-85 - (approximately 1.6 miles) recommended to
be widened to a 5-lane, 64-foot, curb & gutter facility
The section from I-85 to SR 2212 is currently a 5-lane section and is
therefore not included in the new project description. Also the limits for
Parts A and B have changed from SR 1272 in Cotton Grove to the High Rock Lake
bridge.
It was suggested that Section C be broken out (the proposed 5-lane
section) and Parts A and B completed under a separate Categorical Exclusion
(CE) document. Program Development recommends this action since the
remainder of the project could be completed at a future date as funding
becomes available. It was noted that south of Southmont, at High Rock Lake
there is potential for environmental impacts involving wetlands and
threatened and endangered species.
The Division requested that Section B (the 3-lane section) be included
in this study. The Division also recommends that the 3-lane section extend
through Southmont and terminate just south of SR 2412 (just north of the High
Rock Lake bridge) due to heavy turning movements. The estimated future
traffic will dictate exactly where the 5-lane section should transition to
3-lanes. Program Development will be contacted when the project terminus is
determined.
The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) will forward their
comments when available.
The Fish & Wildlife Service does not anticipate any problems.
Statewide Planning anticipates that traffic for the year 2010 from I-85
to just north of Cotton Grove, will be above 30,000 vehicles per day (vpd).
NC 8 has been classified as a major collector.
Both underground and aerial utilities exist throughout the project.
Location & Surveys recommends on Section A that all widening be accomplished
to the east to minimize utility conflicts and avoid the existing railroad.
Roadway has adequate mapping for this project available and will
complete the design on CADD. They anticipate having a preliminary estimate
by December 1993.
September 20, 1993
Page' 3"
Roadway Design recommends that Section A (from High Rock Lake to NC 49)
be completed by the Division.
The feasibility of breaking out bridge #31 over Lick Creek and placing
it on the Federal Bridge Replacement Program was investigated. This bridge
is presently posted and has a sufficiency rating of 43 (out of a possible
100). If the bridge is determined by Bridge Maintenance to be structurally
deficient before the time Section A is constructed, it may then, under the
discretion of Bridge Maintenance, be added to the list of Federally funded
bridge projects to be completed by a federal Categorical Exclusion (CE)
document.
Written comments were received from the Division and are as follows:
Section A - Several horizontal curves need to be improved and a sight
distance problem at SR 2351 is recommended to be corrected.
Section B - The horizontal curvature at the intersections at SR 1102 in
Southmont, and SR 1118 near Cotton Grove are recommended to be
improved due to poor sight distance. A vertical curve at the
intersection of SR 1110 in Feezor is recommended to be corrected.
Roadway Design has a preliminary grade for this improvement.
Written comments were also received from Traffic Engineering. They
estimate that signing for the project will cost an additional $25,000.
The revised estimated construction cost is $9,975,000 including the
$25,000 for signing.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) is anticipated to be completed by
April 1994 and will be followed by a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
scheduled for completion by October 1994. Frank Vick estimated that a public
hearing would be held in approximately 12 to 18 months from this meeting
date.
Following receipt of comments from other State and Federal agencies
concerning the scope of this project, the possibility of downgrading the
proposed Environmental Assessment (EA) for this project to a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) will be discussed with the FHWA.
AHS/plr
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP

TO : REF. NO. OR ROOM, OLDG.
?elIt- 6A?AMV-'t' 2
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, DLDG.
Dc n1 -l D. s #A t IA P
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ADOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
L''F
? PLEASE ANSWER OR YOUR COMMENTS
L
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
N l ?) _S ?17 I f 5....
'I .I Iv'l't

s . sari
r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 12, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT I II
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: NC 8, From SR 2412 to I-85, Davidson County, Federal-Aid
Project No. STP-3531(9), State Project No. 8.1600701, TIP
Project R-2300B
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to NC 8 in Davidson County. The
project is included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1997 and
construction in fiscal year 1998.
The proposed project is located south of Lexington on NC 8. It is
proposed to widen the existing two-lane section from SR 2412 (Roth Rock Road)
to NC 47 to a three-lane shoulder section. The existing three-lane section
from NC 47 to I-85 is proposed to be widened to a five-lane curb and gutter
section.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federal funded
Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency
respond by August 15, 1994 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Angela
Smith, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment
G
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC8
FROM SR 2412 TO I - 85
DAVIDSON COUNTY
R - 2300 B
0 miles 2 FIG.
1 -%
August 12, 1994
M=RANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica SwiharthWater Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0029; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 8, TIP No. R-2300B
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.

Melba McGee
August 12, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10682er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
jt AUG ,A
??TI.>
5?m -7ql -
/?
Proposed Widening of NC 8
from SR 2412 North of High Rock Lake
to I-85 in Lexington
Davidson County
TIP No. R-2300
State Project No. 8.1600701
FAP No. STP-3531(9)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
BY:
Resource Southeast, Ltd.
4915 Waters Edge Drive, Suite 140
Raleigh, NC 27606
November 11, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................... 1
1.1 Project Description .............................. 1
1.2 Purpose ....................................... 1
13 Study Area .................................... 2
1.4 Methodology ................................... 2
1.5 Topography and Soils ............................ 2
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ................................ 4
2.1 Terrestrial Communities .......................... 4
2.1.1 Man-Dominated Community .................. 4
2.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest Community ............ 5
2.2 Aquatic Communities ............................ 5
23 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ............ 6
23.1 Terrestrial Communities ..................... 6
23.2 Aquatic Communities ....................... 7
3.0 WATER RESOURCES ................................ 8
3.1 Water Resource Characteristics ..................... 8
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .............. 9
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS .................................. 10
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues ....... 10
4.1.1 Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters ........ 10
4.2 Permits ...................................... 10
10
43 Mitigation ....................................
4.4 Rare and Protected Species ....................... 11
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species .................. 11
4.4.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species ...... 12
4.43 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............. 13
5.0 REFERENCES ..................................... 14
BL
Table 1 - Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial
& Aquatic Communities ............................. 6
Table 2 - Federally-Protected Species
for Davidson County ............................... 11
Table 3 - Federal Candidate Species and
Their State Status ................................. 12
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report is submitted for use as a supplement to assist
in preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) document.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project involves the widening of NC 8 in two sections
for a total length of 4.66 kilometers (1151 miles). The existing 18.29
meters (60 feet) of right-of-way will be expanded to 30.48 meters (100.0
feet). Where NC 8 right-of-way adjoins railroad right-of-way, road
widening will occur entirely on the opposite side.
Section 1 involves symmetrical widening of 4.01 km (9.9 miles) of
NC 8 from SR 2412 north to NC 47. The existing two lane undivided
facility with 732 meters (24.0 feet) of pavement will be widened to a three
lane undivided facility with 12.19 meters (40.0 feet) of pavement and 1.83
meter (6.0 feet) of soil shoulders. The roadway section through the
community of Southmont will include curb and gutter sections instead of
soil shoulders. The bridge over the Winston-Salem Railroad (Bridge #83)
will be replaced or extended with a wider structure.
Section 2 involves the widening of 0.65 km (1.61 miles) of NC 8
from NC 47 to 185 in Lexington. The existing three lane undivided facility
with 12.19 meters (40.0 feet) of pavement and curb and gutter sections will
be widened symmetrically to a five lane undivided facility with 19.51 meters
(64 feet) of pavement and curb and gutter sections.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and
describe the various natural resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed action. The report also attempts to identify and estimate the
likely consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources. These
descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing
preliminary design concepts. It may become necessary to conduct
additional field investigations should design parameters and criteria change.
1
13 Study Area
The proposed project study area lies in Davidson County (Figure 1)
and incorporates agricultural, residential and commercial areas. The
project area has experienced intensive urban development between NC 47
and 185. Little to no urban development has occurred south of NC 47.
The remaining portion of the project includes agricultural, low-density
single family residential, and undeveloped land uses. The project site lies
within the central portion of the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
Davidson County's major economic resource is agriculture.
1.4 Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Southmont and Lexington
West); NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1":400'); Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps; United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) list of protected and candidate species; and N.C. Natural
Heritage Program's (NC-NHPs) database of uncommon species and unique
habitats. Research using these resources was conducted prior to the field
investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project
route by Resource Southeast biologists on September 26-27, 1994. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of
observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations with
binoculars, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks,
scats, and burrows).
1.5 Topography and Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized as being gently
sloping. Two surface water features, an unnamed intermittent tributary to
Abbotts Creek and a man-made pond, were observed along the project
corridor. This portion of Davidson County contains soils from the Cecil-
Pacolet-Hiwassee soil association and the Georgeville-Herndon soil
association. Soils from the Cecil-Pacolet-Hiwassee soil association are
characterized as having loamy surface layers and moderately permeable
clayey subsoils on very broad, long gently sloping ridges and sloping to
strongly sloping side slopes. Soils from the Georgeville-Herndon soil
association are characterized as having loamy surface layers and
moderately permeable clayey subsoils on broad, moderately long gently
sloping ridges and short side slopes. Elevations within the project corridor
range from approximately 199.03 meters (653 feet) near the project's
2
beginning south of the community of Southmont to approximately 234.70
meters (770 feet) near the project's terminus in Lexington. The project
area is located on a low ridge separating the Abbotts Creek watershed to
the east and the Yadkin River watershed to the west. The project study
area has experienced intensive urban development near the project
terminus in Lexington, with the remaining portion of the project being
mostly agricultural, low-density single family residences and undeveloped
land uses.
3
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include
communities of associated plants and animals. These descriptions refer to
the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the relationship of
these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and common names
(when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described.
Subsequent references to the same species include the common name only.
2.1 Terrestrial Communities
Man-dominated and Mixed Hardwood Forest are the two terrestrial
communities found in the project study area. Dominant faunal components
associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in each community
description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats
found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in
each community description.
2.1.1 Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes road shoulders, utility line
easements, residential lawn habitats and agricultural fields. Many plant
species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas.
Regularly maintained areas are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp), ryegrass
(Lolium sp), white clover (Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense),
plantain (Plantago rugelir), wild onion (Allium sp) and dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale). Irregularly maintained areas are dominated by
those species previously listed as well as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), tick-seed sunflower (Bidens aristosa), and wild blackberry (Rubes
SP).
The animal species present in these habitats are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation
(flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds) to both living and dead faunal
components. Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), red-wing blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Eastern meadowlark
(Sturnella magna), bluebird (Sialia sialis), starlings (Stumidae), vultures
(Cathartidae), and red-tail hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) are often attracted to
roadside and agricultural habitats. Many faunal species, such as the
Virginia opossum, which migrate across heavily traveled roadways become
vehicular fatalities and forage items for other animals, such as the turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura).
4
2.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
This forested community occurs in small fragmented areas along the
project corridor. Gently sloping to nearly flat topography in these areas
supports a variety of mixed hardwoods including white oak (Quercus alba),
tulip poplar (Lidodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), and Eastern red cedar (Junipems vuginiana). The
herbaceous layer includes such species as Japanese honeysuckle, wild
blackberry, greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), bedstraw
(Galium sp), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), and muscadine grape
(Vitis rotundifolia). Animals previously listed may also be found in this
community.
Due to the proximity of agricultural land uses, large mammals such
as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) would be expected to regularly
inhabit this area. Small mammals such as the gray squirrel, Eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Virginia opossum, raccoon (Procyon lotor)
and field mice may take advantage of food and protective resources offered
in this habitat.
2.2 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area includes natural and man-
made surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands. North of SR 2289, NC 8
crosses an unnamed intermittent tributary to Abbotts Creek. The creek
banks are gently sloping on the upstream side and deeply eroded
downstream of NC 8. The creek flows west to east through residential
development and the channel appears to have been modified by residential
activity. Vegetation typical of man-dominated areas occurs to the water's
surface. This vegetation includes lawn grasses such as fescue and ryegrass,
broadleaf weeds such as plantain and clover, and secondary colonizing
species such as greenbrier, blackberry, and sumac. Natural vegetation in
the streambed itself included nutgrass (Carer sp), lizard tail (Saururus
cernuus), and panic grass (Panicum sp). No fish or invertebrate organisms
were observed in this creek during the site visit.
South of SR 2287, an above-the-headwater wetland associated with
an off-site unnamed intermittent tributary to Abbotts Creek occurs between
NC 8 and the Winston-Salem Railroad. This forested wetland includes
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), red maple, dogwood, and sweet gum in
the canopy. Understory vegetation is limited due to canopy density and
includes greenbrier and honeysuckle.
5
North of SR 2284, a shallow pond containing an adjacent wet
meadow occurs between NC 8 and the Winston-Salem Railroad. This
pond appears to be man-made due to the presence of an earthen dam
parallel to NC 8. Vegetation in the pond includes arrow arum (Peltandra
0ginica), duck potato (Sagittaria latifolia), and panic grass. The
surrounding wet meadow includes dogwood, Eastern sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), sweet gum, panic grass, honeysuckle, and blackberry.
23 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are
addressed separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However,
impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations exhibiting
gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment
loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to understand that
construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the
construction activity occurs. Efforts should be made to ensure that no
sediment leaves the construction site.
23.1 Terrestrial Communities
Natural communities occur within the project area, and those
communities have been fragmented and reduced due to past and present
agricultural activity. The man-dominated community will receive the
greatest impact from project construction, resulting in the loss of existing
habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence.
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic
communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
NC 8 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined
Widening Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Community Community
Impacts 33.91 9.85 (2434) 0.47(l.15) 44.22
(83.79) (109.28)
NOTES:
* Impacts are based on 30.48 meters (100.0 feet) of Right-of-
Way limits.
6
* Actual construction impacts may be less than those
indicated above.
* Values given are in hectares (acres).
23.2 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within the
unnamed intermittent tributary to Abbotts Creek, the above-the-headwater
forested wetland area south of SR 2287, and the man-made pond north of
SR 2284. The widening of NC 8 will result in 0.47 hectares (1.15 acres) of
impact to aquatic communities. Construction of the project is likely to
temporarily increase sediment loads to this aquatic habitats. Construction-
related sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates
which are important parts of the aquatic food chain. Less mobile
organisms such as many of the filter feeders may be covered by this
sedimentation, preventing their feeding. Potential adverse effects can be
minimized through the utilization of erosion and sediment control
measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control
Program.
7
3.0 WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to
major water systems. The proposed project lies along a low ridge
separating the Abbotts Creek watershed to the east and the Yadkin River
watersheds to the west.
3.1 Water Resource Characteristics
Two surface water bodies were observed within the project corridor.
North of SR 2289, NC 8 crosses an unnamed intermittent tributary to
Abbotts Creek. This creek is approximately 030 meters (1.0 foot) wide
and 0.15-030 meters (0.5-1.0 foot) deep with a silt and cobble substrate.
The creek banks are gently sloping on the upstream side and deeply
eroded downstream of NC 8. The creek flows west to east through
residential development, and vegetation typical of man-dominated areas
occurs to the water's surface. North of SR 2284, a shallow pond containing
an adjacent wet meadow occurs between NC 8 and the Winston-Salem
Railroad. This pond appears to be man-made due to the presence of an
earthen dam parallel to NC 8. Due to the intermittent nature of the creek,
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management does not
include information on the classification rating of these surface waters, nor
do they maintain any fish or macro invertebrate monitoring stations in this
location. A cursory examination during the field reconnaissance did not
reveal any fish or macroinvertebrate organisms in these surface waters.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resources Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-II are
located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area. No impacts to
sensitive water resources of any kind will take place as a result of the
project construction.
According to the NCDEHNR DEM, Abbotts Creek, from its source
near I-85 to SR 2294 near High Rock Lake, is classified as a WS-V&B
stream. The unnamed intermittent tributary to Abbotts Creek would also
be classified as WS-V&B. This best usage classification means that these
waters are protected as water supplies which are generally upstream and
draining to Class WS-IV waters; no categorical restrictions on watershed
development or wastewater discharges are required. The Class B rating
indicates that these waters are also suitable for primary recreation.
8
32 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Temporary impacts to water resources in the project area will result from
sedimentation and turbidity associated with project construction.
Permanent impacts to the streambed will result at the crossing of the
unnamed intermittent tributary to Abbotts Creek under NC 8 due to the
replacement or extension of the existing pipe culvert. Sedimentation and
erosion control measures (Best Management Practices and Sediment
Control Guidelines) should be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of this project. Grass berms along construction areas help decrease
erosion and allow potentially toxic substances such as engine fluids and
particulate rubber to be absorbed into the soil before these substances
reach waterways. Poorly managed application of sedimentation control
policies will result in serious damage to the aquatic environment.
9
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 3283 and in
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE).
4.1.1 Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
The above-the-headwaters forested wetland area south of SR 2287
and the man-made pond with the adjacent wet meadow north of SR 2284
will be impacted by the proposed project. Investigation into wetland
occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using methods of the
1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Anticipated surface water impacts fall
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and
project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on
jurisdictional surface waters. Approximately 0.47 hectares (1.15 acres) of
jurisdictional wetlands and surface water impacts will occur due to the
proposed widening of NC 8.
4.2 Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General
Permit No. 198200031 and/or Nationwide Permit Nos. 14, 26, and/or 33,
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Also, Section 401
of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification
for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE
permits. Nationwide Permits 14 and 33 and General Permit No. 198200031
require a Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN) to the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management before certification can be issued.
43 Mitigation
Mitigation for wetland impacts may be necessary if the project is
authorized under a general permit or if wetland impacts exceed the impact
criteria for the nationwide permits. Mitigation for impacts to surface
waters is generally not required by the COE. A final determination
regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
10
4.4 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are in the
process of decline either due to natural forces or due to their inability to
coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for Davidson County,
and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction, are discussed in the following sections.
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one
federally protected species for Davidson County as of September 15, 1994.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
11 Helianthus schweinitzii I Schweinitz's sunflower Endangered 11
Helianthus schweinitzii
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: 5/7/91
Distribution in N.C.:
(Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Cabarrus, Davidson, Mecklenburg,
Montgomery, Randolph, Rowan, Stanly,
Stokes, Union.
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb
approximately 1-2 meters (3.28-6.56 feet) tall from a carrot-like tuberous
root. Stems are usually solitary, branching only at or above the mid-stem,
pubescent, and often purple in color. The leaves are opposite on the lower
stem and changing to alternate above, lanceolate, pubescent, and have a
rough and thick texture. From September until frost, Schweinitz's
11
sunflower blooms with rather small heads of yellow flowers. The nutlets
are approximately 33-3.5 millimeters (0.13-0.14 inches) long and are
glabrous with rounded tips.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont region of the
Carolinas, and occurs in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to
dryish clays, clay loams, or sandy clay loams with a high gravel content.
The sunflower usually grows in open habitats such as the edge of upland
woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat exists in the project area for this species. All roadside
margins and woodland fringes were searched for the presence of
Schweinitz's sunflower. No individuals of this species were observed in or
adjacent to the study area during the site visit. It can be concluded that
the proposed project will not impact this Endangered species.
4.4.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Table 3 includes 1 federal candidate species
listed for Davidson County and its state classification. Candidate 2 (C2)
species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are insufficient data to warrant a listing
of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed
Threatened at this time. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Candidate (C) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES AND THEIR STATE STATUS
DAVIDSON COUNTY
Scientific Name Status Habitat
(Common Name) Federal/State Present
Lotus purshkuz us var. helled I C2/C No
(Heller's trefoil)
12
NOTES:
* Species presented in bold are afforded state protection.
* C denotes Candidate species, which are afforded
protection by state laws.
4.43 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat does exist in the study area for the federally-protected
Schweinitz's sunflower. A search for this species was conducted along the
project corridor, and no plant individuals were observed in or adjacent to
the project corridor during the site visit. No habitat exists in the project
area for any candidate species known to occur in Davidson County. Also,
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed, and
no records exist for rare species or habitats in the project area.
13
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map ................................ 16
Figure 2A - NC 8 Widening ................................. 17
Figure 2B - NC 8 Widening ................................. 18
APPENDIX A - Photographic Record
5.0 REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals.
Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and
Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Houghton
Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Delorit, R.J. 1970. An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds.
Agronomy Publications, River Falls, Wisconsin.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North
America. Chanticleer Press, New York, New York.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1993 (September 1994 update). Natural Heritage
Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and
Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular
Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field
Identification of Birds of North America. Western Publishing,
Racine, Wisconsin.
State of North Carolina, Department of Environmental Health and Natural
Resources. 1993. Classification and Water Quality Standards.
NCAC:I5A NCAC2B.0306.
Sutton, A. and M. Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf
Publishing, New York, New York.
14
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1972.
General Soils Map of Davidson County, North Carolina. North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. 1993 (September 1994 update). Natural Heritage Program
List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North
American Mammals. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New
York.
15
FIGURES
RES 0 UR CE
INTERNATIONAL, LTD.
ENyII?ONT[ENTAL CONSULTANTS do DESIGNFM
T.4 m= Lim • AM IN= =M= ML • ' A M ==
(GU) 950- 0 0 FAX (Cu) &XF-6

' MunK?od
' I!
1
LXINGTON
'_. Mx.IS.nI
\ 1 /
?\ r
END
PROJECT ?.
.7
LU.A.M. Mon.. ?•` I"\ y?\ 11?d
1
.z
j C- Go-i.: \ ?I S.Nw Mill
21 L.
z
F....w

i BEGIN
PROJECT
NCDOT HIGHWAY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 2 MILES
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF DAVIDSON COUNTY
NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
FIGURE 1 r R L T r C
(?
SITE LOCATION MAP =- F-Jxj
TIP T R- 2300 e INTERNATIONAL, LTD.
NC 8 ROAD WIDENING ENWRONAfENTAL CONSULTANTS & DESIGNERS
FROM SR 2 412 TO 1-85 P.O. BOX 6260 0 =4 K NGS CIIAR?ER DRIVE o AMMLND, VA X008
[phone] o PAX (804) 350-8."'S• 9
DAVIDSON COUNTY, N.C.
P.N.94028.04
-----------?
I
fi
r'

(t33NS SIN1 33S)
3NI ?N?by `"
C
to
Q
J
F-
LU
X
CJ U
Z
H co
Z Z

clJ W
0 O
F-

W (rl
3: cu z
D
CL
Z) 01
CL 0
U
C7
F-I
L Q Cc lit
Z
L CL
H
F- O
U7
O

u
z H
a
0

P4 i i °
wd
ti
t 0 [Nn

$
E-i .
Z
P4
0
L)
N

Z
H ci

? o
{nq
?
O N
]
IN. O
a
W
A (8a 3H(19I3 33S)
t %A
3NI1N31VN
?c
9jT?"NS:
N'?1
SIP
JL
z z
a u o
wx H 0
zU J O
owm o ?
awa a
o¢z o =
LL LL
a
cococc in o
zzooW w
riH\z U) J
F-F-Z a
o cnI1GJan.o u
Z HHF- F- o to
w xXFFWIL
Ur WW(7Tn. W
w ( 3 1-
a
X
ti o
?I ¢
3 a
li ? I I

1
,a
a
Co
1

O
F-
In

ti

S?k 1i()3-
SR
F._
U
W
0
¢
CL
to
m

f'
r.
D
a
O
J
N
a
w
J
a
to
1
z
0
z
0
z
O
CL
gp' .;.•;.
? ?n ? EE T?EETI
OUd'b0©ZOV5\d0'©ZOD6\:H
oa i6zz bS
cr
J .,
H •
Q
W V.
VA
122:
5P:
r?
(133HS SIH1 33S)
3NI-1H31W1
II I
I. .,PI
i
l;
S
?r
Ilgl.
r„
L.... O
a
r, EX
J
H
CL
w
J
Q
Cn
CD ?'
z
v ..I. o
z
U)
z
a

I?
r
r'
`822`;::::•:
bs

MATCHLINE
f2A??
.p (SEE FIGURE
U U
Z
H m
Z z
m
N Ww 0 ?-

W ?m
N Z
ZD
Cc 0 I
cl: 0
U
CD
H 0 q1Z

°C
Z
LL EL
H
OD 0

to

U
z H
Q
0
SR 1265. _...
0
O
CL
J
H
Q . ,
CL
Z
U)
a
U).
I
Z
0
z
H
3-
m
(Oil
?.I
CL
'n ,

z
VA r Y"
A
n
? o m
?D z
O
0 H
..:4 w
c 1 M Iry
1"1 o ?iN
z
H n ?
wv
W
11
C)
W
-3
0
CC
SF1.2237: o
z
W
2g? 6
Kea dS
co
v
7
SR X24-1
ebzz'?bs :.

J Z
Lij
Z
:E
Z Z '
°
wz H o
zU J O
H Q ?
w
U' O
Ow
awa a
o¢z 0
CC F- H CC 4 r

C7(DcrEn0
ZZOOUJ W
HH\Z(n -?
F-F-2QO a
O JCL
NNO U

Z

HH
-
1 W

w H w
XXCL
o WWOX. w
W a
J ( I g
I H
X
O

a
U.

I. ( I a
:(133H,S SIM 033S)
VA -
nt 3NI7lH3IVW
OHd'VO9ZOV6\VO'82OV6\:H
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECD
RES 0 UR CE
INTERNATIONAL, LTD.
ENVU?OM ENTAL CONSULTANTS & DESIGNERS
CuLr.T= Iii] . PA Mr am . AQZA= u =0=
(04) =0-== 0 rar (C34) C--=U
' .;. -j BERMS -7 }
... = Ir

PLATE I - FACING NORTH; APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROJECT
BEGINNING.
PLATE 2 - FACING NORTH; APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROJECT
TERMINUS.
i
PLATE 3 - FACING EAST; UNNAMED
CREEK THROUGH
RESIDENTIAL AREA,
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM.
PLATE 4 - FACING NORTH; OVERVIEW
OF ROADWAY ALIGNMENT,
WITH MIXED DECIDUOUS
HARDWOOD COMMUNITY
ALONG EITHER SIDE.
i
i
Jr