R2543A

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Eric Galambg
Subject: EA for NC 49
Alamance County
State Project DOT No
EHNR # 96-0818
July 8, 1996
A LT." F
14; t*o
ID F= F1
8.1470601, TIP # R-2643A
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 of waters of the state including wetlands. The document
states that 0.9 acres of wetlands and waters will be impacted. The following
comments are based on the document review:
A) It would have assisted our review if a map showing the location of the wetlands
was included. There was no discussion that wetlands have been avoided and
minimized.
B) Lateral ditches should not be placed in wetlands. If this is not completely
possible, the draining effects of the ditches on adjacent wetlands must be
incorporated in the FONSI.
C) Additional environmental commitments should include: Borrow and waste areas
shall not be in wetlands. Land clearing in wetlands shall conform to Method II
(no clearing beyond toe of slope).
DOT is reminded 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 the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
nc49ala.ea
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh COE
Missy Dickens, DOT
Alan Clark
FAXED
JUL O8 1996
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmdtive Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
?„s 57'Alpv
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 10, 1996 RECEIVED
Mr. David Cox JUN 14 1996
DEHNR - Wildlife Resources Commission ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Archdale Building - ,4-u
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Cox:
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 49, from US 70 to NC 62,
Alamance County, Federal Aid Project STP-49(1), State Project
No. 8.1470601, TIP Project R-2543A
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural
Resources Technical Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It
is anticipated this project will be processed with a "Finding of No
Significant Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental
Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping
process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by July 31, 1996. If no comments are
received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of
the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
H. Fran in ick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
r

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
kMES B. HUNT. JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR RO. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
SAm HUNT
SECRETARY
April 25, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Wilson Stroud, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
ATTENTION: Missy Dickens, Project Manager
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Janet L. Shipley, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resource Technical Report for the
Proposed Widening of NC 49, from US 70 to NC
62; T.I.P. R-2543A; Alamance County; State
Project NO. 8.1470601; F.A. Project NO.
STP-49(1).
The following Natural Resources Technical Report
has been prepared following a field survey conducted by
Environmental Unit Staff April 7, 1994. No sensitive
resource issues are implicated by the proposed action.
If you have questions or need additional information, please
give me a call.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File: R-2543A
??J
Widening of NC 49
from US 70 to NC 62
Alamance County
T.I.P. No. R-2543A
State Project NO. 8.1470601
Federal Aid NO. STP-49(1)
NATURAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT
R-2543A
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
JANET L. SHIPLEY
April 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...............................1
1.2 Purpose ...........................................1
1.3 Study Area ........................................1
1.4 Methodology .......................................1
2.0 Biotic Resources .....................................2
2.1. Plant Communities ...............................2
2.2 Wildlife-Terrestrial ............................4
2.3 Aquatic Life ....................................6
2.4 Biotic Resource.Impacts .........................6
3.0 Physical Resources ....................................7
3.1 Soils and Topography .............................7
3.2 Water Resources ..................................7
3.2.1 Water Resource Impacts .....................9
4.0 Special Topics .................................. ....9
4.1 Jurisidictional Waters of the United States ...... 9
4.1.1 Permits ...................................10
4.1.2 Mitigation ................................10
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ......................10
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ...............10
4.2.2 Federal Candidate/State Protected Species.ll
5.0 References ...........................................12
APPENDIX A - Natural Resource Agency Commnets
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
prepared to assist in the preparation of a federally funded
Environmental Assessment (EA).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for improved traffic carrying
capacity of NC 49 by widening the existing two lanes to a
five lane curb and gutter facility, from US 70 to SR 1752.
Construction limits are approximately 30.5 m (100 ft)` within
45.7 m (150 ft) of right of way. From SR 1752 to NC 62, the
project calls for symmetrical two-lane improvements, with the
addition of turn lanes at intersections. Construction limits
are approximately 24.4 m (80 ft) within 30.5 m (100 ft) of
right of way. Project length is approximately 11.3 km (7
miles).
Three alternatives are proposed for a portion of this of
project. They are as follows:
Alternative 1 - Symmetrically widening NC 49, from US 70 to
SR 1928.
Alternative 2 - Asymmetrically widening NC 49 to the west,
from US 70 to SR 1928.
Alternative 3 - Symmetrically widening SR 1928, from US 70 to
NC 49.
In addition, SR 1927 will be realigned to tie into NC
49, just north of the Haw River Christian Church. This
realignment is expected to require 18.3 m (60 ft) of right of
way.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to describe the
natural systems found within the project area and to document
probable impacts to these systems.
1.3 Study Area
Subject project is located in rural Alamance County,
located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province between the
Towns of Haw River and Pleasant Grove (Fig. 1). This area is
primarily agricultural.
1.4 Methodology
An ecological survey was conducted April 7, 1994 to
identify vegetative communities and wildlife species
1756 r Iyutl
1764 1,? v>
Q t* •Q.
1762 END 1765 b
PROJECT -^
Pleasant Grove can
1- - 1- - -1- -1- .2
1
5 _ .r FPS'> 2
2 2.2 FASC 62
1909 e
Jeffries FqS
l Rvs. union
Ridg Cross
e /
Ilamaha 6210 1 Ch. 1002 ,
,e 49 CO
7 , CO Gle let aven _Bu*in70 0 G{?"? 49 't
ALAMAN CE ra 0
7 ? aw ? 2.0 191
s 22 , ,u,
COUNTY
11 *+ , 1.2
manC
,, s a 6raha1l? S,a to le 6 ?a 1
. j- I • 1911
Q, tl
BI 1794
\?ALAMANCE 1 d \I995
?cv'lle 4
19 \ zao 1 Q0
Eli t 4 N
49 Snow Cam{ 1 n. (1) l%
1 t 1793 1990 ?c 1910
It 1999 ?
.9 4 1912 Mile
1912 Capel
? 1- C 749 A •? ? ^ 1735 Chapel
?a 921 1 .0 .
N
?`r I J 1791 1777 11752 9 ` ? 1915
k b IV 1916 ?Q, ?a
• LINE 1729 1735 °¦ n a h
A c? Jr •?•
l
i !t 1921 1. J s d 20
19,15
h Hopedale 15
19
FAU z) Quaker 1917 1919
" Creek 1.5 ?
u- L v
1 \ ?? ^ Res. 1921
AI. _• 9G Zj`? qt S Q 1988 1920
r., 1 I 1927 1948
?eC1`
- ?? BEGIN 4
`q - PROJECT 1" 1 G
Haw River
:. \- - - •;:1 .c.r.?? \R ' EXT.
1 7U :?? .,?• 6 FAU 1.7.
TG 1.2 \ -_1.7. 70
INGT 2 V1
?
:•a: W
ON
37,266 FAU W.
4U' /RA!(Wgyy
FAU HAW RIVE 910 ;: c : •:.. :a :FAU :.? : .r
c U7HER PJ ?i' I POP.
87 .' .: O N Q ?,. ;
::1 _ 1,858 .:•..yi
FAU
49 49
54 FAP
+:. A 87 150
ice;. •:
7 FAU,:: 5 . 4
GRAHAM 14e ss
- F FA+ .::.?V
:5'::::y_,-:::.POP. 8,6 4
\`.y .2
?G ( ??. 147 GP..
2
contained within the project area. Vegetative communities
and wildlife were inventoried and mapped during on-site
surveys. Wetlands were identified, using methods in the
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987).
In-house preparatory work was completed prior to a field
visit. The Alamance County Soil Survey, USGS Burlington,
N.E., and Mebane quadrangle maps, and the hydric soils list
for Alamance County were studied to identify potential
wetland sites. The Environmental Sensitivity Base Map for
Alamance County was utilized to determine if any sensitive
resources are present in the project area "Classifications
and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Haw
River Basin" (N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources) was consulted to determine the best usage
classification for area streams. N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) files
were reviewed to determine if any protected or rare flora or
fauna occurs in the project area.
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Distribution and composition of biotic resources
throughout the project area reflect topographic positioning,
hydrologic influences, and past and present land use
practices. Maintained systems comprise the majority of the
project area while forested areas are small. Due to the
overall uniformity of the project area, terrestrial wildlife
is addressed separately, rather than in the context of biotic
communities. Wildlife observed during field investigations
are denoted by (*) in the text. Common and scientific names
are provided for each species listed. In subsequent
references to the same organism, only the common name is
given.
2.1 Plant Communities
The project area is rural, consisting primarily of
agricultural fields, and private residences. Small,
fragmented forests are interspersed among maintained areas.
Five plant communities were identified in the project area:
Maintained, Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest, Pine Forest, Hardwood
Forest, and Mesic Hardwood Forest. Natural community profile
descriptions, where applicable, have been adopted and
modified from the NCNHP classification scheme (Schafale and
Weakley 1990).
Maintained Communities
Residential neighborhoods, agricultural fields, and
roadside shoulders constitute maintained communities in the
project area. In this community man's structures or
activities preclude natural plant succession.
3
Maintained shoulder slopes, and lawns support fescue
(Festuca sp.) as the dominant vegetative component,
complemented with landscape ornamentals. Redbud (Cercis
canadensis), dogwood (Cornus florida), azaleas (Azalea spp.),
pecan (Car a illinoensis), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and various oak trees (Quercus
spp.) are common. Mowing is frequently associated with this
community.
Agricultural fields are interspersed in this suburban
area. This community contains only those lands currently
managed for agriculture, including fields under cultivation
and fields temporarily fallow. Soybeans, tobacco and corn
are prevalent in the project area. Routine management
practices associated with farming, cause this community to
retain only isolated remnants of its native character, .
providing little of its initial value as wildlife habitat.
Remnants of native vegetation and various invading weedy
species occur within the agricultural fields and along field
edges. Common plants include tall golden-rod (Solidago
canadenensis var. scabra), dog-fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), cranesbill (Geranium carolinianum), black
nightshade (Solanum americanum) and foxtail grass (Setaria
sp.)
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
This community represents an intermediate successional
stage between pine forest and hardwood forest. It is the
most abundant forested community type in the project area.
It is found in situations where a hardwood forest has
suffered a disturbance such as fire or selective cutting.
Species composition is similar to hardwood forests although
the relative abundance of each species differs. In this
community, pines and hardwoods each make up approximately 50
percent of the canopy. Short-leaf pine (P. echinata) is the
most common pine species, interspersed in the canopy with
"weedy hardwoods" such as red maple (Acer rubrum) and tulip
tree (Liriodendron tulipifera). White and southern red oaks
(Quercus alba and 0. falcata) are common. Subcanopy
components are primarily dogwood (Cornus florida) and
sassafras (Sassafras albidum). Heartleaf (Hexastylis
arifolia), pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata), and ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), form the herbaceous
component.
Pine Forest
Pine forest cover is limited to specific upland areas
which have been planted, or where hardwoods have been removed
allowing for successional regeneration of pines. Shortleaf
pines dominate virtually all of the canopy; red cedar is
often present in the subcanopy. Depending on the density of
the canopy, a variety of hardwood species, particularly
4
sweetgum and red maple, may appear in the understory.
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus guinguefolia) and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica) often form impenetrable mats.
Hardwood Forest
High ground sites are typically dominated by a oak-
hickory canopy consisting of white oak, southern red oak
and mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa). Shortleaf pine,
scrub pine (P. virQiniana) and red cedar often occur as
subcanopy components. Understory composition is an amalgam
of trees and shrubs such as sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum),
dogwood, privet (LiQustrum sinense), beauty berry (Callicarpa
americana) and sapling growth of canopy species. The
herbaceous layer is sparse or totally lacking, but
groundcovers such as Virginia creeper, poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), and muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia)
are typical.
Mesic Forest
Mesic woodlands are prevalent along creek channels,.
narrow floodplain fringes, and lower slopes throughout the
landscape. This system is subjected to infrequent flooding
and prevailing mesic conditions due to topographic
positioning. The canopy/subcanopy is dominated by sweetgum,
red maple, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) willow oak
(Ouercus phellos), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), and ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana). Shrub development consists of
blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), strawberry bush (Euonymus
americanus) and privet. Ground cover densities may vary,
and are characterized by Christmas ferns (Polvstichum
acrostichoides), and an invasive grass (NticrosteQium
vimineum). This is the typical vegetational profile found
along intermittent headwater tributaries crossed by the
alignment.
2.2 Wildlife
The rural nature of the project area, combined with a
mix of plant community patterns, provide a variety of
opportunities for various forms of wildlife. Forested tracts
have all the necessary components (food, water, protective
coverage) to support a number of small and large mammals and
birds. As a group, the highly mobile mammals can be
characterized as being chiefly nocturnal or crepuscular
(active at twilight) and omnivorous.
The Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon
(Procyon lotor) are similar in life habits. Both are
opportunistic omnivores that wander widely in search of food.
The raccoon patrols a home range, which may include a variety
of habitats, while the opossum is nomadic. They prefer dry,
sheltered dens under logs and in hollow trees, brush '
thickets, and burrows. Both occur primarily in association
with wetlands.
The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) prefers
areas of mixed age-stands of forest, interspersed with
agricultural lands. It is primarily a crepuscular herbivore,
feeding on herbs, mast, and agricultural crops. Deer sign
and sightings were common in all habitats.
The gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) and red fox
(Vulpes vulpes) are both chiefly nocturnal and omnivorous.
The eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus) is an
important food source as are small rodents, birds, eggs,
insects and fruits. The gray fox prefers brushy woodlands,
while the red fox is more commonly associated with open
agricultural fields interspersed with woodlands.
Birds are the most abundant fauna observed in the
project area. They are naturally mobile and can occur in a
variety of habitats especially during migration. The
*red-tailed hawk (Buteo Jamaicensis), often soars over a
variety of habitats in search of prey.
Most commonly seen in the canopy of all forested
habitats are the *pileated woodpecker (Picoides pubescens),
*downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), brown creeper
(Certhia familiaris), *northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), *yellow-rumped warbler (Dendrocia coronata), and
the Carolina wren (Thyomanes bewickii). Typical reptiles and
amphibians that may be found on the forest floor are the
eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), slimy salamander
(Plethodon glutinosus), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), and
black racer (Coluber constrictor). These animals utilize
fallen logs and the litter layer for cover.
Man-dominated communities support mainly opportunistic
species, those animals adapted to urban environments. *Gray
squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), house finch (Carpodacus
mexicanus), *Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), blue
jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), and northern cardinal are very
common in this community, and may be seen foraging along
roadsides and in lawns. The common house mouse (Mus
musculus) lives in close proximity to humans and also can be
found in cultivated fields.
Mesic forest and intermittent streams in the area,
provide breeding opportunities for many amphibians.
Amphibians, in particular, are highly water-dependent for
completion of larval stages in their life cycle. The
northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata),
marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), and the three-lined
salamander (Eurycea Quttolineata) are likely to occur in
mesic forests and reside in burrows under logs, stones and
6
leaf litter in swamps and along streams.
2.3 Aquatic Life
The majority of waterbodies in the project area are
comprised of small, intermittent Piedmont streams. In the
winter and spring, low flow water is present. In summer,
streams beds are dry, but may retain small pools of water.
Aquatic insects and snails were noted at many crossings, as
were crayfish (Cambaridae) burrows. Neither fish nor mussel
fauna were seen during field investigations. Fish diversity
is expected to be low in waters without continual flow.
Shiners (Notropis spp.), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) may
utilize these intermittent tributaries for spawning during
periods of flow.
2.4 Biotic Community Impacts
Table 1 summarizes potential losses from proposed
project construction based on three alternatives.
Calculations are based on right-of-way limits of 45.7 m (150
ft).
Table 1. ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
hectares (acres)
Alternate Community
MT MPH PF HF MF
1 29.5 (73.8) 1.6 (3.9) <0.1 (<0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.1 (0.3)
TOTAL = <31.6 (78.1)
2 29.5 (73.8) 1.5 (3.8) <0.1 (<0.1) 0.4 (0.2) 0.1 (0.3)
TOTAL = <31.6 (78.1)
3 29.4 (73.4) 1.6 (3.9) <0.1 (<0.1) 0.8 (0.3) 0.1 (0.3)
TOTAL = <32.0 (79.0)
MT, MPH, PF, HF, and MF denote Maintained, Forest, Mixed
Pine/Hardwood, Pine Forest, Hardwood Forest and Mesic Forest,
respectively.
For terrestrial species, impacts due to the proposed
widening will be reflected in the creation of new habitat and
in the alteration and elimination of previously existing
habitat. Subterranean, burrowing and slow moving organisms
will be eliminated. Larger, faster animals will simply be
displaced. Expansion of a "highway barrier" can affect both
short-term migrations (diurnal, nocturnal, diel) and long
term migrations (seasonal) of animal populations, depending
on individual species' requirements for food, water and
cover. Also, animal migration may be interrupted due to
7
vehicular noise. Road-kills will decrease numbers of
individuals of certain species.
Habitat disturbance and sedimentation are extremely
detrimental to aquatic systems. Best Management Practices
(BMP's) for protection of surface waters, must be strictly
adhered to, to ensure the biological integrity of the water
bodies impacted by this project. In addition, timing of
construction to occur during dry or low flow periods (summer
through fall) is highly reccommended.
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
3.1 Topography and Soils
Subject project lies within the Piedmont Soil Region and
specifically within the Mixed Felsic and Mafic System. Many
of the mixed felsic and mafic areas are moderately to
strongly dissected. Topography in the project area is
moderately dissected.
A Cecil-Appling soil association covers the majority of
the project area. Most of the acreage is on broad ridges and
gentle slopes and is cultivated. These soils are well
drained and developed from a residuum of granite, gneiss, and
coarse-grained schist.
Worsham soils are hydric, and are confined to channels
of intermittent tributaries (approximately 1 m (2-4 ft) in
width) and low wet depressional areas. These soils are
poorly drained, and strongly acid. Parent material is
colluvium and local alluvium mixed with the residuum of the
underlying granite, gneiss, schist, slate, and other rock.
3.2 Water Resources
Subject project intercepts ten stream crossings that
eventually drain into the Haw River, located within the Cape
Fear River basin. Points of crossing are above headwaters
(less than 5 cfs annual flow) and streams pass through the
project area by way of culverts and pipes. All crossings are
intermittent streams, and have narrow channel widths from 1 m
(3 ft) to 1.5 m (5 ft). Due to heavy rainfall at time of
field visit, water levels were high (0.3 m, 1 ft) and flow-
rate was fast. Most stream substrates are highly silted.
Adjacent vegetation is of the mesic mixed hardwood type with
a varying percentage of pine from site to site.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters
of North Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM). Any stream which is not named in the schedule of
stream classifications carries the same classification as
that assigned to the stream segment to which it is tributary.
8
A summary of "best usage" water classifications for
water resource components likely to receive impacts are
listed in Table 2 below. A summary of the "best usage" for
which the waters in each class must be protected, follows.
Table 2. "Best Usage" Classifications of Water Resources
WATER RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
Quaker Creek WS-II NSW
Unnamed tributary to Quaker Creek
Four unnamed tributaries to Deep Creek WS-II NSW
Scrub Creek WS-III NSW
Two unnamed tributaries to Scrub Creek WS-III NSW
Boyds Creek C NSW
Waters classified as WS-II are waters protected as water
supplies which are generally in predominately undeveloped
watersheds; point source discharges are permitted; local
programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge
of pollution are required; and suitable for all Class C uses.
Waters classified as WS-III are waters protected as
water supplies which are generally in low to moderately
developed watersheds; point source discharges are permitted;
local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater
discharge of pollution are required; and suitable for all
Class C uses.
Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
The supplemental classification "NSW" indicates waters
needing additional nutrient management (particularly
fertilizer run-off) due to their being subject to
eutrophication.
The project area falls within a High Quality Water (HQW)
zone and Water Supply Watershed north of SR 1754, and to the
east of NC 49 between SR 1754 and SR 1774. Projects that are
located 1.6 km (1 mile) from a HQW and fall within a HQW zone
are subject to special regulations as defined in "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (T15A:04B.0024) of the
Sedimentation Control guidelines.
The- Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
(NC-DEHNR, Division of Environmental Management) addresses
long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites
by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates.
9
These organisms are sensitive
quality. No data is available
within the project area.
to very subtle changes in water
for waterbodies that fall
No Outstanding Resource Waters, nor waters classified as
WS-I are located in the study area, or within 1.6 km (one
mile) downstream. No National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permits have been issued for the project
area.
3.2.1 Water Resource Impacts
Surface water impacts are anticipated for all stream
crossings present. Culverts and/or pipes will be extended,
reducing the linear feet of natural stream channel. Other
potential impacts are increased sedimentation from
construction and/or erosion, increased concentration of toxic
compounds from highway runoff and/or toxic spills, scouring
of stream beds due to the channelization of streams,
alterations of water levels due to interruptions or additions
to surficial and/or groundwater flow, changes in light
incidence due to the removal of vegetative cover.
Recommendations
-Schedule instream activities during
(summer, fall).
-Non-point sediment sources should be
made to control sediment runoff.
-Strict adherence to Best Management
Sedimentation Control guidelines for
implemented during the construction
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Jurisdictional Waters of the US
low flow periods
identified and efforts
Practices and
HQW's should be
phase of the project.
Surface waters and associated wetlands fall under the
broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in
33 CFR 328.3. The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) takes
jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or fill material
into these waters of the U.S. as authorized by Section 404 of
r. the Clean Water Act.
Three___jurisdictional wetland sites were identified in
the project area using methods in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987). Two jurisdictional
wetlands are associated with unnamed tributaries of Quaker
and Scrub Creeks, located at the northern end of the project
area. Site 3 is a wet depression in an agricultural field
and appears to be isolated from a waterbody (Figure 2).
Sites 1 and 2 may be categorized as palustrine, forested,
broad-leaved deciduous communities (PF01A), and site C as
palustrine, emergent, persistent (PEM1), as defined by
Cowardin et al. (1979). Wetland communities were identified
leas, n
700 '1- 599
69
62
M 709 \ 1I , i, . I
?? / / - `\\. ,rte .,., ., i _ •?? l r7$. ?i ? u`y!-\??? /?
?Jeffries Crcbs \? 1 ??? rI^ I ???\? ?? • 'jo ?
21, 00
,? 1.? .J ., ??'•.? 650 \\ ?/?7 / -I I ???/' \'? / r•? •f?/\?;.\?
? `?? ? (f 111 ?--- \• ? ? ??? \\\? '???? \ ',? ?/ / ? / 7 ? 49 1?? ?? J? ..y\` `-
'\ 1729
--------------
.650 `NY ' i .\•.• ?., ._
7L- I
sm A:
L///\ ?i D /
.7 N\
111\ ?'T?- ` } \ /? i . /"M .\\ ?\
IA j
L'X
j et
es
. (it 61
?• ? \? a\ _? l j'?? ??? ? ?? ??-? }' ? 1 n ?' •,:! ,? :,J it
?•1} /?-1 •,\ I,i //jam 1751 •` ?? ??' /% (•-??\? •?-'? , i?^
1910
z
/ I,\ \ l• ??I _/\1 \\ /./ o h:pel'wi ` v 65V
?j ?\ 1 \_? \'•\
. / •3 ?? 650 ? O ?? ?? `'-1?`• ,J ?\\ / ?w
BURLINGTON NE, N. C.
N3607.5-W7915/7.5 ,??j? ??. \
l r
650
1969 .8 655 Figure 2. Wetland Sites
AMS 5.156 III NE-SERIES V842 NC 49
\J r;
I \ Alamance Count
ij
i?
10
in the project corridor on the basis of low soil chroma
values, hydrophytic vegetation and the presence of hydrology
or hydrological indicators. A summary of wetland impacts
associated with each site is provided in table 3 below.
Table 3. Summary of Wetland Impacts, Hectares (Acres)
Wetland Stream Anticipated
Site Classification Crossing Impacts
1 *PF01A Quaker Creek <0.1
2 PF01A Scrub Creek <0.1
3 **PEM1 None <0.1
Total Impacts <0.3
*Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily
Flooded
**Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent
4.1.1 Permits
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will be required
from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into "Waters of the United States". Based upon site location
and estimated acreage involved, it is anticipated that
impacts will be authorized by Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5
(a) (26)]. This permit generally authorizes discharges of
dredge or fill material in wetlands located above the
headwaters (flow less than 1.5 cubic m (5 cubic ft) per
second) of non-tidal rivers, streams and their lakes and
impoundments including adjacent wetlands.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered
through the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources will be required. This certificate is
issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into
waters for which a federal permit is required.
4.1.2 Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is generally not required where
Nationwide permits or General permits are authorized,
according to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. Final
discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
11
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 March 30, 1994, the FWS reports
no federally protected species for Alamance County.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate/State Protected Species
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata), a Candidate 2 (C2)
is currently listed by the FWS for Alamance County. A
Candidate 2 species is not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and not subject to any of it's
provisions until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered.
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted
protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the NC
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered
and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and the NC Department of Agriculture. Sweet
pinesap is a state Candidate species and is not legally
protected. A review of the NHP data base shows no known
occurrences of rare or protected species in the project area.
12
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Checklist of North
American Birds. (6th ed.) Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence,
Kansas. 877 pp.
Ehrlich, P.E., D.S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birders
Handbook. A Field Guide to the Natural HIstory of North
American Birds. Simon and Schuster, N.Y., N.Y. 785 pp.
Depoe, C.E., J.B. Funderburg, and T.L. Quay. 1961. The
reptiles and amphibians of North Carolina: a preliminary
check-list and bibliography. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.
77:125-136
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, "Technical Report Y-87--1, US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Godfrey, R.K., J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants
of Southeastern United States, Dicotyledons. The University
of Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.
Lee, D.S., Funderburg, J.B. Jr., and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North American Mammals. North
Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, N.C.
70 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 264pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resourses Commission. 1974. North
Carolina mammalian species with keys to the orders and
families. N.C. Wildl. Resour. Comm.,Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DER. 1992. Classifications and water quality
standards assigned to the waters of the Cape Fear River
basin. Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, N.C.
34pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill. 408 pp.
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. 1183 pp.
Scott, S.L. (ed.). 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North
America. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
13
464 pp.
Smith, R.R., J.B. Funderburg and T.L. Quay. 1960. A
checklist of North Carolina mammals. N.C. Wildl. Resour.
Comm., Raleigh.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North Carolina. North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. 87pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 255 pp.
APPENDIX A
NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCY COMMENTS
d ? sUTt
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor February 25, 1993 Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihart';'"Water Quality planning
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments - NCDOT Improvements to NC 49, from US
70 to NC 62, Alamance County, State TIP #R-2543A,
Project Review #93-0604
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.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919x95-3900 9191896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportuniry Affirmative Action Employer
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) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Prior to the approval
of any borrow source in a wetland, the contractor shall obtain
a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilized the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
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.
8090er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
ti

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator °¢L?
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 1, 1993
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for improvements to NC 49, from US 70
to NC 62, Alamance County, North Carolina, TIP No.
U-2543A, SCH Project No. 93-0604.
.This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. L. J. Ward of
the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife
resources resulting from the subject project. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has 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).
The proposed work involves improvement of a two-lane
highway, with widening to a multilane facility at selected
locations. Upland habitat in the project area consists of
patches of forested and agricultural land, with numerous areas of
residential development. Small headwater streams and farm ponds
are the predominant aquatic habitat in the area.
The NCWRC prefers improvement of existing facilities over
other "build" alternatives and supports the NCDOT in its choice
of such an option for this project. Concerns remain regarding
fragmentation and loss of wetland and upland wildlife habitat,
installation of culverts and relocation of stream channels at
road crossings, and secondary habitat loss from future
development facilitated by the road improvements.
f
Memo Page 2 _ March 1, 1993
Recent NCDOT environmental documents have typically
addressed most environmental concerns for projects of this scope.
For purposes of reference, our informational needs are listed
below:
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. When practicable, 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. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611 '
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. 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 Program
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Streit .
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
j with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the
e . STn7F
r- o
Z Y -Z.-3
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
March 23, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J.. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tr tation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State istoric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Proposed improvements to NC 49 from US 70 to NC
62, Alamance County,' R-2543A, 8.1470601, STP-
49(1), CH 93-E-4220-0604
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:
Malone King House. South side of SR 1002, 0.2 mile west of the junction
with NC 49.
John Wyatte Ruins. West side of NC 49, 0.1 mile south of the junction
with SR 1995.
W. J. Anderson House. East side. of NC 49 at the junction with SR 1909.
P. V. King House. North side of SR 1752, 0.1 mile west of the junction
with-NC 49.
Frank Rogers House. East side of NC 49 at the junction with SR 1921.
Amos Kendall Roney House. North side of East Main Street, Haw River.
None of the above properties have been evaluated for National Register eligibility.
7
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
?CJI

St 4T OF J ¦
P <..r.*yF TAIiF?? ?¦
MDE IN
y M ?ZA United States Department of the Interior
o
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
'? .e>A Raleigh Field Office ¦
4gCH 9
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh; North Carolina 27636-3726
March 8, 1993 0 C EF J
MQR 0 9 '1983
L.J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch 0/VIO/C.
Division of Highways &HIGHVV A YS
e
Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201 Raleigh, North North Carolina
27611-5201 '
Attention: Ed Lewis
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your January 14, 1993, technical assistance
request for information concerning environmental impacts
associated with proposed improvements to NC 49, from US 70 to NC
62, Alamance County, North Carolina (TIP Number R-2543A). The Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) makes the following recommendations
in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401,'as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The proposed improvements may adversely affect wetlands along NC 49
between Burlington and Pleasant Grove. Review by the Wilmington
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required to
determine the presence and extent of wetlands along the proposed
route. Areas of concern to the Service include potential project
impacts to marshes, submerged aquatic vegetation, scrub/shrub, and
forested wetlands. Such wetlands are of high fish and wildlife
habitat value, and perform important water quality and land
stabilization functions. Zf wetlands are likely to be affected,
the Service will recommend the use of alternatives that avoid
wetland impacts. These alternatives may include different
alignments, the use of bridges instead of culverts, or special
construction techniques. Unavoidable wetland impacts should be
reduced, and the fish and wildlife habitat value of affected
wetlands should be replaced with suitable mitigation.
At this time, no Federally-listed species, or species that are
candidates for Federal listing, are known to occur in Alamance
County (Attachment). As our records are revised, however, new
species occurrences for Alamance County may become known. If any
threatdned, endangered, or candidate species are likely' to be
affected, further coordination with this office will be required.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
If you have any questions, please contact David Dell, Permits
Coordinator for this office (919/856-4520).
Sincerely,
A Kku 6 ?
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor

4
i
REVISED JANUARY 1, 1992
II
Alamance County
ti

1 '
January 14, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Ed Lewis
NCDOT - P&E
From: Eric Galamb
DEM 4af
Subject: Scoping Meeting Minutes
NC 49 from US 70 to NC 62
Alamance County
TIP # R-2543A
", f: ?Li O f
AC3L ?ry1?ofi G?
??^?raL BRP?
The subject Minutes has been reviewed by this office and I request the
following clarifications. During the meeting, I requested that hazardous
soill catch basins be installed at all water supply classified stream
crossings. This request was based on the cooperation clause of DOT's BMP
manual which states DOT will cooperate with DEM to contain and clean-up
spills within the right-of-way at the request of DEM. I also stated that NC
49 appears to be on a ridge. Streams draining to the east would be
classified as water supply. You stated that DOT would utilize the
requirements in the BMP for the Protection of Surface Waters (if the
project is within one mile of the watershed intake, then the catch basin will
have to be used).
I request that the Minutes be changed to reflect my statements. I realize
that the meetings proceed very quickly and you are not faulted for the
mistake in the Minutes. Thank you for the invitation to the scoping meeting.
cc: Mr. David Foster
ti
I
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer
N. C. Department of Transportation
FROM: David L. Yow, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: December 16, 1992
SUBJECT: Request for.Scoping Comments on N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Improvements to NC 11,
Greenville, Pitt County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-
2250.
Due to unavoidable scheduling conflicts, our personnel will
be unable to attend the scoping meeting for this project.
However, we are interested in reviewing project plans and
providing written recommendations for the upcoming environmental
document.
NA
Please reserve a copy of any materials provided to
participants at the scoping meeting. I will meet with you in the
near future to discuss the meeting and the proposed project. I
can be contacted at the following address:
P. 0. Box 118
Ga. Fethninle--, NC 27564
N°RTffs "Pe-
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to planning
stages for this project. If I can further assist your office,
please call me at [phone].
i
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
(o -oO c -e- ?? `Z
// 0 1 / ? &-
Q C__9 c) -1 TVs-In This project is being reviewed as indicated below: ffir ur. ..IF
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas
4 ter ? Marine Fisheries
i
4

ill
? F
tt ? Air taaaagemerit ? Water Planning
oas
aye
ev
e
? Water ?.a
? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
?Mooresville ?Groundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
? W
t ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
on
as
ng ? Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others
? Winston-Salem PWS
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
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
• In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
?Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS-104
-4-1 N /6 - OUZO
NC 49
From US 70 to NC 62
Alamance County
Federal Aid Project STP-49(1)
State Project 8.1470601
TIP Project R-2543A

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
APPROVED:
3-217 -9&"' -f/, --
Date o,, H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Vz 7
Date r ich L. Graf, P.E.
Po Division Administrator, FHWA

. AL
NC 49
From US 70 to NC 62
Alamance County
Federal Aid Project STP-49(1)
State Project 8.1470601
TIP Project R-2543A
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
March, 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
r
cqR
1%1."% 6v?l
• SEq •
Mary Alice ickens, P.E. 216
4 9
Project Planning Engineer = : F
ti .•
/CF DEG
\\
111111\
"/1w
ti? _ ' r -
,,? - lson Stroud
Project Planning Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
i ?;
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY .. .......... ..................................................................................................... i
1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................ ................1
A. General Description of the Project ......................................... ................ l
B. Project Purpose and Need ..................................................... ................1
C. Project Status and Historical Resume .................................... ................1
D. Existi ng Conditions ............................................................... ................1
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied .......................... ................1
2. Route Classification ................................................... ................2
3. Existing Cross Section ............................................... ................2
4. Existing Right of Way ................................................ ................2
5. Access Control .......................................................... ................2
6. Speed Limits .............................................................. ................2
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures ................................ ................2
8. Traffic Data ............................................................... ................3
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature .............................................3
10. Intersecting Roads ..................................................... ................3
a. NC 491US 70 Intersection (Southern Project
Terminal) ...................................................... .................3
b. NC 49/SR 1928/SR 1927 Intersection ........... .................3
C. NC 49/NC 62 Intersection (Northern Project
Terminal) ...................................................... .................4
d. Other Intersections ........................................ .................4
11. Degree of Roadside Interference ............................... .................4
12. Railroad Crossings ..................:................................. .................4
13. Airports .................................................................... .................5
14. School Bus Data ....................................................... ..............:..5
15. Sidewalks ................................................................. .................5
16. Bikeways .................................................................. .................5

E. Capacity Analysis ..................................................................................?
1. Mainline Analysis .......................................................................
2. Intersection Analysis ..................................................................6
a. Signalized Capacity ........................................................6
b. Unsignalized Capacity ....................................................6
F. Accident Analysis ..................................................................................9
G. Project Terminals ..................................................................................9
H. Thoroughfare Plan ................................................................................10
1. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community .......................................10
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ......................................................................10
A. General Description ...................................................... .........................10
B. Length of Project ......................................................... .........................10
C. Cross Section .............................................................. ..........................10
D. Design Speed .............................................................. ..........................11
E. Right of Way 11
F.
............................
Temporary Construction Easements
.......
G. Access Control ............................................................ ..........................11
H. Intersection Treatment ................................................ ..........................12
1. NC 49/US 70 ................................................... ..........................12
2. NC 49/SR 1928/SR 1927 ................................. ..........................12
3. NC 49/NC 62 .................................................. ..........................12
4. Other Intersections .......................................... ..........................12
1. Bridges and Drainage Structures ................................. ..........................12
J. Railroad Involvement .................................................. ..........................12
K. Special Permits Required ............................................. ..........................13
L. Changes in the State Highway System ......................... ..........................13
M. Multiple Use of Space ................................................ ...........................13
N. Bikeways ................................................................... ...........................13
0. Degree of Utility Conflicts .......................................... ...........................13
P. Sidewalks ................................................................... ...........................14
Landscaping 14
R. Noise Barriers ............................................................ ........................... 14
S. Airports ..................................................................... ...........................14
T. Anticipated Design Exceptions ................................... ...........................14
U. Cost Estimates ........................................................... ...........................14
V. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area .. ...........................15
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .........................................15 f
A. Recommended Improvements .................................... ............................15
B. Design Alternatives ................................................... ............................16
1. Alternatives Eliminated From Consideration Early
in the Planning Process ..............................................................16
A

2. Alternatives Fully Considered ............................................. .......17
a. Section 1 - Symmetrical Widening (Recommended) .......17
b. Section 2 ................................................................ .......17
i. Symmetrical Five-Lane Widening ........................17
ii. Westside Five-Lane Widening
(Recommended) .................................................17
C. Section 3 ................................................................ ........18
i. Symmetrical Five-Lane Widening ................ ........18
ii. Eastside Five-Lane Widening
(Recommended) ......................................... ........18
d. Section 4 - Symmetrical Five-Lane Widening
(Recommended) ..................................................... ........18
e. Section 5 - Symmetrical Two-Lane Widening
(Recommended) .............................................................18
f. Section 6 ........................................................................19
i. Symmetrical Two-Lane Widening
(Recommended) ........................................ .........19
H. Westside Two-Lane Widening ................... .........19
g. Section 7 ............................................................... .........19
i. Symmetrical Two-Lane Widening ....................... 19
ii. Eastside Two-Lane Widening .............................19
iii. Realignment to the East and Two-Lane
Widening (Recommended) ..................................20
C. Postponement of Proposed Action ........................................................20
D. "No Build" Alternative ..........................................................................20
E. Alternate Modes of Transportation ........................................................20
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .......................21
A. Land Use ..............................................................................................21
1. Status of Local Planning Activities .............................................21
2. Existing Land Use .....................................................................21
3. Proposed Land Use ...................................................................22
B. Socioeconomic Impacts ...................................................................... ...22
1. Neighborhood Characteristics ................................................. ...22
2. Relocatees .............................................................................. ... 23
3. Public Facilities ....................................................................... ...24
4. Economic Effects .................................................................... ...24
5. Social Impacts ...........................................................................25
C. Historic and Cultural Resources ......................................................... ...25
1. Charles Richard Drew Memorial ............................................ ....25
2. Architectural/Historical Resources ......................................... ....25 -
a. Purpose of Survey and Report .................................... ....25
b. Methodology ............................................................. ....25
C. Summary of Results and Findings ............................... ....26
i. Properties Considered Eligible for the
National Register ............................................ ....26
ii. Properties Not Considered Eligible for Listing
in the National Register of Historic Places ...... ....32
iii. Additional Properties Not Covered in this
Report ............................................................ ....33
3. Archaeological Resources ...................................................... ....33
a. Introduction ...................................................................33
b. Physical Setting ......................................................... .....33
C. Previous Research ..................................................... .....34
d. Prehistoric Background ............................................. .....35
e. Alamance County History ......................................... .....36
f. Survey Methods ........................................................ .....37
g. Site Descriptions ....................................................... .....37
h. Conclusions .............................................................. .....41
4. Section 4(o Resources .......................................................... .....42
D. Impacts to Natural Resources ........................................................... .....44
1. Study Area ................................................................................44
2. Methodology ....................................................................... ......45
3. Biotic Resources .................................................................. ......45
a. Plant Communities ................................................... ......45
b. Wildlife .................................................................... ......47
C. Aquatic Life ............................................................... ....49
d. Biotic Community Impacts ......................................... ....49
4. Physical Resources ................................................................ ....50
a. Topography and Soils ................................................ ....50
b. Water Resources ........................................................ ....51
C. Water Resource Impacts ............................................ ....52
5. Special Topics ....................................................................... ....53
" a. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S ................................. ....53
i. Permits ........................................................... ....54
ii. Mitigation ....................................................... ....54
b. Rare and Protected Species ....................................... .....54
i. Federally Protected Species ........................... .....54
ii. Federal Candidate/State Protected Species ..... ..... 55
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation ...................................................... .....55
7. Farmland .............................................................................. .....55
E. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis ......................... .....56
1. Characteristics of Noise ........................................................ .....56
2. Noise Abatement Criteria ...................................................... .....57
3. Ambient Noise Levels ........................................................... .....58
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ....................... .....58
5. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis ....................................................60
a. Highway Alignment .................................................. ......60
b. Traffic System Management Measures ..................... ......60
C. Noise Barriers .......................................................... ......60
6. "Do Nothing„ Alternative .................................................... ......61
7. Construction Noise .............................................................. ......61
8. Summary ............................................................................. ......62
F. Air Quality Analysis ........................................................................ ......62
G. Stream Modification ........................................................................ ......65
¦
H. Hazardous Materials ........................................................ .....................65
1. Underground Storage Tanks/Hazardous Materials
Involvement .......................................................... .....................65
2. Landfills ............................................................... .....................66
3. Other Potentially Contaminated Properties ............ .....................67
1. Geotechnical Impacts ....................................................... .....................67
1. Physiography, Relief, and Drainage ....................... .....................67
2. Geology and Soils ................................................. .....................67
3. Mineral Resources ............................................... ......................67
4. Erosion Control ................................................... ......................68
5. Groundwater ....................................................... ......................68
J. Construction Impacts ...................................................... ......................68
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ..................................... ......................70
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...............70
B. Citizens Informational Workshop .................................... ......................70
C. Public Hearin 71
,0.

TABLES
Table I A - Mainline Capacity Analysis ..............................................................5
Table 1B - Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis ........................................6
Table I C - Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis .....................................8
Table 2 - Accident Analysis ...............................................................................9
Table 3 - Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts ..............................................50
Table 4 - "Best Usage" Classifications of Water Resources ...............................51
Table 5 - Summary of Wetland Impacts ............................................................54
Table 6 - One Hour CO Concentrations ...........:................................................64
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure I - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Photos of Existing Conditions
Figure 3A - Vehicle Mix Percentages
Figure 3B - Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 - Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 5 - Aerial Mosaic Showing Project
Figure 6A - Proposed Five-Lane Typical Section
Figure 6B - Proposed Two-Lane Typical Section
Figure 7 - Intersection Layouts
Figure 8A - A.K. Roney House - Photographs
Figure 8B A.K. Roney House - Property Boundaries
Figure 9A - W.J. Anderson Farm - Photographs
Figure 9B - W.J. Anderson Farm - Property Boundaries
Figure 9C - W.J. Anderson Farm - Site Plan
Figure 10 - Pleasant Grove Recreation Center - Property Boundaries and
Photographs
Figure 1 l - Noise Measurement Sites
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Additional Tables (Traffic Noise and Air Quality)
Table N 1 - Hearing: Sounds Bombarding Us Daily .............................. A-1
Table N2 - Noise Abatement Criteria ................................................... A-2
Table N3 - Ambient Noise Levels ........................................................ A-3
Table N4 - Leq Traffic Noise Exposures .........................A-4 through A-12
Table N5 - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary ..................... A-13
Table N6 - Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary ............................. A-14
Tables Al through A4 - CAL3QHC: Line Source
Dispersion Models ............................................. A-15 through A-18
APPENDIX B - Relocation Information
Relocation Report .................................................................................B-1
Discussion of Division of Highways Relocation
Programs ...............................................................B-2 through B-3
APPENDIX C - Comments Received from Federal, State,
and Local Agencies ......................................................... C-1 through C-22
APPENDIX D - Citizen Informational Workshop Information
Citizen Informational Workshop News Release ................................... D-1
Citizen Informational Workshop Handout .......................D-2 through D-6
APPENDIX E - Discussion of Properties Evaluated and Determined Not To Be
Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places .......... E-1 through E-2
APPENDIX F - Archaeological Artifact Inventory ....................... F-1 through F-2

SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Description of Action
The NCDOT proposes to widen NC 49 from US 70 in Haw River to NC 62 at
Pleasant Grove in Alamance County. curb anil g4tter' (to N
measure 19.2 meters (64 feet) in width from face of curb to face of curb) Qsed from
lj.? SR ,1752: R;i ne a y,wltf a,7.2-meter (24-footj;?v cle:tra Tway with
,d
2 -z ter, 8,-foot) wide useable shoulders.#ncluding- l .2-meter, (4got) wide pay.
shoulders and 1.2-meter (4-foot) wide grassed shoulders) iM sed from, 4&4752, to,,
62,-The proposed five-lane section is 5.5 km (3.4 miles) long, and the proposed two-
lane section is 6.2 km (3.9 miles) long, for a total project length of 11.7 km (7.3 miles).
2. Additional Information
For additional information concerning this proposal and statement, please contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Enviromnental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P:E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
Summary of Special Project Commitments
No permanent right of way will be acquired from the A.K. Roney House, the W.J.
Anderson Farm, or the Pleasant Grove Recreation Center. Any property required from
these three properties to construct the subject project will be acquired under temporary
construction easements which meet the criteria outlined in items i through v in Section
IV.C.4. If, during final design, plans change and it is determined that there is no feasible
and prudent alternative to acquiring permanent easements or right of way from any of
these three properties, Roadway Design will notify the Planning and Environmental
Branch. Under this circumstance, the Planning and Environmental Branch will coordinate
with the Federal Highway Administration to develop the necessary documentation in
compliance with Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 and Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
Understory trees will be planted adjacent to the driveway to the A.K. Roney
House (a Section 4(f) property) to replace the trees that currently screen the house from
nearby commercial development, but which will be removed by project construction. The
Roadside Environmental Unit will consult with the property owner and the State Historic
Preservation Office in preparing the landscape plan for the project (see SHPO compliance
form found on pages C-20 through C-21 in the Appendix).
Four archaeological sites are located within the project area, but they appear not to
be significant. Under the currently proposed design, Section 106 compliance is complete.
However, if design changes, NCDOT will, in consultation with FHWA and SHPO,
evaluate the need to conduct additional archaeological surveys.
ubject` pral4ct is expected resu)t in the fillfFles than 0 lih0?9 act of
wetlands. It is anticipated that the proposed project will require a Section., ationwide
2rpermit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and a Sec
Quality Certification from the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources.
The project area falls within a High Quality Water (gQW)?Aonp and Water Supply
Watershed Te HQW zone:exteifsrlsm"north of the northern project terminal to
mi rthe west side.of NG 49, and frem north of tl +e northern project'terminal to
SU-7,47 n thb` east side.of NC 49! Projects that are located less than 1.6 km (1 mile)
from a HQW zone and fall within a I+ „ it sCanans=as
"in "Design Standards in Sensitive Waterseis" (T15A:04B.0024) of the
Sedimentation Control guidelines. All runoff crossing the construction area is to be
directed to temporary silt basins via lateral ditches with rock check dams to slow and filter
the runoff. Roadway fill slopes shall be stabilized with seeding; also, siltation controls,
such as temporary silt ditches and silt fences, shall be provided at the toe of the fill. Early
placement of rip-rap slope protection will protect against surface erosion. Special
attention will be given to proper installation and maintenance of all erosion and
sedimentation control devices.
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of
the project in order to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area.
ii
There are six sites with underground storage tanks located along the project (see
Section IV.H.1). If right of way is required from any of these parcels, NCDOT will
conduct a site assessment to determine if there is any underground contamination within
the proposed right of way.
4. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Effects
It is anticipated that the proposed project will have an overall positive effect on the
Town of Haw River and Alamance County by reducing congestion and increasing safety
along NC 49 and by providing additional capacity that will be required by design year
traffic volumes.
The proposed right of way width for the project is 30 meters (100 feet) plus
easements. It is expected the project will require the acquisition of approximately 8.5
hectares (21 acres) of additional right of way (not including temporary construction
easements). The project is expected to require the relocation of five residences, although
their eligibility for Relocation Assistance is undetermined since it is suspected that they are
inside the existing right of way. Less than 0.3 hectare (<0.9 acre) of wetlands is expected
to be impacted by the proposed widening. No farmland, as defined by the Farmland
Protection Policy Act, will be affected. It is anticipated that the proposed improvements
will have noise impacts upon 4 businesses and 102 residences.
Alternatives Considered
in addition to the recommended alternative, the "No-Build," Postponement, and
Alternative Modes of Transportation alternatives were studied. Early in the study process,
consideration was also given to widening along SR 1928 from US 70 to NC 49 instead of
along NC 49 between US 70 and SR 1928. Under this proposal, NC 49 would be re-
routed along the widened stretch of SR 1928. This alternative was eliminated from further
study; however, based on the project purpose and need and projected traffic volumes (see
Section III.B.1 for more information).
For purposes of environmental analysis, the project was divided into seven
sections. upwoArift- °s cenatio0eastsido wests de -and-srunetsicalwiden ng)
were ' . u0i T iWli sectiore for a total of twelve studied scenarios (five scenarios in
addition to the seven that are recommended (one per section) along the project). These
alternatives are discussed and compared fully in Section III.B.2.
iii
6. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local officials were contacted regarding this
project:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
Federal Emergency Management Administration - Atlanta
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR)
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Land Resources
N.C. DEHNR - Winston-Salem Regional Office
N.C. DEHNR Division of Soil and Water Conservation
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Environmental Management
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Health Services
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Human Resources
N.C. DEHNR - Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources - Division of Archives and History
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
Alamance County - Mr. Robert C. Smith, County Manager
Alamance County Board of Commissioners
Town of Haw River - The Honorable A. Reid Bayliff, Mayor
7. Anticipated Design Exceptions
It is not anticipated that the subject project will require any design exceptions.
8. Basis for Environmental Assessment
Based on planning and environmental studies, it is anticipated that the subject
project will not have a significant detrimental effect on the quality of the human
environment. The proposed project will cause no significant changes in route
classification and land use and is not controversial in nature. The project has been
reviewed by federal, state, and local agencies, and no objections have been raised.
iv
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description of the Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen NC 49 from
US 70 to NC 62 in Alamance County. Improvements will include multi-lane widening on
the southern segment of the project (from US 70 to SR 1752) and two-lane improvements
on the remainder of the project (from SR 1752 to NC 62). The project is approximately
11.1 km (6.9 miles) in length. The southern portion of the project (approximately 2.1 km
(1.3 miles)) lies within the Haw River Town Limits. The project location is shown in
Figure 1, and the proposed improvements are shown in Figure 5.
B. Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve safety along the subject section
tf roadway, to provide multi-lane access from north of Haw River to the US 70 Bypass
6ompleted under TIP Project R-611, and to improve the efficiency of traffic flow by
1creasing capacity.
C. Project Status and Historical Resume
The widening of NC 49-62 from US 70 to US 158 in Alamance/Caswell Counties
is included in the 1996-2002 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as
Project R-2543. The project has been broken down into two phases for environmental
documentation purposes. R-2543A includes improvements to NC 49 from US 70 to
NC 62 in Alamance County (for which this document is applicable), and R-2543B includes
improvements to NC 62 from NC 49 in Alamance County to US 158 in Caswell County.
Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Years 1996 and 1999 for parts A
and B, respectively. Construction is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1998 for part A and
beyond Fiscal Year 2002 for part B.
The TIP specifies a total funding for Project R-2543 of $16,680,000, including
$6,330,000 for right of way and $10,350,000 for construction. For the subject part,
Project R-2543A, the TIP specifies a funding of $5,730,000 for right of way and
$9,300,000 for construction, for a total funding of $15,030,000. The total estimated cost
of the recommended improvements for TIP Project R-2543A is $13,266,000 ($1,766,000
for right of way and $11,500,000 for construction (verified as of March 12, 1996)).
Therefore, the total TIP funding exceeds the total estimated project cost by $1,764,000.
D. Existing Conditions
Length of Roadway Section Studied
The subject section of NC 49 being studied for improvements is 11.7 km
(7.3 miles) long.
2. Route Classification
From US 70 to SR 1752, NC 49 is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial.
North of SR 1752, it is classified as a Rural Major Collector.
Existing Cross Section
For most of the length of the subject project, NC 49 is a two-lane roadway
with a 6.7-meter (22-foot) pavement (two 3.4-meter (11-foot) lanes) and grassed
shoulders that vary from 1.2 to 2.4 meters (4 to 8 feet) in width. At the entrances
to the Luck Stone and Martin Marietta Quarries, approximately 1,370 meters
(4500 feet) south of SR 1752, the pavement is 10 meters (33 feet) wide (three
lanes including a center left-turn lane). Just north of the K-intersection at SR 1928
and SR 1927, NC 49 has a 10.7-meter (35-foot) pavement (three lanes including a
center left-turn lane). South of this intersection, NC 49 has a 11.6-meter (38-foot)
pavement (three lanes with a painted median). Photographs of the existing
conditions are shown in Figure 2.
4. Existing Right of Wav
Existing right of way width varies along the project from 18 meters (60
feet) to 30 meters (100 feet). The existing right of way limits are shown in
Figure 5.
Access Control
There is no existing control of access along the subject project.
6. Sneed Limits
From US 70 to just south of SR 1921, the speed limit is 35 mph. From
south of SR 1921 to 0.48 kilometer (0.3 mile) south of NC 62, the speed limit is
45 mph. From 0.48 kilometer (0.3 mile) south of NC 62 northward, the speed
limit is 55 mph.
7. Bridaes and Drainage Structures
W4m.sttf t rajeet c ssesA.M,Stroam all. t tariea of the Fiavv` River.
All streams are intermittent and above headwaters (annual flow of less than 5 cubic
feet per second); harried under the roadway by,means of reinfor q cone ete
pipes.
8. Traffic Data
Traffic volumes were estimated for the subject section of NC 49 for the
years 1995 and 2015. Figure 3A shows vehicle mix percentages, and Figure 3B
shows projected mainline and turning movement volumes. centagef
(DUALS and TTSTs, categories T3 through T12 in Figure 3A) 5:2 o top
i; zNC`149 (see Figure 3A). Traffic estimates along this section of NC 49
for the year 1995 range from 4,612 vehicles per day (vpd) (just south of NC 62) to
9,500 vpd (just north of US 70). In the year 2015, the volumes range from 7824
vpd (just south of NC 62) to 18,380 vpd (just north of US 70). The directional
split for the volumes shown in Figure 3B is 65/35. A Design Hourly Volume
(DHV) value of 10% was assumed.
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
The subject section of NC 49 has 9 horizontal curves, the sharpest of which
measure as follows: three with a radius of 295 m (6-degree curve) and three with
a radius of 322.5 m (5.5-degree curve). The terrain is rolling, as is the vertical
alignment. Grades along the existing roadway range from 0% to approximately
4.6%. At SR 1990/SR 1754, there is a crest vertical curve that restricts the sight
distance of vehicles stopped on SR 1990 and SR 1754 and of left-turning vehicles
on NC 49.
10. Intersecting Roads
All intersections along the project are at-grade. Following is a
description of the configurations of the major intersections. All
intersections not mentioned below are stop-sign controlled on the minor
street.
a. NC 491US 70 Intersection (Southern Project Terminal)
The NC 491US 70 intersection at the southern terminal is
signalized. The northbound and southbound approaches (NC 49) each
have one exclusive left-turn lane, one exclusive through lane, and one
exclusive right-turn lane. The eastbound (US 70 Haw River Bypass) and
westbound (US 70 (E. Main Street)) approaches each have one exclusive
left-turn lane, two exclusive through lanes, and one channelized right-turn
lane.
b. NC 49/SR 1928/SR 1927 Intersection
The K-intersection at the NC 49/SR 1928/SR 1927 junction is
signalized. The K-intersection configuration is such that traffic on
SR 1927 and SR 1928 has to maneuver through two signals before
accessing NC 49. The northbound (NC 49) approach has one exclusive
through lane and one exclusive right-turn lane. The southbound (NC 49)
approach has one exclusive through lane and one exclusive left-turn lane.
The westbound approaches (SR 1927 and SR 1928) each have only one
approach lane.
C. NC 49/NC 62 Intersection (Northern Project ,'Terminal)
NC 49 enters this intersection from the south and turns eastward,
while NC 62 comes into the intersection from the west and turns
northward. This four-legged intersection is stop-sign controlled with a
flashing signal (yellow on northbound and southbound approaches and red
on eastbound and westbound approaches) and has one approach lane in
each direction (each is shared left/through/right). There is a two-way road
that "cuts the corner" of the southeast quadrant of this intersection and
serves as channelization for northbound right-turning and westbound left-
turning traffic. This channelization allows NC 49 traffic to avoid the
control of the flashing signal (see Figure 5, Sheet 4 of 4). At the
southwestern end of this channelization, a stop-sign faces the
southwestbound traffic, giving right of way to the northbound and
southbound traffic. At the northeastern end of this channelization, a stop-
sign faces the eastbound traffic, giving right of way to the northeastbound
and westbound traffic.
d. Other Intersections
A northbound (NC 49) left-turn lane exists at the entrances to the
Martin Marietta and Luckstone Quarries (see Figure 5, Sheet 2 of 4). All
other intersections along the project are stop-sign controlled on the minor
roads and are without turn lanes, either on NC 49 or on the intersecting
roads.
11. Degree of Roadside Interference
From US 70 to the K-intersection at SR 1928, development along NC 49 is
heavy and mostly commercial/residential in nature. North of SR 1928, roadside
development transitions to a lighter, more rural nature. Land uses north of
SR 1928 are predominantly agricultural and residential, except for the commercial
uses of the two quarries. Development becomes slightly heavier within the Green
Level vicinity.
12. Railroad Crossings
The subject section of roadway does not cross a railroad or a proposed
railroad corridor.
4
13. Airports
No airports are located within two miles of the project.
14. School Bus Data
Sixteen school buses make two trips per day (for a total of 32 trips per
day) along the subject section of NC 49.
15. Sidewalks
No sidewalks exist along the subject section of NC 49.
16. Bikeways
NC 49 is not designated as a bicycle route, nor do any bicycle routes cross
the subject section of NC 49.
E. Capacity Analysis
The concept of level of service (LOS) is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic system and how these conditions are
perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A level of service designation generally
considers such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,
comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility
for which analysis procedures are available. They are given letter designations from A to
F, with LOS A representing the best operative conditions and LOS F representing the
worst.
Mainline Analysis
A mainline analysis was performed for the subject section of NC 49 for the
years 1995 and 2015 both with and without the proposed improvements. The
results follow.
Table 1A. MAINLINE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
SECTION ON NC 49 LEVEL OF SERVICE (1995/2015)
Without Project With Project
US 70 to SR 1752* E/F AB
SR 1752 TO SR 1754 D/E C/E
SR 1754 TO NC 62 CM C/D
*Note: Five-lane widening is recommended within this section; two-lane improvements
are recommended within the remaining two sections.
The analysis shows that the project is anticipated to maintain or improve
the mainline level of service along the entire length of the project. The proposed
five-lane widening from US 70 to SR 1752 will greatly increase the level of service
within that portion of the project.
2. Intersection Analysis
a. Signalized Capacity
A signalized intersection analysis was conducted for the
NC 49/US 70 intersection (southern project terminal), for the K-
intersection (NC 49/SR 1928/SR 1927 intersection), and for the
NC 49/NC 62 intersection (northern project terminal) for the years 1995
and 2015 both with and without the proposed improvements. Note that
only the NC 49/US 70 intersection and the NC 49/SR 1928/SR 1927
intersection are currently signalized; the NC 49/NC 62 intersection will be
signalized as part of this project. Because of the unconventional
configuration of the NC 49/SR 1928/SR 1927 junction, the intersection
had to be approximated by a standard four-leg intersection. The model
used for analysis treated NC 49 (north of the intersection) to SR 1928 and
NC 49 (west of the intersection) to SR 1927 as the through movements.
Since this is an approximation of the actual case, results should be treated
accordingly. The results are shown below in Table 1B.
Table 1B. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (1995/2015)
Without Project With Project
NC 49/US 70 C/E C/D
NC 49/SR 1928/SR 1927 C/E B/C
NC 49/NC 62 B/B B/B
The analysis shows that the level of service at each signalized
intersection will remain the same or improve after the proposed
improvements are in place.
b. Unsiunalized Capacity
An unsignalized intersection analysis was conducted for the major
unsignalized intersections along the project (the NC 49/SR 1921
intersection, the NC 49/SR 1754/SR 1990 intersection, and the
NC 49/NC 62 intersection) for the years 1995 and 2015 both with and
without the proposed improvements. As noted in Section II.G, the
NC 49/NC 62 intersection will be signalized as part of this project. The
results are shown below in Table 1C.
6
For unsignalized intersections, there is no overall level of service
calculated; instead, levels of service are broken down by individual
movements. No level of service is calculated for the mainline through and
right-turning movements for unsignalized intersections. Since mainline
through and right-turning movements always have the right of way, the flow
of these moves is considered to be basically unaffected by the intersection
and is therefore approximated by the mainline level of service.
7able 1C. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
NC 49/SR 1754/SR 1990 INTERSECTION
MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE (1995/2015)
Without Project With Project
EB (SR 1754) Left C/E C/E
EB (SR 1754) Thru C/D C/D
EB (SR 1754) Right A/A A/A
WB (SR 1990) Left C/E D/E
WB (SR 1990) Thru C/D C/D
WB (SR 1990) Right A/A A/A
SB (NC 49) Left A/A A/A
NB NC 49 Left A/A A/A
NC 49/SR 1921 INTERSECTION
MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE (1995 /2015)
Without Project With Project
WB (SR 1921) Left C/E C/E
WB (SR 1921) Right A/A A/A
SB C 49 Left A/A A/A
NC 49/NC 62 INTERSECTION *
MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE (1995/2015)
Without Project With Project
EB (NC 62) Left D/F D/F
EB (NC 62) Thru B/D B/D
EB (NC 62) Right A/A A/A
WB (NC 49) Left C/E C/E
WB (NC 49) Thru C/D C/D
WB (NC 49) Right A/A A/A
SB (NC 62) Left A/A A/A
NBC 49 Left A/A A/A
*NOTE: The NC 49/NC 62 intersection is to be signalized as part of this project.
The analysis shows that the project is expected to have virtually no
impact on the level of service of the NC 49/SR 1754/SR 1990 intersection
or of the NC 49/SR 1921 intersection. In addition, if the NC 49/NC 62
intersection were to remain unsignalized under this project, the proposed
project would not significantly improve the level of service of that
intersection. NCDOT will monitor these intersections following project
construction and will signalize them, if warranted.
F. Accident Analysis
A spot/strip accident analysis was conducted for the subject section of NC 49 for
the time period from September 1, 1992 through August 31, 1995. The analysis showed
that 143 accidents occurred during this period, one of which was fatal. The accident rates
for the subject section of roadway are shown in Table 2 below. Also shown in Table 2 are
the statewide average of accidents on two-lane rural NC routes, as monitored from 1992
to 1994. This data shows that the accident rates (except for the fatal accident rate) along
the project are slightly higher than the statewide accident rates.
Of the 143 accidents, 50 (35%) were the rear-end stop or slow type; 20 (14%)
were left-turn, same road accidents; 13 (9%) were left-turn, cross traffic; and 11 (8%)
were angle accidents. These four types of accidents, which comprise 66% of the accidents
for the studied time period, will be minimized with the proposed five-lane widening at the
south end of the project and with the addition of the proposed left turn-lanes at selected
intersections (see Section II.G). Another 12 (8%) were ran off road-right. These type
accidents will be minimized with wider travel lanes and paved shoulders proposed as part
of the subject project. Therefore, the proposed improvements should help reduce the five
most frequently occurring types of accident, which comprise 74% of the total number of
accidents.
Table 2. ACCIDENT ANALYSTS
Accident
Category Number of
Accidents Accident Rate
ACC/100MVM Statewide Accident Rate
ACC/100MVM
Total 143 244.40 200.70
Fatal 1 1.71 2.5
Non-Fatal Injury 87 148.69 93.9
Night 37 63.24 62.2
Wet 31 52.98 45.5
G. Project Terminals
The subject project begins at US 70 in Haw River and ends at NC 62 in Pleasant
Grove. For details regarding the existing layouts of these intersections, see Sections
I.C.1 O.a and c.
H. Thoroughfare Plan
The subject project is partially included on the Alamance County Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan, which was adopted by the Town of Haw River on May 7, 1990, by
Alamance County on June 18, 1990, and by the N.C. Board of Transportation on July 6,
1990. A portion of NC 49 is identified as a major thoroughfare on the Thoroughfare Plan.
The Thoroughfare Plan is shown in Figure 4.
Benefits to the State Region, and Community
The project will provide economic and safety benefits to the project area. The
improved roadway will be safer and should therefore reduce accident rates. Upgrading the
roadway will also improve traffic flow and reduce travel time, resulting in lower road user
costs. The project will improve access to businesses and residences in the area, including
truck access to and from the two quarries located on NC 49 north of Haw River. The
project will also improve access to US 70 Haw River Bypass, which was completed in
April, 1993.
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. General Description
NCDOT proposes five-lane widening for NC 49 from US 70 to SR 1752 (5.5 km
(3.4 miles)) and two-lane improvements from SR 1752 to NC 62 (6.2 km (3.9 miles)).
Two stone quarries are located on the west side of NC 49 south of SR 1752. Stone trucks
use NC 49 between the quarries and I-85. It is proposed to carry the proposed five-lane
widening of NC 49 to SR 1752 just north of the quarries in order to provide adequate
capacity in this area. In addition, NC 49, which lies within the urban boundaries of Haw
River and Green Level south of SR 1752, becomes a rural facility from SR 1752
northward. (In the functional classification system, NC 49 is designated as a urban minor
arterial south of SR 1752 and as a rural major collector north of SR 1752.) The proposed
improvements are a combination of eastside, westside, and symmetrical widening
scenarios (see Figure 5 and Section III.A).
B. Length of Project
The length of the subject project is 11.7 km (7.3 miles).
C. Cross Section
From US 70 to SR 1752, it is proposed to widen NC 49 to a five-lane roadway
with curb and gutter. The width of the proposed roadway is to measure 19.2 meters (64
feet) from face of curb to face of curb. This includes five 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes
and 600-mm (2-foot) wide gutters (see Figure 6A). From SR 1752 to NC 62, it is
10
proposed to construct a two-lane roadway with a 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide travelway and
2.4-meter (8-foot) wide useable shoulders (including 1.2-meter (4-foot) wide paved
shoulders and 1.2-meter (4-foot) wide grassed shoulders) (see Figure 6B). A minor
realignment to the east is proposed at the northern project terminal to avoid requiring any
right of way from the Pleasant Grove Recreation Center, a Section 4(f) property.
D. Design Speed
The proposed design speed for the subject project varies depending on the
proposed cross-section and the amount of existing development. From US 70 (the
beginning of the project) to just north of SR 1927, the proposed design speed is 65 km/hr
(40 mph). From north of SR 1927 to just south of SR 1921, the proposed design speed is
80 km/hr (50 mph). From just south of SR 1921 to NC 62 (the end of the project) the
proposed design speed is 90 km /hr (55 mph).
E. Right of Way
The proposed right of way width for the subject project is 30 meters (100 feet)
plus easements for most of the project. It is anticipated that approximately 8.5 hectares
(21 acres) of additional right of way. (not including easements) will be required for the
proposed construction. However, there are locations along the project where less than 30
meters (100 feet) of right of way will be acquired in order to avoid taking property from
Section 4(f) properties. At these locations, temporary construction easements will be
acquired to do the necessary work (see Section III.B.2).
F. Temporary Construction Easements
Temporary construction easements (TCE's) are proposed at various locations
along the project. Two of these TCE's, located in the vicinities of SR 1754/SR 1990 and
SR 1911, are proposed to allow for the construction of temporary construction detours so
that the vertical alignment of NC 49 can be improved. These TCE's are shown in
Figure 5, Sheets 3 of 4 and 4 of 4, respectively. TCE's are also proposed in front of the
A.K. Roney House, the W.J. Anderson Farm, and the Pleasant Grove Recreation Facility
to avoid acquiring any permanent right of way from the these Section 4(f) properties (see
Section IV.C.3). These TCE's are not shown in Figure 5.
G. Access Control
No control of access is proposed as a part of this project.
11
H. Intersection Treatment
NC 49/US 70
The intersection of NC 49 and US 70 will remain signalized upon
completion of the project. Apart from the continuous left-turn lane on southbound
NC 49 that will be provided by the proposed five-lane widening, no additional
turn-lanes are proposed at this location.
2. NC 49/SR 19281SR 1927
This intersection will remain signalized after completion of the proposed
construction. Apart from the continuous left-turn lane on both NC 49 approaches
that will be provided by the proposed five-lane widening, no additional turn-lanes
are proposed at this location.
3. NC 49/NC 62
This intersection will be signalized under the proposed construction. No
turn-lanes are proposed at this location, nor is any reconfiguration of this
intersection proposed.
4. Other Intersections
in the proposed two-lane section of the project, left-turn lanes are
proposed on NC 49 at SR 1921 (southbound direction), SR 1754 (northbound
direction), SR 1990 (southbound direction), and SR 1002 (northbound direction).
Besides the continuous left-turn lane recommended from US 70 to SR 1752 and
the left-turn lanes noted above, no additional turn lanes are proposed along NC 49.
No improvements are proposed to intersecting streets as a part of this project.
Figure 7 shows the proposed layouts of the major intersections. For a description
of the existing layouts of the intersections where additional turn-lanes are not
proposed, see Section I.C.10.
1. Bridges and Drainage Structures
Existing drainage structures will be retained and extended as needed to
accommodate the proposed improvements.
Railroad Involvement
The subject project will not effect a railroad or rail corridor.
12
K. Special Permits Required
The subject project will require a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (it is anticipated that a Nationwide 26 permit may be applicable) and a Section
401 Water Quality Certification from the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources.
L. Changes in the State Highway System
No changes in the state highway system are expected as a result of this project.
M. Multiple Use of Space
There are no plans to use the right of way for any purpose other than public
utilities, which will be allowed with certain limitations.
N. Bikeways
No special accommodations for bicycles are proposed as a part of this project.
This section of NC 49 in Alamance County does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request,
nor is it part of the Bicycling Highway system. There is no indication that there are
unusual levels of bicycling on this roadway.
As with any road or highway (except, of course, for those which have limited
access where bicycles are prohibited), bicycle travel will occur as part of the overall traffic
mix. Even though this project has no special bicycle element, reasonable efforts will be
made to accommodate existing bicycle traffic within the overall project design.
0. Degree of Utility Conflicts
Buried telephone cables are located along both sides of NC 49 for the length of the
project. From US 70 to just south of SR 1752, a 4-inch gas steel pipe and a 10-inch water
line follow NC 49 on the east side, and an 8-inch sanitary sewer line follows NC 49 on the
west side. A buried fiber optic cable follows NC 49 on the east side from US 70 to just
south of SR 1754; from SR 1754 to NC 62 this cable continues on the west side. All
utilities are located approximately 1 meter (3 feet) behind the edge of pavement.
The majority of utility impacts will occur from US 70 to SR 1752, where
multi-lane widening is proposed. The anticipated utility impact is of medium severity.
13
P. Sidewalks
Under the current pedestrian policy, the N.C. Department of Transportation will
participate in funding new sidewalk construction if the local municipality demonstrates to
NCDOT that sidewalks are warranted.
There are no sidewalks proposed as part of this project. However, after the
completion of the Environmental Assessment, NCDOT will coordinate with the Town of
Haw River and the Town of Green Level in accordance with the current pedestrian policy.
Q. Landscaping
Understory trees will be planted adjacent to the driveway to the A.K. Roney
House (a Section 4(f) property) to replace the trees that currently screen the house from
nearby commercial development, but which will be removed by project construction. The
Roadside Environmental Unit will consult with the property owner and the State Historic
Preservation Office in preparing the landscape plan for the project (see SHPO compliance
form found on pages C-20 through C-21 in the Appendix).
Also, plantings according to standard erosion control measures will be
implemented along the project
R. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed as a part of this project.
S. Airports
The proposed project will not impact any existing airports.
T. Anticipated Design- Exceptions
It is not anticipated that the project as proposed will require any exceptions to the
standards contained in AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets, 1994 edition.
U. Cost Estimates
It is estimated that the project as proposed will cost approximately $13,266,000,
including $1,766,000 for right of way and $11,500,000 for construction.
14
V. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area
TIP Project R-2543B proposes to construct two-lane improvements on NC 62
from NC 49 in Alamance County (northern terminal of Project R-2543A) to US 158 in
Caswell County. Project R-2543B is scheduled for right of way acquisition to begin in
Fiscal Year 1999 and construction to begin after Fiscal Year 2002.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Improvements
The subject project proposes to widen NC 49 from US 70 to NC 62 in Alamance
County; five-lane widening is proposed from US 70 to SR 1752, and two-lane widening
(with left-turn lanes at some intersections) is proposed from SR 1752 to NC 62. Five-lane
widening is needed from US 70 to SR 1752 because of the projected traffic volumes (as
many as 18,380 vpd in the year 2015, see Section I.C.8). Two-lane widening is sufficient
north of SR 1752 based on traffic data (the maximum projected ADT in the year 2015 is
10,650; see Section I.C.8 and Figure 3B). Also, five lanes south of SR 1752 will provide
adequate capacity for trucks traveling between I-85 and the two quarries located on the
west side of NC 49 just south of SR 1752.
Different widening scenarios are proposed in different sections of the project
depending upon existing development, costs, impacts to Section 4(f) resources, and other
environmental considerations. The designated project sections and the widening scenarios
that are recommended are stated below. The alternatives considered are explained in
detail in Section III.B.2.
SECTION 1: FROM US 70 To SR 1742 -- Symmetrical widening to a five-lane curb and
gutter facility (19.2 meters (64 feet) face of curb to face of curb).
SECTION 2: FROM SR 1742 TO SR 1928 -- Westside widening to a five-lane curb and
gutter facility (19.2 meters (64 feet) face of curb to face of curb).
SECTION 3: FROM SR 1928 To SR 1746 -- Eastside widening to a five-lane curb and
gutter facility (19.2 meters (64 feet) face of curb to face of curb).
SECTION 4: FROM SR 1746 To SR 1752 -- Symmetrical widening to a five-lane curb
and gutter facility (19.2 meters (64 feet) face of curb to face of curb).
SECTION 5: FROM SR 1752 TO SR 1002 -- Symmetrical widening to a two-lane, 7.2-
meter (24-foot) wide travelway with 2.4-meter (8-foot) wide useable
shoulders (including 1.2-meter (4-foot) wide paved shoulders and
1.2-meter (4-foot) wide grassed shoulders).
15
SECTION 6: FROM SR 1002 To 510 METERS (1670 FEET) NORTH of SR 1909 --
Symmetrical widening to a two-lane, 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide travelway
with 2.4-meter (8-foot) wide useable shoulders (including 1.2-meter
(4-foot) wide paved shoulders and 1.2-meter (4-foot) wide grassed
shoulders).
SECTION 7: FROM 510 METERS (1670 FEET) NORTH OF SR 1909 TO NC 62 --
Realignment of this section approximately 6 meters (20 feet) to the east
and widening to a two-lane, 7.2-meter (24-foot) wide travelway with
2.4-meter (8-foot) wide useable shoulders (including 1.2-meter (4-foot)
wide paved shoulders and 1.2-meter (4-foot) wide grassed shoulders).
B. Design Alternatives
Alternative Eliminated From Consideration Early in the Planning Process
Early in the planning process, consideration was given to improving
SR 1928 from US 70 to NC 49 and re-routing NC 49 along this alignment rather
than improving NC 49 between US 70 and SR 1928 at the south project terminal.
This alternative was considered because of the more direct access it would provide
to I-85 (see Figure 1). Also, this alternative would reduce the high number of
southbound left-turning trucks (accessing I-85) at the NC 49/SR 1928 intersection
by making this movement the southbound through movement of the intersection.
However, this alternative was eliminated from consideration for the following
reasons:
Traffic volumes are higher on NC 49 between US 70 and SR 1928
than on SR 1928 between US 70 and NC 49.
Improving NC 49 from US 70.to SR 1928 will provide multi-lane
access to the recently completed (4-lane) US 70 Haw River Bypass,
while improving SR 1928 from US 70 to NC 49 would provide
multi-lane access only partially to I-85. Multi-lane access to 1-85
would have to be completed in the future by another project.
Therefore, improving SR 1928 between US 70 and NC 49 partially
accomplishes one objective while fully accomplishing none.
Improving NC 49 from US 70 to SR 1928, however, fully
accomplishes its objective. In addition, improving SR 1928 would
leave a missing link in the multi-lane access to US 70 on a section
of roadway currently carrying over 8600 cars daily and projected to
carry 18,400 cars daily in the design year (2015).
The possibility exists for the future realignment of NC 87 around
Burlington. A feasibility study has been done for this improvement,
16
and it may be added to the next thoroughfare plan. If this is built in
the future, it would reduce volumes on SR 1928 and may eliminate
the need to widen SR 1928 to provide multi-lane access to I-85.
2. Alternatives Fully Considered
Several design alternatives were fully evaluated for different sections of the
project. A discussion of these alternatives, broken down by sections, follows. The
limits of each project section were presented in Section III.A. of this report.
a. Section I - Symmetrical Five-Lane Widening, (Recommended)
NCDOT owns 30 meters (100 feet) of right of way in this section.
Therefore, symmetrical widening is recommended in this section to utilize
the existing right of way, minimize costs and damage to adjacent property,
and to equalize impacts on both sides of the roadway. This alternative is
expected to result in 3 residential relocations in this section. No other
alternatives were considered for this section.
b. Section 2
Symmetrical Five-Lane Widening
Symmetrical widening is not recommended in this section
because it would require property from the A.K. Roney House,
which is eligible for the National Register and therefore protected
by Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (see Section IV.C.3).
This alternative would not result in any relocations.
ii. Westside Five-Lane Widening (Recommended)
In this section it is proposed to position the back of the
eastside berm at the existing right of way boundary. The remaining
widening will be done on the west side of NC 49. TCE's will be
acquired as needed behind the existing right of way boundary on
the east side to tie the berm into natural ground. This
recommendation will avoid taking any property from the A.K.
Roney House. This alternative is expected to result in one
residential relocation.
17
C. Section 3
Symmetrical Five-Lane Widening
This alternative is not recommended because the required
right of way would cost $392,600 and would impact 46 parcels.
Although this alternative would result in only one business
relocation, there are currently 32 houses and one business on the
west side of NC 49, situated as close as 26 meters (85 feet) and as
far as 64 meters (210 feet) from the centerline. In comparison, only
one church and three houses are located on the east side, and they
are situated as close as 32 meters (105 feet) and as far as 52 meters
(170 feet) from the centerline. Thus, the right of way damages that
would result from this alternative are more extensive that what will
be incurred by the recommended eastside widening through this
section (see subsequent section, III.B.2.c.ii).
ii. Eastside Five-Lane Widening (Recommended)
Eastside widening is recommended in this section because it
will result in substantially less right of way damages than
symmetrical widening. Eastside widening will cost approximately
$74,100 for right of way and will involve approximately 6 parcels
and no relocations; the right of way impacts of symmetrical
widening would be substantially greater (see above, Section
III.B.2.6).
d. Section 4_- Symmetrical Five-Lane Widening (Recommended
Fairly dense residential development exists along both sides of
NC 49 in this section. Symmetrical widening is recommended here in order
to equalize impacts to properties along both sides of the roadway and to
minimize relocations. It is anticipated that symmetrical widening will result
in one residential relocation in this section, while asymmetrical widening
would have resulted in substantially more.
e. Section 5 - Symmetrical Two-Lane Widening (Recommended)
Symmetrical widening is recommended in this section to equalize
impacts on each side of the roadway. There are no relocations anticipated
in this section.
18
f. Section 6
Symmetrical Two-Lane Widening (Recommended)
It is proposed to position the proposed roadway such that
the center of the eastside ditch will be located at the existing
eastside right of way boundary. Temporary easements will be
acquired to tie the ditch into the existing ground on the east side.
Any needed permanent right of way will be acquired only on the
west side in this section of the project. This recommendation
avoids impacts to the W.J. Anderson Farm (which is eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places and is therefore protected by
the USDOT Act of 1966, as noted in Section IV.C.3), while at the
same time minimizing construction costs by enabling the utilization
of the existing pavement to the maximum extent possible.
Symmetrical widening in this section is not expected to result in any
relocations.
ii. Westside Two-Lane Widening
Westside widening is not recommended in this section of the
project because, although it avoids impacts to the W.J. Anderson
Farm (a Section 4(f) property), it would prohibit the utilization of
the existing pavement and thereby escalate construction costs. This
alternative would not result in any relocations.
g. Section 7
Symmetrical Two-Lane Widening
Symmetrical widening is not recommended in this section of
the project because it would require the use of property from the
Pleasant Grove Recreation Center, which is a public recreational
facility protected by Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966. This
alternative would not result in any relocations.
ii. Eastside Two-Lane Widening
Eastside widening is not recommended for this section of
the project because it would worsen the existing alignment given
the restrictions on each end of this section. At the south end of
Section 7, in Section 6, the location of the W.J. Anderson Farm
requires that the existing right of way boundary on the east side be
maintained. The north end of Section 7 must tie into the existing
19
alignment near the intersection with NC 62. Given these
constraints, eastside widening in Section 7 would require the
construction of a reverse curve that would be unsafe both because
of its severity and because of its inconsistency with the horizontal
curvature along the rest of the project, which would violate driver
expectation. This alternative would not result in any relocations.
iii. Realignment to the East and Two-Lane Widening
(Recommended)
This alternative will improve the existing alignment by
flattening the curve just south of NC 62. This will involve
approximately a 6-meter (20-foot) shift in the centerline to the east.
This realignment will also avoid taking permanent right of way from
the Pleasant Grove Recreation Center, a Section 4(f) property (see
Section IV.C.3). Some property from the northeast and southeast
corners of the Recreation Center parcel will be required for
construction purposes; however, it will be acquired as TCE's. It is
not anticipated that this alternative will result in any relocations.
C. Postponement of Proposed Action
This alternative involves postponing the proposed improvements to some indefinite
time in the future. This alternative would not reduce the environmental impacts, but
would only delay them, while also delaying the benefits the proposed roadway will
provide. In fact, postponing the project, by allowing time for more development to occur,
may actually increase the environmental impact of the project.
D. "No Build" Alternative
The "no build" alternative, while avoiding the limited environmental impacts of the
recommended improvement, would not provide the benefits of the proposed construction.
It would not improve the safety or efficiency of travel on NC 49. It would not provide
multi-lane access to US 70 in Haw River, nor would it promote economic growth in the
area. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended.
E. Alternate Modes of Transportation
No alternative mode of transportation is considered to be a practical alternative.
Highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation in the area, and the
project's purposes cannot be accomplished through alternative modes of transportation.
20
IV. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Land Use
Status of Local Planning Activities
The proposed improvement is located within the jurisdictions of the Town
of Haw River, the Town of Green Level, and Alamance County. Haw River's
current Land Development Plan was adopted in 1980. The Town of Haw River
also enforces a zoning ordinance.
Alamance County does not have a current land use plan. A draft was
prepared in 1991 but was never adopted by the County Board of Commissioners.
The County has not adopted a zoning ordinance, except its water supply watershed
protection ordinance, which requires stringent stormwater control structures and
site design techniques. The County's primary land development control is its
subdivision regulations.
2. Existing Land Use
Land uses within the project area change from urban, mixed use
development at the southern end of the project to suburban, residential uses, and
finally to rural, agricultural uses at the northern end of the project.
Within the Town of Haw River, land uses fronting NC 49 include scattered
single family residences, a small shopping center, and a variety of small commercial
establishments. The Sue-Lynn, Inc. textile mill is also located on NC 49 between
US 70 and Wilkins Road (SR 1928). Haw River Christian Church is located at the
intersection of NC 49 and Wilkins Road. Land use north of that intersection is
primarily residential, with some agricultural uses in the area.
The Town of Green Level is predominantly residential, as are its land uses
fronting NC 49. Small businesses serving local needs are scattered throughout the
town limits.
North of Green Level, farming and linear residential development dominate
the road frontage, with some small commercial establishments located throughout
the area. Several mobile home parks are accessed from NC 49. Two stone
quarries, operated by Luck Stone Inc. and Martin Marietta, are located on the west
side of NC 49, south of SR 1752. Two convenience stores are located at that
intersection.
21
The Pleasant Grove Recreation Center, an Alamance County recreation
facility, is located at the northern end of the project. The facility includes a
meeting center, ball fields, a volleyball court, and jogging trails. This facility is
protected by Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (see Section IV.C.3).
Proposed Land Use
According to the Haw River Land Development Plan, residential uses will
continue to develop along NC 49 north of Wilkins Road. Commercial uses will
dominate the land adjacent to NC 49 between US 70 and Wilkins Road and will
not be encouraged north of Bason Road (SR 1927). Wilkins Road will remain
residential.
Zoning districts within Green Level reflect the existing land use,
predominately residential, within the project area.
As previously discussed, Alamance County has no land use plan zoning
regulations. The County's water supply watershed protection ordinance affects a
portion of the project area, which is within the watershed's "protected area." The
"protected area" extends from north of the northern project terminal to SR 1754
on the west side of NC 49 and from north of the northern project terminal to
SR 1747 on the east side of NC. The ordinance requires the use of stringent
stormwater and other run-off control techniques and structures (see Section
IV.D.4.b).
B. Socioeconomic Impacts
Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in Alamance County. Alamance County is
in the central part of the state and is bounded by Orange, Chatham, Randolph,
Guilford, and Caswell Counties. Alamance County has a population of 110,830
according to N.C. State Data System, 1992. During the year of 1990, the
population density for the county was 251.25 persons per square mile.
Statistical data for 1990 indicates that the racial composition of Alamance
County consisted of a white population of 86,373 and a nonwhite population of
21,840.
In this general vicinity of the project, the neighborhood is characterized by
commercial development on the east side of the existing highway facility and by a
few small residences on the west side. Sue-Lynn, Inc., a brick factory, is located
on the west side of the project at Pine Street. In this same general area, a car
garage is located on the east side of NC 49. There are some residences and a
22
Hampton Food Mart (Store Number 11) on the west side of the project. Haw
River Christian Church is a large brick facility with a large front lawn located near
the intersection of NC 49 and SR 1927. In the same general area near Wilkins
Street, there are residences lining existing NC 49 on the west side. As the
proposed project proceeds northward, residences line the west side, and farm
fields, interspersed with residences, are prevalent on the east side. The
neighborhoods north of Haw River tend to be populated with rural type
development. Homes for the most part are set back from the highway. Population
density decreases until the project reaches the community of Green Level.
In the vicinity of Green Level, development becomes dense once more with
residences lining both sides of the NC 49. The neighborhood in this area is
characterized by both single family dwellings and mobile homes. The yard
frontage of some of these homes will be needed for right of way. There are some
commercial establishments in this area of the proposed action. Martin Marietta
Plant is located on the west side well off the project. The Charles Richard Drew
Memorial marker is close to the road on the west side in this vicinity. Near the
Drew Memorial, but further from NC 49, is a florist shop. Mobile home parks are
prevalent in this general vicinity. One such mobile home park is in close proximity
to the project. A Shell Service Station is located on the west side of NC 49 at
SR 1752, and across from it on the east side of NC 49 is a Citgo Station.
Long Chapel United Church of Christ is a large brick facility on the west
side of the project. It has a large cemetery on the north side of its brick structure.
It is anticipated that the proposed project will require the relocation of several of
the graves at this cemetery. There are some residential brick homes with large
lawns in this area. North of SR 1990 on the east side of NC 49 is the Kirby
Mobile Home Court. The 49 Restaurant is just north of the Kirby Mobile Home
Court. South of SR 1990, there is a Sunoco Service Station. North of SR 1990
on the east side of the existing highway is what appears to be a vacant building that
used to be a commercial establishment. Development from this point to the end of
the proposed project is typically rural with scattered homes located back from the
existing highway facility. Near the end of the proposed project on the northern
end is the Pleasant Grove Community. In this vicinity are the Pleasant Grove
Volunteer Fire Department and the Pleasant Grove Recreation Center. The
Pleasant Grove Recreation Center is a large brick structure located close to the
existing highway facility on the west side.
2. Relocatees
It is anticipated that the proposed project will result in the relocation of
five residences. However, it appears that all five are inside the existing right of
way and therefore may not be eligible for Relocation Assistance (see Relocation
Report found on page B-I in the Appendix). Programs are available, should these
23
properties be deemed eligible, to assist persons who are relocated because of a
highway improvement. These programs include Relocation Assistance, Relocation
Moving and Payments, and Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent
Supplement. The Division of Highways' relocation programs are discussed in the
Appendix, pages B-2 through B-3.
All five of the residences expected to be relocated as part of this project are
owned by the residents (all are families). One of these families is a minority family.
Three families are in an income bracket of $0 to $20,000 annually, and two are in
the income bracket of $40,000 to $70,000 annually). The proposed widening is
not expected to disproportionately impact minority or lower-income populations.
3. Public Facilities
There are several public facilities at various intervals along the proposed
project site. Near the beginning of the project in the vicinity of SR 1927 is the
Haw River Christian Church. The Charles Richard Drew Memorial marker is also
close to the existing highway facility on the west side. A few miles to the north of
the Drew Memorial on the west side of NC 49 is the Long Chapel United Church
of Christ. The church sits back from the proposed action. There is a large
cemetery on the north side of the church that has some grave sites in close
proximity to the project.
Two public facilities are located near the northern terminal of the project at
NC 62: the Pleasant Grove Recreation Center and the Pleasant Grove Volunteer
Fire Department. The Pleasant Grove Recreation Center is located on the west
side of NC 49 in close proximity to the existing road.
4. Economic Effects
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates (Preliminary
Data for April 1994) indicated that during the month of April, Alamance County
had a labor force of 62,070. Out of that total, 60,050 persons were gainfully
employed. This left an unemployment total of 2,020 or 3.3 percent.
The proposed widening of NC 49 will have some positive economic
impacts. There are commercial and manufacturing establishments situated along
various sections of the proposed project. The proposed widening will provide a
wider and safer highway for these businesses to get their products and services to
their destinations. Congestion will be decreased, and this will economically benefit
the businesses by saving time and reducing operating expenses.
There is a number of farms along the proposed project. The proposed
project will benefit the farmers in a variety of ways. It will provide ample space
24
for their large farm equipment to be transported from one place to the next. It will
increase the efficiency in getting to and from the various farm markets. In addition
to the safety features, the project may also provide a stronger tax base to those
farmers whose properties front the subject highway.
5. Social Impacts
The proposed improvement of NC 49 will improve the traffic flow
considerably. Positive social factors will accrue to the users of the improved
highway facility through increased comfort, convenience, and safety of travel.
The proposed action in expected to require the relocation of two
residences along the proposed project. However, the proposed action will not
interfere with the accessibility of facilities and service, and it will not disrupt
neighborhood or community cohesion.
C. Historic and Cultural Resources
Charles Richard Drew Memorial
The Charles Richard Drew Memorial marker is located on the west side of
NC 49, inside the existing right of way, just north of the entrances to Martin
Marietta and Luck Stone Quarries. The marker will be temporarily removed
during construction; after construction it will be relocated inside the right of way
near its original location .
2. ArchitecturaVHistorical Resources
a. Purpose of Survey and Report
This survey was conducted in order to locate and evaluate
structures over fifty years of age which may be potentially eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. This report was prepared pursuant to
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regulations codified at 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or
permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
b. Methodolov
This survey was conducted and the report compiled by NCDOT in
accordance with the provisions of FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.A
(Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f)
25
Documents; the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Archaeological and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716); and Phase I
(Reconnaissance) Survey Procedures for Historic Architectural Resources
by NCDOT in effect in June, 1993.
I Prior to the field survey, research was conducted at the North
I Carolina State Library, the library at the School of Design at North
Carolina State University, and at the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) in order to determine if there were buildings listed in the National
Register of Historic Places or on the State Study List within the project's
Area of Potential Effect (APE). No buildings listed on the National
Register of Historic Places are located within the project area. No
buildings located within the project area are on the State Study List. Two
buildings within the project area were surveyed by Carl Lounsbury in his
published architectural survey of the county, Alamance County:
Architectural Heritage:
C. Summn of Results and Findings
Properties Considered Eligible for the National Register
Amos K. Roney Rouse. Property #1.
The Amos K. Roney house, located at the intersection of
SR 1928 and NC 49 (see Figure 5, sheet 1 of 4), is an example of
high style late Victorian domestic architecture (see Figure 8A).
The property boundaries for the Roney house are shown on the
preliminary plans found in Figure 8B. Constructed in 1902, the two
story frame building has two entrance porches which front the two
separate roads located at the intersection. The elevation which
fronts SR 1928 is a three bay side gable facade with a one-story
shed roof porch. The porch is supported by turned columns which
are both free-standing and engaged, with elaborate scroll brackets.
A center gable containing one window is located above and
between the two windows on the second level. All sash are two
over one. A single story (kitchen) ell is located to the south of this
elevation. The north entrance elevation (fronting NC 49) is a two
bay facade with a one-story porch covered by a hip roof. The
porch is supported by turned columns with scroll brackets. A
balustrade with turned balusters runs between the columns. A
second story balcony is located under the gable roof on the second
level. A two-story ell projects to the east of this facade. Both the
north and east gable ends have decorative shingle patterns.
26
Conversations with descendants of the Roney family have
revealed that the house may have been designed by Knoxville
architect George F. Barber. Barber was in Haw River during this
period while the Charles T. Holt mansion (located in Haw River
outside the area of the subject project) was under construction.
The Amos K. Roney house shows stylistic similarities to the Holt
Mansion. Supporting this theory is the unusual design of the
elaborate corbelled chimneys. The same design appears on both
buildings. Conversations with Max Way, planner for Alamance
County, have revealed that, to his knowledge, no other chimney
designs in the county are comparable. Barber's methods of
producing designs for clients included providing ready-made full-
size details, all necessary plans and elevations, color samples, and
blank contracts to be used with local contractors. NCDOT has
attempted to obtain copies of Barber's monthly publication, The
American Home, as well as his book, Cottage Souvenir; however
no copies are available at the State Library, the SHPO, or the
libraries at UNC or at Duke University. These publications may
contain the plan and elevation for this house.
While it is not possible to link the Amos K. Roney house
directly to Knoxville architect George Barber without further study,
the building is an outstanding example of Queen Anne domestic
architecture. NCDOT architectural historians have determined that
the Amos K. Roney House is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion C, Architecture. The SHPO has
concurred with this eligibility determination (see letter on pages C-
18 and C-19 of the Appendix).
Of additional interest (though not effecting eligibility) is the
association between the Roney house and the Washington Duke
family. Arelia Roney Duke, wife of Washington Duke and mother
of James Buchanan and Benjamin Newton Duke, lived in this house
for several years prior to her marriage. The Duke children were
frequent visitors to the Roney home.
Background research of this and all other properties in the
APE enabled their consideration within the context of the history of
the area. There are no historical events or persons of major
significance associated with this property and, as such, it is not
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A
or B. The architectural component of this property is not likely to
yield information important in history; it is therefore not eligible for
the National Register under Criterion D in that respect.
27
The FHWA has concluded that the proposed project will
not have an effect on the A.K. Roney House provided that a
landscape plan for the area of the temporary construction easement
be developed in consultation with the SHPO and the property
owner. The SHPO has concurred with this finding (see pages C-20
and C-21 in the Appendix). No further compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is required.
W.J. Anderson Farm. Property #5.
The W.J. Anderson farm is located at the intersection of
SR 1909 and NC 49 (see Figure 5, sheet 4 of 4). Photographs of
the farm are found in Figure 9A. The property boundaries of the
farm are found on the preliminary plans found in Figure 9B, and a
site plan is found in Figure 9C. NCDOT architectural historians
have determined that the Anderson Farm is eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C, Architecture
and under Criterion A, Agriculture. The SHPO has concurred with
the eligibility determination (see letter on pages C-18 through C-19
of the Appendix).
Description. The main house (circa 1880) is a frame
two-story L-shaped building. In the angle created by the gable
front L is located a one-story porch with hipped roof supported by
simple chamfered columns. The sash are six over six. The two
chimneys constructed within the two-story portion of the house are
common bond with corbelled brick caps. A one-story kitchen ell
projects off the rear of the house. A stone and brick chimney is
located at the gable end of the ell. A one-story shed-roofed room
was added to the rear of the structure circa 1920. The house rests
on a stone perimeter foundation.
In addition to the "main" (circa 1880) house, four log barns,
located just to the east of the structure, were constructed between
1880 and 1920. The original single pen log family home (circa
1860) is located 0.3 mile down SR 1909 (see Figure 9C). An ante-
bellum log barn is located just to the west of this cabin, as well as
three late nineteenth century log tobacco barns and a frame tenant
house constructed in 1907.
The 1980 publication Alamance Count Architectural
Heritage, by Carl Lounsbury, states that the house was constructed
in 1860. The house pictured in this publication is the same building
shown in Figure 9A. This building is circa 1880 (unless there is an
earlier building constructed within this building which is not
28
apparent even after close inspection). Mr. Lounsbury may have
been referring to the ante-bellum log cabin, the Anderson's earlier
and original homestead, also located on this farm. As may be seen
on the site plan (Figure 9C), this farm contains an unusual number
of original (circa 1860 - 1920) log buildings. These include a corn
crib, a livestock barn, and four tobacco barns. According to the
current owners, the only building which has not survived from the
period dating from 1860 to 1920 is the dairy.
Evaluation of Pronertv #5 under Criterion C. Architecture.
A National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property
Documentation Form was prepared by Patricia S. Dickinson in
1993 which specifically addresses log buildings in Alamance County
c. 1780 - 1930. Conditions preventing registration of the surviving
log buildings in Alamance County, as outlined in this document,
are: "Integrity problems associated with non-ruinous buildings
including new replacement chimneys; replacement doors and
windows, a radical change in the building's orientation; major
alteration in the roofline; the addition or deletion of a story;
multiple additions which obscure the original log block; heavily
`restored' buildings; moved buildings not exceptional enough to
justify a criteria exception; and log buildings completely encased
within a much expanded and redesigned house."
The log buildings located on the W.J. Anderson farm have
not received new chimneys, replacement doors, or replacement
windows. None of the log buildings appear to have been moved
from their original location. There have been no alterations to the
rooflines of the buildings, and none has had either an additional
story added or an original story removed. Various shed additions
have been added to a number of these log structures; however,
none of these additions obscure the original log block.
Although not addressed by Patricia Dickinson in her
Multiple Property Documentation Form, the log buildings
associated with the W.J. Anderson farm meet the registration
requirements for log buildings in Alamance County, as outlined in
the report. Therefore, the Anderson farm is considered to be
potentially eligible for listing in the National Register under
criterion C, Architecture.
Evaluation of Property #5 under Criterion A, Agriculture.
In order for a property to be eligible for the National Register under
Criterion A, Agriculture, on a local level, it must satisfy three
eligibility factors (National Register Bulletin 30, page 13). First, the
29
characteristics must have served or resulted from an important
event, activity, or theme in agricultural development as recognized
by the historic contexts for the area. Second, the property must
have had a direct involvement in the significant events, activities, or
theme. Third, through historic landscape characteristics, the
property must cogently reflect the period of time in which the
important events took place.
The following context identifies the significant activity or
theme within which the Anderson Farm is evaluated. The three
eligibility factors are discussed individually.
Context. From its accidental beginning in Caswell County
in 1856, the flue-cured tobacco process expanded the demand for
North Carolina tobacco. Jerome Brooks, author of The Mihty
Leaf (a history of tobacco), records that the storage and factory
buildings housing flu-cured tobacco in North Carolina were largely
looted during the Civil War and the contents carried north by
Federal troops. This event introduced the mild tobacco to many
other regions of the nation.
The invention of the cigarette making machine in 1884
enlarged the market into an enormous international industry
(requiring the planting of many more thousands of acres of tobacco
in North Carolina).
Prior to the Civil War, North Carolina's primary agricultural
products in the Piedmont had been wheat, corn, and tobacco, with
the production of wheat and corn approximately equal to the
production of tobacco. The 1860 United States Census lists
Alamance County producing 140,215 bushels of wheat, 265,280
bushels of corn, and 555,245 pounds of tobacco. The majority of
United States tobacco prior to the Civil War was cultivated on
large plantations located in Virginia and Maryland.
The 1900 United States Census lists Alamance County as
producing 97,130 bushels of wheat, 354,470 bushels of corn and
2,952,500 pounds of tobacco. By 1910, North Carolina was
producing 67% of the nation's tobacco.
This transformation in agricultural production -- from
general mixed farming to cash-crop farming (specifically the
cultivation of tobacco) -- represents a theme which has made
significant contributions to broad patterns of the history of
agriculture in North Carolina.
30
Characteristics of this Theme. The W.J. Anderson farm
demonstrates characteristics that have served and resulted from the
important theme as outlined in the context above, i.e., the shift in
Piedmont North Carolina agricultural production from substance
farming to focusing on tobacco.
The original Anderson Farm consisted of a single pen log
house and one (log) barn. The family raised wheat and corn to sell
for the goods that they could not raise themselves. Following the
Civil War, as the demand for tobacco products steadily grew, the
Anderson family increased their acreage of tobacco, constructing
the necessary outbuildings for storage and curing.
By 1880, the profits which had been secured from the sale
of tobacco allowed the family to construct a new house. New
tobacco barns and a tenant house were also constructed. The farm,
as typical throughout North Carolina's Piedmont, shifted from
general and subsistence farming to cash crop farming focusing on
the cultivation of tobacco.
Property involvement in this Theme. The W.J. Anderson
Farm had direct involvement in the activities of this theme. The
Anderson family redirected their farming activities from growing
wheat and corn to growing tobacco.
The 1860 Agricultural Census for Alamance County lists the
Anderson Farm as producing 5 tons of hay, 20 bushels of sweet
potatoes, 125 bushels of wheat, 250 bushels of corn, and no
tobacco. By contrast, the 1910 Agricultural Census for Alamance
County lists the Anderson Farm as producing 1 ton of hay, 30
bushels of wheat, 80 bushels of corn and 76 hogsheads of tobacco.
The complete transformation of the farm's agricultural
endeavors and the resulting profits contributed to Alamance
County's economy, productivity, and identity as an agricultural
community.
Integrity of the Property. Through historic landscape
characteristics, the Anderson Farm cogently reflects the period of
time (1860 - 1920) in which the events of the theme took place.
The original 1860 cabin and the barn adjoining this cabin are
intact. The tobacco barns constructed between 1862 and 1920 are
in excellent condition and are currently rented by neighboring
31
farmers to cure tobacco. The "main" (1880) house has been
abandoned; however, it remains in good structural condition.
According to Anderson descendants, the only structure known to
have been demolished is the dairy.
The farm stands as a physical representation of the shift in
Piedmont, North Carolina's practice of cultivating wheat, corn, and
tobacco prior to the Civil War to focusing primarily on tobacco in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. As such, it
represents a theme which has made significant contributions to
broad patterns of history in North Carolina.
Therefore, the W.J. Anderson Farm appears to be eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A,
Agriculture, as it meets the three factors on which eligibility for
significance in agriculture on a local level depends.
Boundary Justification. In 1958 the main (1880) house was
abandoned by the family and a brick "ranch" house was constructed
to the north. Tobacco production was gradually replaced by the
cultivation of soy beans and raising cattle. Soy bean fields, as well
as fields for cattle, were also created to the north of the old farm,
leaving the earlier assemblage of houses and agricultural support
buildings virtually unaltered and intact.
The boundaries for the proposed National Register
Property, as shown in Figures 9B and 9C, reflect the period of
significance (1860- 1920) as associated with the theme of the
change in the focus of agricultural production in the latter half of
the nineteenth century. The boundaries include the two houses and
the agricultural buildings associated with the family's farming
endeavors during the period of significance, 1860-1920.
The FHWA has concluded that the proposed improvements
will not effect the W.J. Anderson Farm. The SHPO has concurred
with this finding (see pages C-20 and C-21 in the Appendix). No
further compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act is required.
ii. Properties Not Considered Eligible for Listing in the
National Register of Historic Places
NCDOT architectural historians identified and evaluated
three other properties over 50 years old in the project area. These
three properties were determined not to be eligible for listing in the
32
National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO has concurred
with these eligibility determinations (see letter in on pages C-18
through C-19 in the Appendix). A discussion of these three
properties is found in Appendix E.
iii. Additional Properties Not Covered in this Report
It should be noted that a number of additional properties not
covered in this report were identified in a correspondence dated
March 23, 1993 from Mr. David Brook to Mr. L.J. Ward (see
pages C-14 and C-15 in the Appendix). The properties not covered
in this report have either been destroyed or do not lie within the
APE. This finding was confirmed by Mr. Max Way, planner for
Alamance County.
Archaeological Resources
a. Introduction
As a federal action, the subject project must comply with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Federal Highway
Administration procedures for compliance with Section 106 require that
consideration be given to the effects of construction on significant
archaeological or historic sites.
The North Carolina SHPO was consulted early in the project
planning process. The SHPO requested that NCDOT conduct an
archaeological survey of the area which might be impacted by the widening
of NC 49 (see correspondence on pages C-14 and C-15 in the Appendix).
The archaeological survey was performed on June 21, 1993 by
NCDOT staff archaeologists Cynthia Satterfield and Bill Jurgelski, under
the direction of NCDOT Archaeology Supervisor Thomas Padgett.
Approximately 16 man-hours were required to complete the investigation
of the project area. Four archaeological sites were located during the
survey, and two previously recorded sites were revisited. An inventory of
archaeological artifacts yielded by the survey is found in the Appendix on
pages F-1 and F-2. None of these sites appear to be significant. Unless
design changes dictate additional evaluation, no further archaeological
work will be required for this project.
b. Physical Setting
Alamance County is located in the Piedmont physiographic
province. The topography of the Piedmont consists of "gently rolling
33
upland, rounded hills, and V shaped valleys" (Allen and Wilson 1968: 4).
The entire project area lies within the western branch of the Carolina Slate
Belt. Volcanic slates, basic and acid tuffs, and breccias and flows are
characteristic of the Carolina Slate Belt. Volcanic igneous rocks form hills
and small mountains in the region (Daniels et al, 1984: 38). Woodall
(1976b: 11) emphasizes that the flows in particular provided a ready source
of lithic material for the prehistoric inhabitants of the area.
The extreme southern portion of the project area is underlain by
mafic metavolcanic rock. The remainder of the project area is underlain by
metamorphosed granitic rock. The project area lies within the mixed felsic
and mafic system of the Piedmont soil region. From south to north within
the project area, NC 49 crosses soils included in the Tirzah-Georgeville,
Iredell, Orange Efland Herndon, and Cecil-Appling-Durham soil
associations (Caster 1960).
Elevations within the project area range from approximately 183
meters (600 feet)to 213 meters (700 feet) AMSL (Above Mean Sea Level).
The highest elevations are generally found in the northern portion of the
project area.
The project area is drained by various tributaries of the Haw River,
which flows within a mile of the intersection of NC 49 and US 70. The
Haw River is a tributary of the Cape Fear River.
C. Previous Research
Several archaeological projects have been previously undertaken in
the vicinity of the R- 2543A project area. Woodall (1976a) recorded 45
archaeological sites during a survey of the area to be affected by the
proposed construction of wastewater treatment facilities within the
Alamance County Complex 201 Facilities Planning Area. Two of the sites,
31AM29 (Wake Forest University No. 31AM11) and 31AM32 (Wake
Forest University No. 31AM14), which were recorded during this survey,
lie within the R-2543 project area. Site 31AM29 was described by
Woodall as a probable Middle Archaic base camp. The site was
recommended for further testing due to the possibility that intact
subsurface deposits might be present (Woodall 1976a: 29-32). Site
31 AM32 is a small scatter of prehistoric lithic debitage and historic
ceramics. This site was not recommended for further testing (Woodall
1976a: 51-52).
Additional work in the vicinity of the R-2543A project area has
included a survey associated with the construction of a reservoir near
Burlington (Woodall 1976b), during which 80 prehistoric sites were
34
recorded. Test excavations were conducted at nine of these sites and on
two historic- sites. It was concluded that none of the sites were significant.
(Woodall 1977).
Wetmore and Drucker (1988) recorded 10 sites and 18 "isolated
finds" during a 332-hectare (820-acre) survey associated with the proposed
Graham-Mebane Raw Water Reservoir. One Woodland site, 31AM278,
was considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The
project area of this survey was located approximately 1.6 km (1 mile) to
the east of NC 49.
In the vicinity of the town of Haw River, at the south end of the
R-2543A project area, Woodall (1981) recorded no sites during a survey of
a one-mile long pipeline corridor. Lautzenheiser (1986) recorded seven
non-significant prehistoric sites during a survey of the proposed US 70
Bypass, and Padgett (1982) recorded a historic mill site during a survey of
the area to be impacted by the replacement of the US 70 bridge over the
Haw River.
d. Prehistoric Background
The basic chronology of prehistoric cultures in the North Carolina
Piedmont was derived by Coe (1964) from his work on stratified sites in
Stanly, Montgomery, and Halifax Counties.
Paleo-Indian (12,000 to 8,000 BC)
The first evidence of human occupation in North Carolina dates to
the Paleo-Indian Period. The climate in North Carolina during the Paleo-
Indian Period differed markedly from the climate of the present day.
Summers were short and cool, and the winters were very cold. The forests
were comprised primarily of boreal plant species. A gradual warming trend
began during the later part of the Paleo-Indian Period. Warmer conditions
led to a shift in the composition of the forests, with deciduous tree species
beginning to supplant coniferous species such as spruce.
Fluted projectile points such as Clovis are generally associated with
the Paleo-Indian Period. Hardaway/Dalton point types are associated with
the later part of the time period. Paleo-Indian peoples apparently practiced
a hunting and gathering subsistence strategy. The extent to which big
game hunting was emphasized within this strategy is unclear (Phelps 1983:
22).
35
Archaic (8000 to 500 BC)
The Archaic period is generally divided into Early, Middle, and
Late phases. Each time period is associated with particular varieties of
projectile points, such as the Kirk, Stanly, and Savannah River types. Sites
dating to the Archaic Period are quite common in the Piedmont (Ward
1983).
i
The climate during the Archaic Period was marked by a gradual
warming trend, and the plant and animal species changed as a consequence.
An essentially modern climate was present by around 6000 BC (Phelps
i? 1983).
I In general, Archaic societies are thought to have been itinerant and
to have drawn from a broad range of resources for subsistence.
Woodland Period (500 BC - 1700 AD)
The Woodland Period is also usually divided into Early, Middle,
and Late phases. The period was generally marked by less itinerant
lifeways, as compared to the Archaic Period, by the introduction of pottery
and by an increased use of cultivated plants as a food source.
e. Alamance County History
At the time of European contact, Alamance County and the
surrounding regions were occupied by small, semi-sedentary, aboriginal
tribal groups. The English explorer John Lawson recorded encountering
such groups during his journey through North and South Carolina in 1701
(Lefler 1967).
The area which was to become Alamance County began to be
occupied by settlers of European descent around the second quarter of the
18th century. Included among the earliest settlers were individuals of
Pennsylvania Quaker, Scotch Irish, and German heritage (Whitaker 1975:
14-15).
Alamance County was the site of the Battle of Alamance, which
brought an end to the Regulator Uprising of the late 1760's. The county
was formally established in 1849, when it was separated from Orange
County. Graham, the county seat, was incorporated in 1851.
36
During the early years of settlement in Alamance County,
agriculture was the principal industry. The first cotton mill to be built in
the county began operation in 1837 (Whitaker 1975: 9). The textile
industry is still an important part of the county economy.
Survey Methods
For the purposes of the archaeological survey, the APE (Area of
Potential Effect) of this project was determined to be approximately 50 feet
(15 meters) on both sides of the road, as measured from edge of the
existing pavement. It is likely that the actual impact of the road widening
will be somewhat less. A wider area was examined at the northern end of
the project area in case it was decided to reconfigure the NC 49/NC 62
intersection.
The entire project area was surveyed using methods consistent with
the guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior for such work.
The project area was driven through and visually examined; previously
recorded sites in the vicinity were relocated and reconnoitered; and high
probability areas within the project area were examined by pedestrian
walkover, opportunistic examination of bare or disturbed ground, and,
where appropriate, by the excavation of shovel test pits (STPs).
Modern development has substantially reduced the likelihood that
intact archaeological deposits might be located within the area of potential
effect of this road widening project. About 25 percent of the project area
has been disturbed by driveways, parking lots, and landscaped surfaces
associated with modern development. All of the remaining project area has
been disturbed to some degree by road cuts, graded shoulders, and
drainage ditches associated with NC 49 and by the utility lines which
parallel the road on both its east and west sides.
g. Site Descriptions
Site No. 31AM29
Site 31 AM29 is a prehistoric site located on the east side of NC 49
between SR 1745 and SR 1746. The site was first recorded by Woodall
during a survey of the Alamance County Complex 201 Facilities Planning
Area in 1975. During the 1975 survey, artifacts were recovered from an
area 215 meters (705 feet) by 45 meters (148 feet). Woodall observed that
the site appears to be a rather extensive Middle Archaic Base Camp"
(Woodall 1976a: 31). Further testing was recommended at that time
because it was thought that intact subsurface deposits might be present due
to the depth of the plowzone.
37
Site 31 AM29 was relocated and appears to be substantially
?I unchanged in dimension and condition from Woodall's description. The
j site is presently planted in corn.
? A surface collection was undertaken in that part of the site which
was located within the APE of this project. One partial Savannah River
point, a biface fragment, and approximately 20 pieces of lithic debitage,
mostly rhyolite flakes, were located during the course of the surface
collection (see artifact inventory, page F-1, in the Appendix).
A single shovel test pit was excavated within the APE in an attempt
I to determine if undisturbed subsurface deposits were present. The soil
profile of this test pit consisted of a 38-cm (15-in) deep brown clay loam
plowzone overlying a culturally sterile red clay subsoil. No features or
intact subsurface deposits were noted.
The western edge of 31AM29 may be disturbed by the widening of
NC 49 in this area. However, based on the limited quantity of materials
recovered from the APE and the apparent absence of intact buried deposits
within the APE, no further archaeological work on the site is recommended
at this time.
Site No. 31AM32
31 AM32 was also recorded by Woodall during the Alamance
County Complex 201 Facilities Planning Area survey conducted in 1975.
The site is on the west side of NC 49, at the corner of NC 49 and SR 1747.
Six flakes, one historic ceramic sherd, and a brick fragment were
recovered from the site during the 1975 survey. Due to previous
disturbance, no further work on the site was recommended (Woodall
1976a: 37-38).
Site 31 AM32 was relocated and was found to be in essentially the
same condition as it was when Woodall first recorded it. The site area had
been graded but was partially covered in grass, resulting in an overall
surface visibility of around 75%.
A surface collection of the site was undertaken, and it yielded
results similar to those obtained by Woodall, although a slightly greater
volume of historic material was recovered (see artifact inventory, pages F-1
and F-2, in the Appendix). A historic structure may have stood in the site
38
area, but no structural remains were visible. Woodall noted that, at the
time of his survey, an abandoned house stood nearby. A large overgrown
cinder block foundation remains standing approximately 30 meters
northwest of 31 AM32.
31 AM32 may be marginally impacted by the widening of NC 49 in
this vicinity. However, nothing was found during the reexamination of
31 AM32 to contradict Woodall's original assessment of the site. No
further archaeological work on this site is recommended.
Site No. 31AM336**
31 AM336** is a well preserved historic house foundation. It is
located at the extreme northern end of the project area, approximately
25 meters to the south of the short east-west connecting road which links
NC 62 with NC 49.
The foundation is made of brick, and measures approximately
9 meters (30 feet) by 15 meters (50 feet). It consists of an outside wall,
inside support pillars, and two intact central chimneys. The house
apparently did not have a cellar.
Based on the architectural style, the quality of the masonry, and on
the age of the debris surrounding the foundation, it appears that this
building was constructed during the 20th century. A local resident
informed us that this house had belonged to a Mr. F.R. Pettigrew and that
it had stood abandoned for some while before the fire department burned it
down as a safety consideration.
No signs of any outbuildings or associated foundations were
discovered during a pedestrian survey of the area surrounding the
foundation. However, what appears to have been a small country store is
still standing approximately 50 meters to the west, on the west side of the
north-south connecting road which links NC 49 with NC 62. The vicinity
of the foundation is overgrown with scrub vegetation and pine trees. A
good deal of modern and recent historic trash is scattered through the
woods to the south of the foundation. It appears that the area has been
used as a dumping ground by local residents.
Fire rake scrapes and two shallow test pits were excavated in the
vicinity of the foundation, and an eroded area north of the structure was
examined. The principal aim of these investigations was to determine if
there might be a prehistoric component to 31AM336**, but no prehistoric
or historic artifacts were noted. The soil profiles consisted generally of
39
about 4 cm (1.6 inches) of grey brown sandy loam hun* zone overlying a
concreted yellow\brown sandy loam subsoil. The original A horizon
appears to have completely eroded away in this area.
It is unlikely that the 31AM336** house foundation will be
impacted by the widening of NC 49, or by the associated improvements to
the NC 49/NC 62 intersection. There will be some minor impact to the
area surrounding the site. Reconnaissance and limited subsurface
investigations suggested that there is little likelihood that intact subsurface
deposits or the remains of outbuildings might be present in the area of
potential effect of this project. No further archaeological work on this site
is recommended.
Site No. 31AM337**
31AM337** is a historic house site which is located on the west
side of NC 49, approximately midway between SR 1754 and SR 1911.
The site was formerly known as the John Wyatte Ruins. The ruins are no
longer extant. The site is listed in the files of the Survey and Planning
Branch (File No. AM 484). Photos of the house remnants taken in 1982
are included in this file.
The house was a small brick structure. Since 1982 it has been
completely demolished and bulldozed away. The site location is marked by
two large oak trees. A wooden outhouse and a small wooden shed of
indeterminate function remain standing. To the south of these structures is
a cement foundation, also of indeterminate function, which measures
approximately 3 meters (10 feet) by 4.6 meters (15 feet). There is a pile of
brick and mortar rubble nearby which is probably the bulldozed remains of
the main house structure. North of the house site is a log tobacco barn,
which has been modified and is currently used as a storage shed.
Two shovel test pits were excavated in the area where the house
was thought to have stood in order to determine if subsurface deposits
associated with the original house structure might be present. The soil
profiles of these test pits consisted of an approximate 5-centimeter grey
brown sandy loam humic zone overlying a whitish/brown sandy loam
subsoil. The original A horizon in this area appears to have been eroded
away or mechanically removed. A few chunks of burned coal and some
brick fragments were noted within the humic zone, but these were not
collected. No historic or prehistoric artifacts were noted during a brief
surface examination of the surrounding area.
There is little chance that significant intact deposits associated with
the John Wyatte ruins might remain. The ruins themselves have been
40
completely demolished. The widening of NC 49 in this area will likely have
only a marginal effect on the site area. No further archaeological work on
this site is recommended.
Site No. 31AM338**
Site 31AM338** appears to be a historic house site. A local
resident described the area as the former location of a "log and plank"
house. The site is situated approximately 35 (115 feet) meters to the north
of SR 1990, and approximately 100 meters (328 feet) to the east of NC 49.
Site 31 AM338** is outside of the APE of this construction project.
The site is defined by the presence of two large oak trees spaced
approximately 35 meters (115 feet) apart. The area between the trees is
currently planted with potatoes. Several whiteware sherds were noted on
the ground surface. However, there was no indication that intact structural
remains might be present. Because the site is well outside of the project
area, no artifacts were collected. No further archaeological work on this
site is recommended.
Site No. 31AM339
31AM339 is a prehistoric site which was found in a tobacco field
on the west side of NC 49, about 150 meters (492 feet) south of SR 1921.
The site is situated on a small rise which is located approximately 35
meters (115 feet) to the west of the western edge of NC 49. Because the
site is located well outside the limits of the Area of Potential Effect of this
project, it was not extensively examined.
A small amount of rhyolite and chert debitage and a rhyolite biface
fragment were collected in the course of a brief site walkover (see artifact
inventory, page F-2, in the Appendix). No diagnostic artifacts were found.
The site appeared to encompass an area of approximately 75 meters
(246 feet) by 25 meters (82 feet).
Site 31AM339 will not be affected by the widening of NC 49. No
further archaeological work on this site is recommended.
h. Conclusions
Four archaeological sites were recorded during this survey and two
previously recorded sites were revisited and reassessed. None of these
sites appear to meet the requirements of eligibility for the National Register
41
of Historic Places. The SHPO has concurred with the eligibility
determinations of the NCDOT and the FHWA (see letter on page C-17 in
the Appendix).
The widening of NC 49, as presently planned, will not significantly
effect any of these sites. Two of the sites, 31AM338** and 31AM339, are
well outside of the project area. Sites 31AM336**, 31AM337**,
31 AM29, and 31 AM32 all may be marginally impacted by the road
widening, although it appears that the majority of any damage will be
confined to the areas closest to the road, which have already been
disturbed.
Unless design changes dictate further evaluation, no further
archaeological work is recommended prior to the start of this construction
project.
4. Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966
specifies that publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, historic site,
or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance may be used
for Federal Aid projects only if:
1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and
2) Such highway program or project includes all possible planning to minimize
harm to 4(f) lands resulting from such use.
A temporary occupancy of land (temporary construction easement) is so
minimal that it does not constitute a use within the meaning of Section 4(f) when
the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) Duration must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed for
construction of the project, and there should be no change in
ownership of the land;
(ii) Scope of the work must be minor, i.e., both the nature and the
magnitude of the changes to the Section 4(f) resource are minimal;
(iii) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor
will there be interference with the activities or purpose of the
resource, on either a temporary or permanent basis;
42
(iv) The lane being used must be fully restored, i.e., the.resource must
be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which
existed prior to the project; and
(v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal,
State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource
regarding the above conditions.
There are three properties along the project that are protected by Section
4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966: the A.K. Roney House, the W.J. Anderson
Farm, and the Pleasant Grove Recreation Center. In the section of the project
adjacent to each property, an alternative that avoids acquiring permanent right of
way from the respective property is recommended. However, temporary
construction easements (TCE's), consistent with the conditions outlined in items
(i) through (v) above, will be required from each of the properties. The properties,
the widening scenarios proposed adjacent to them, and elaboration on how the
proposed TCE's will comply with the above conditions are described below.
A.K. Roney House - The A.K. Roney House is located in the southeast quadrant
of the NC 49/SR 1928 intersection (see Figure 5, sheet 1 of 4, and Figure 8B).
The house is eligible for the National Register based on architecture (see Section
C. l .c.i). A five-lane curb and gutter section is proposed in front of the Roney
House. In front of the Roney House, it is proposed to position the back of the
east-side berm at the existing right of way boundary and to acquire TCE's as
needed to tie the berm into the natural ground. Approximately 0.01 hectare
(0.03 acre) of TCE will be required to do the necessary grading and landscaping.
The work inside the TCE will be of a duration shorter than the length of the
project and will provide a smooth transition between the Roney House yard and
the berm. No adverse impacts will be caused by the proposed construction; in fact,
the removal of the drainage ditch in front of the house will improve the aesthetic
value. The proposed TCE's are to contain the proposed construction limits, which
are shown in Figure 8B. Any permanent right of way needed to do the subject
widening will be acquired on the west side.
It is proposed to plant understory trees, pending consultation with the
property owner, adjacent to the driveway to the A.K. Roney House to replace the
trees that currently screen the house from nearby commercial development but
which will be removed by project construction. The landscape plan for these
plantings will be prepared in consultation with the property owner and the State
Historic Preservation Office. The SHPO has concurred that the subject
improvements will not have an effect on the A.K. Roney House if the NCDOT
commits to providing landscaping (see pages C-20 and C-21).
W.J. Anderson Farm - The W.J. Anderson Farm is located on the east side of
NC 49 at SR 1909 (see Figure 5, sheet 4 of 4, and Figure 9B). The W.J.
43
Anderson Farm is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places based on
architecture and agriculture (see Section C.l.c.i). The site plan for the Anderson
Farm, showing the boundaries of the portion of the property protected by Section
4(f), is found in Figure 9C. In front of the Anderson Farm, it is proposed to
position the proposed roadway such that the center of the eastside ditch will be
located at the existing eastside right of way boundary. TCE's will be acquired as
needed to tie the ditch sideslopes into the existing ground on the east side. The
work inside the TCE will be of a duration shorter than the length of the project and
will provide a smooth transition between the yard of the Anderson Farm and the
back of the proposed ditch. No adverse impacts will occur to the Anderson Farm
as a result of the proposed construction. These TCE's are to contain the proposed
construction limits shown in Figure 9B. Any needed permanent right of way will
be acquired only on the west side in this section of the project. The SHPO has
concurred that the subject improvements will not have an effect on the W. J.
Anderson Farm. The concurrence form is found on pages C-20 and C-21 in the
Appendix.
Pleasant Grove Recreation Center - This property, a public recreation facility, is
located in the southwest quadrant of the NC 49/NC 62 intersection (see Figure 5,
sheet 4 of 4, and Figure 10). In front of the center, it is proposed to realign NC 49
to the east. This will avoid impacting the property at its center, where a walking
trail is located close to the road. However, portions of the northeast
(approximately 0.008 hectare (0.02 acre)) and southwest (approximately 0.004
hectare (0.01 acre)) corners of the property will be acquired as TCE's. The
proposed TCE's are shown in Figure 10. The duration of the work in these TCE's
will be shorter than the duration of the proposed construction. Once construction
is complete, there will be a wider buffer between the walking trail and the road.
The Alamance County Board of Education has concurred with the proposed usage
of the PGRC land in accordance with the conditions stated above (see letter on
page C-22 in the Appendix).
Since no permanent right of way will be required from any of the above
properties and since the proposed temporary occupancy of those properties is so
minimal that it does not constitute a use within the meaning of Section 4(f), no
further compliance with Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 is required. If
plans change and these properties are impacted by the project, appropriate Section
4(f) coordination will be undertaken.
D. Impacts to Natural Resources
Study Area
The subject project is located in rural Alamance County, located in the
Piedmont Physiographic Province between the Towns of Haw River and Pleasant
Grove. This area is primarily agricultural.
44
2. Methodology
An ecological survey was conducted April 7, 1994 to identify vegetative
communities and wildlife species contained within the project area. Vegetative
communities and wildlife were inventoried and mapped during on-site surveys.
Wetlands were identified, using methods in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (1987).
In-house preparatory work was completed prior to a field visit. The
Alamance County Soil Survey, USGS Burlington, N.E., and Mebane quadrangle
maps and the hydric soils list for Alamance County were studied to identify
potential wetland sites. The Environmental Sensitivity Base Map for Alamance
County was utilized to determine if any sensitive resources are present in the
project area. "Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters
of the Haw River Basin" (N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (DEHNR)) was consulted to determine the best usage classification for
area streams. N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) files were reviewed to determine if any protected or
rare flora or fauna occurs in the project area.
3. Biotic Resources
Distribution and composition of biotic resources throughout the project
area reflect topographic positioning, hydrologic influences, and past and present
land use practices. Maintained systems comprise the majority of the project area,
while forested areas are small. Due to the overall uniformity of the project area,
terrestrial wildlife is addressed separately rather than in the context of biotic
communities. Wildlife observed during field investigations are denoted by (*) in the
text. Common and scientific names are provided for each species listed. In
subsequent references to the same organism, only the common name is given.
a. Plant Communities
The project area is rural, consisting primarily of agricultural fields
and private residences. Small, fragmented forests are interspersed among
maintained areas. Five plant communities were identified in the project
area: Maintained, Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest, Pine Forest, Hardwood
Forest, and Mesic Hardwood Forest. Natural community profile
descriptions, where applicable, have been adopted and modified from the
NCNHP classification scheme (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
45
Maintained Communities
Residential neighborhoods, agricultural fields, and roadside
shoulders constitute maintained communities in the project area. In this
community, man's structures or activities preclude natural plant succession.
Maintained shoulder slopes and lawns support fescue (Festuca sp.)
as the dominant vegetative component, complemented with landscape
ornamentals. Redbud (Cercis canadensis), dogwood (Corpus fiorida),
azaleas (Azalea spp.), pecan (Carva illinoensis), red cedar (Juniperus
yir ig niana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and various oak trees ( uercus
spp.) are common. Mowing is frequently associated with this community.
Agricultural fields are interspersed in this suburban area. This
community contains only those lands currently managed for agriculture,
including fields under cultivation and fields temporarily fallow. Soybeans,
tobacco, and corn are prevalent in the project area. Routine management
practices associated with farming cause this community to retain only
isolated remnants of its native character, providing little of its initial value
as wildlife habitat. Remnants of native vegetation and various invading
weedy species occur within the agricultural fields and along field edges.
Common plants include tall golden-rod (Solida o canadenensis var.
scabra), dog-fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), cranesbill (Geranium
carolinianum), black nightshade (Solanum americanum), and foxtail grass
(Setaria sp.).
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
This community represents an intermediate successional stage
between pine forest and hardwood forest. It is the most abundant forested
community type in the project area. It is found in situations where a
hardwood forest has suffered a disturbance such as fire or selective cutting.
Species composition is similar to hardwood forests although the relative
abundance of each species differs. In this community, pines and
hardwoods each make up approximately 50 percent of the canopy.
Short-leaf pine (P. echinata) is the most common pine species, interspersed
in the canopy with "weedy hardwoods" such as red maple (Acer rubrum)
and tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera). White and southern red oaks
( uercus alba and Q. falcata) are common. Subcanopy components are
primarily dogwood (Cornus fiorida) and sassafras (Sassafras albidum).
Heartleaf (Hexastylis arifolia), pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata), and
ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron) form the herbaceous
component.
46
Pine Forest
Pine forest cover is limited to specific upland areas which have been
planted or where hardwoods have been removed allowing for successional
regeneration of pines. Shortleaf pines dominate virtually all of the canopy;
red cedar is often present in the subcanopy. Depending on the density of
the canopy, a variety of hardwood species, particularly sweetgum and red
maple, may appear in the understory. Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera 'al..ponica) often form
impenetrable mats.
Hardwood Forest
High ground sites are typically dominated by a oak-hickory canopy
consisting of white oak, southern red oak, and mockernut hickory (Carva
tomentosa). Shortleaf pine, scrub pine (P. ykginiana), and red cedar often
occur as subcanopy components. Understory composition is an amalgam
of trees and shrubs such as sourwood ( _ dendron arboreum), dogwood,
privet (Ligustrum sinense), beauty berry (Callicarva americana), and
sapling growth of canopy species. The herbaceous layer is sparse or totally
lacking, but groundcovers such as Virginia creeper, poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), and muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia) are typical.
Mesic Forest
Mesic woodlands are prevalent along creek channels, narrow
floodplain fringes, and lower slopes throughout the landscape. This system
is subjected to infrequent flooding and prevailing mesic conditions due to
topographic positioning. The canopy/subcanopy is dominated by
sweetgum, red maple, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), willow oak
( uercus p hellos), slippery elm (I mus rubra), and ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana). Shrub development consists of blueberry (Vaccinium sue.),
strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus), and privet. Ground cover
densities may vary and are characterized by Christmas ferns (Polystichum
acrostichoides) and an invasive grass (Microstegium vimineum). This is
the typical vegetational profile found along intermittent headwater
tributaries crossed by the alignment.
b. Wildlife
The rural nature of the project area, combined with a mix of plant
community patterns, provides a variety of opportunities for various forms
of wildlife. Forested tracts have all the necessary components (food,
water, protective coverage) to support a number of small and large
47
mammals and birds. As a group, the highly mobile mammals can be
characterized as being chiefly nocturnal or crepuscular (active at twilight)
and omnivorous.
The Virginia opossum (Didelphis vir giniana) and raccoon (Procyon
lotor) are similar in life habits. Both are opportunistic omnivores that
wander widely in search of food. The raccoon patrols a home range, which
may include a variety of habitats, while the opossum is nomadic. They
prefer dry, sheltered dens under logs and in hollow trees, brush thickets,
and burrows. Both occur primarily in association with wetlands.
The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) prefers areas of
mixed age-stands of forest, interspersed with agricultural lands. It is
primarily a crepuscular herbivore, feeding on herbs, mast, and agricultural
crops. Deer sign and sightings were common in all habitats.
The gray fox (Urocyon cinereoar anteus) and red fox (Vulpes
vulpes) are both chiefly nocturnal and omnivorous. The eastern cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilaeus floridanus) is an important food source as are small
rodents, birds, eggs, insects, and fruits. The gray fox prefers brushy
woodlands, while the red fox is more commonly associated with open
agricultural fields interspersed with woodlands.
Birds are the most abundant fauna observed in the project area.
They are naturally mobile and can occur in a variety of habitats, especially
during migration. The *red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) often soars
over a variety of habitats in search of prey.
Most commonly seen in the canopy of all forested habitats are the
*pileated woodpecker icoides pubescens), *downy woodpecker
(Picoides pubescens), brown creeper Certhia familiaris), *northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), *yellow-rumped warbler (Dendrocia
coronata), and the Carolina wren (Thyomanes bewickii). Typical reptiles
and amphibians that may be found on the forest floor are the eastern box
turtle (Terrapene Carolina), slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), worm
snake (Carphohis amoenus), and black racer (Coluber constrictor). These
animals utilize fallen logs and the litter layer for cover.
Man-dominated communities support mainly opportunistic species,
those animals adapted to urban environments. *Gray squirrels (Sciurus
carolinensis), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), *Carolina chickadee
(Parus carolinensis), blue jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), and northern cardinal are
very common in this community and may be seen foraging along roadsides
and on lawns. The common house mouse (Mus musculus) lives in close
proximity to humans and also can be found in cultivated fields.
48
Mesic forest and intermittent streams in the area provide breeding
opportunities for many amphibians. Amphibians, in particular, are highly
water-dependent for completion of larval stages in their life cycle. The
northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), spring peeper (Hula crucifer),
upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), marbled salamander
(Amb, sty oma onacum), and the three-lined salamander (Eurycea
guttolineata) are likely to occur in mesic forests and reside in burrows
under logs, stones, and leaf litter in swamps and along streams.
C. Aquatic Life
The majority of waterbodies in the project area are comprised of
small, intermittent Piedmont streams. In the winter and spring, low flow
water is present. In summer, streams beds are dry but may retain small
pools of water. Aquatic insects and snails were noted at many crossings, as
were crayfish (Cambaridae) burrows. Neither fish nor mussel fauna were
seen during field investigations. Fish diversity is expected to be low in
waters without continual flow. Shiners (Notropis spp.), creek chub
(Semotilus atromaculatus), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) may utilize
these intermittent tributaries for spawning during periods of flow.
d. Biotic Community Impacts
Table 3 summarizes potential losses from proposed project
construction based on two alternatives. Alternative 1 is symmetrical five-
lane widening of NC 49 from US 70 to SR 1752 and symmetrical two-lane
widening from SR 1752 to NC 62; Alternative 2 is westside five-lane
widening of NC 49 from US 70 to SR 1928, symmetrical five-lane
widening from SR 1928 to SR 1752, and symmetrical two-lane widening
from SR 1752 to NC 62. As explained in Section III.A., the recommended
improvement Ois a combination of symmetrical, eastside, and westside --
widening to five lanes with curb and gutter from US 70 to SR 1752 and
symmetrical and eastside two-lane improvements from SR 1752 to NC 62.
Since the studied alternatives (see Section III.B.2) have evolved since the
project was surveyed for natural resources, acreages of impacts are
estimates. A more precise delineation and measurement of wetland areas
will be done during the permitting phase of the project. The calculations
tabled below are based on right-of-way limits of 45.7 m (150 ft).
49
Table 3. ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
hectares acres
COMMUNITY
ALTLRNAm MT MPH PF HF MF TOTAL
1 29.5 73.8 1.6(3.9)1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3(0.1) 0.1(0.3) <31.6(78.1)
2 29.5 73.8 1.5 (3.8) 1 <0.1 <O.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 <31.6 78.1
MT, MPH, PF, HF, and MF denote Maintained, Forest, Mixed YmefHarawooa, rme
Forest, Hardwood Forest, and Mesic Forest, respectively.
For terrestrial species, impacts due to the proposed widening will
be reflected in the creation of new habitat and in the alteration and
elimination of previously existing. habitat. Subterranean, burrowing, and
slow moving organisms will be eliminated. Larger, faster animals will
simply be displaced. Expansion of a "highway barrier" can affect both
short-term migrations (diurnal, nocturnal, diel) and long term migrations
(seasonal) of animal populations, depending on individual species'
requirements for food, water, and cover. Also, animal migration may be
interrupted due to vehicular noise. Road-kills will decrease numbers of
individuals of certain species.
Habitat disturbance and sedimentation are extremely detrimental to
aquatic systems. Best Management Practices (BMP's) for protection of
surface waters must be strictly adhered to in order to ensure the biological
integrity of the water bodies impacted by this project. In addition, it is
highly recommended that the construction occur during dry or low flow
periods (summer through fall).
4. Physical Resources
a. Topography and Soils
The subject project lies within the Piedmont Soil Region and
specifically within the Mixed Felsic and Mafic System. Many of the mixed
felsic and mafic areas are moderately to strongly dissected. Topography in
the project area is moderately dissected.
A Cecil-Appling soil association covers the majority of the project
area. Most of the acreage is on broad ridges and gentle slopes and is
cultivated. These soils are well drained and developed from a residuum of
granite, gneiss, and coarse-grained schist.
Worsham soils are hydric and are confined to channels of
intermittent tributaries (approximately 1 meter (2 to 4 feet) in width) and
low wet depressional areas. These soils are poorly drained and strongly
50
acidic. Parent material is colluvium and local alluvium mixed with the
residuum of the underlying granite, gneiss, schist, slate, and other rock.
b. Water Resources
The subject project intercepts ten stream crossings that eventually
drain into the Haw River, located within the Cape Fear River basin. Points
of crossing are above headwaters (less than 5 cfs annual flow), and streams
pass through the project area by way of minor drainage structures. All
crossings are intermittent streams and have narrow channel widths from
1 meter (3 feet) to 1.5 meters (5 feet). Due to heavy rainfall at time of field
visit, water levels were high (0.3 meter (I feet)) and flow-rate was fast.
MM11 are highly silted. Adjacent vegetation is of the
,;p
mesic mixed hardwood type with`avarying percentage of pine from site to
site.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters of North
Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Any
stream which is not named in the schedule of stream classifications carries
the same classification as that assigned to the stream segment of which it is
tributary.
A summary of "best usage" water classifications for water resource
components likely to receive impacts are listed in Table 4 below. A
summary of the "best usage" for which the waters in each class must be
protected follows.
Table 4. "BEST USAGE" CLASSIFICATIONS OF WATER RESOURCES
WATER RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
Quaker Creek S-I1~ NSW ,
Unnamed tributary to Quaker Creek WS-1 .NSW
Four unnamed tributaries to Deep Creek WS1-II NSW
Scrub Creek W,$41 NSW
Two unnamed tributaries to Scrub Creek WS-IINSW i
Bo ds Creek C NSW
Waters classified as WS-II are waters protected as water supplies
which are generally in predominately undeveloped watersheds, where point
source discharges are permitted, where local programs to control nonpoint
source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required, and which are
suitable for all Class C uses.
51
Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
The supplemental classification "NSW' indicates waters needing
additional nutrient management (particularly fertilizer run-ofd due to their
being subject to eutrophication.
The project area falls within a High Quality Water (HQW) zone and
Water Supply Watershed. The HQW zone extends from north of the
northern project terminal to SR 1754 on the west side of NC 49 and from
north of the northern project terminal to SR 1747 on the east side of
NC 49. Projects that are located less than 1.6 km (1 mile) from a HQW
zone and fall within a HQW zone are subject to special regulations as
defined in "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (T15A:04B.0024)
of the Sedimentation Control guidelines. All runoff crossing the
construction area is to be directed to temporary silt basins via lateral
ditches with rock check dams to slow and filter the runoff. Roadway fill
slopes shall be stabilized with seeding; also, siltation controls, such as
temporary silt ditches and silt fences, shall be provided at the toe of the fill.
Early placement of rip-rap slope protection will protect against surface
erosion. Special attention will be given to proper installation and
maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control devices.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
(NC-DEHNR, Division of Environmental Management) addresses long
term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrates. These organisms are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality. No data is available for waterbodies that
fall within the project area.
No Outstanding Resource Waters, nor waters classified as WS-I,
are located in the study area or within 1.6 km (one mile) downstream. No
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits have been issued
for the project area.
C. Water Resource Impacts
Surface water impacts are anticipated for all stream crossings
present. W`sting4pe dill be extended, reducing the linear feet of natural
stream channel. Other potential impacts are increased sedimentation from
construction and/or erosion, increased concentration of toxic compounds
from highway runoff and/or toxic spills, scouring of stream beds due to the
channelization of streams, alterations of water levels due to interruptions or
additions to surface and/or groundwater flow, and changes in light
incidence due to the removal of vegetative cover.
52
Recommendations
- Schedule instream activities during low flow periods (summer, fall).
- Non-point sediment sources should be identified and efforts made to
control sediment runoff.
be implemented during the
construction phase of the project.
Special Topics
a. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S
Surface waters and associated wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) takes jurisdiction over the
discharge of dredged or fill material into these waters of the U. S. as
authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Three jurisdictional wetland sites were identified in the project area
using methods in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(1987). ?M riadi al wetlands (Sites' I!?and`2) are associated vAth
unnxd tnbutar3esof Quakei`arid Scrub Creeks; located;at the northerp
came ?r?ject arel. ,$lte 3,;19cated.in the vicinity of the
N9t° 192; intetsection, is a wet depression in an agricultural field'-and
a cars-to-beisolated,fram a waterbody. Site 1, located in the vicinity of
the NC 49/NC 62 intersection (southwest quadrant), anSite 2,, located
where NC 49 crosses Scrub Creek, may be categorized as palustrine,
(FF O'I A) and ,Site 3 as
forested, broad-leaved deciduous communities
palustrine, emergent, persistent ( EMI) as defined by Cowardin et at.
(1979). Wetland communities were identified in the project corridor on the
basis of low soil chroma values, hydrophytic vegetation, and the presence
of hydrology or hydrological indicators. A summary of wetland impacts
associated with each site is provided in Table 5 below.
53
Table S. SUMMARY OF WETLAND IMPACTS
Hectares (Acres)
SITE, WETLAND CLASSIFICATION STREAM CROSSING ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
1 *PFOIA Quaker Creek <0.1 (<0.3)
2 PFOIA Scrub Creek <0.1 (<0.3)
3 * * PEM 1 None <0.1 <O. 3
TOTAL IMPACTS <0.3 <0.9
* Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded
* * Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent
Permits
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will be required from the
COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of
the United States." Based upon site location and estimated acreage
involved, it is anticipated that impacts will be authorized by
Nationwide Permit [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26)]. This permit generally
authorizes discharges of dredge or fill material in wetlands located
above the headwaters (flow less than 1.5 cubic meters per second
(5 cubic feet per second)) of non-tidal rivers, streams, and their
lakes and impoundments including adjacent wetlands.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
will be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is
required.
ii. Miti ag tion
Compensatory mitigation is generally not required where
Nationwide permits or General permits are authorized, according to
the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. Final
discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
b. Rare and Protected Species
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and
54
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of March 28, 1995, the FWS reports no federally
protected species for Alamance County.
ii. Federal Candidate/State Protected Species
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata), a Candidate 2 (C2)
species, is currently listed by the FWS for Alamance County. A
Candidate 2 species is not legally protected under the Endangered
Species Act and not subject to any of its provisions until it is
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) are granted protection by
the State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the N.C.
Department of Agriculture. Sweet pinesap is a state Candidate
species and is not legally protected. A review of the NHP data base
shows no known occurrences of rare or protected species in the
project area.
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Alamance County participates in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. However, the project area does not include any regulated floodways and
is not included in a detailed study. Most of the project is located in or directly
adjacent to a high quality water, and the runoff from NC 49 in the vicinity of the
project drains into a water supply watershed. Thus, erosion and sedimentation
control is very important at this location. All runoff crossing the construction area
is to be directed to temporary silt basins via lateral ditches with rock check dams
to slow and filter the runoff. Roadway fill slopes shall be stabilized with seeding;
also, siltation controls, such as temporary silt ditches and silt fences, shall be
provided at the toe of the fill. Early placement of rip-rap slope protection will
protect against surface erosion. Special attention will be given to proper
installation and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control devices. The
project will not adversely affect existing drainage patterns or groundwater
resources. Since there are no major drainage crossings included in this project, it
is anticipated that an individual Section 404 permit will not be required.
Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
55
projects on prime and important farmland soils. Since the required right of way is
land which has been converted to urban or other non-agricultural uses or has been
committed to urban development by the local jurisdiction, it is exempt from the
requirements of the Act. Therefore, no further consideration of farmland impacts
is required by the Act.
E. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening of
NC 49 on noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation includes an
inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise
levels in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the
ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected to result 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 Table N1 (see page A-1 in the Appendix).
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are
exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily
56
activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends
essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note that
individuals have varying levels of sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some
more than others, and some individuals become irate 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 night 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.
2. 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 Table
N2 (see page A-2 in the Appendix). The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the
57
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.
3. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine the existing background noise levels. Noise measurement sites are
shown on Figure 11. The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify
the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of
noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level along NC 49 as measured at 50
feet from the roadway ranged from 63.7 to 69.3 dBA. The measured exterior Leq
noise levels are presented in Table N3 (see page A-3 in the Appendix).
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 1.1 and 3.3 dBA of the measured noise levels for the four
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.
4. 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 continually
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 preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen the existing
two-lane highway to a five-lane facility from US 70 to SR 1752 and improve the
existing two-lane highway from SR 1752 to NC 62. Only those existing natural or
man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway sections
58
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.
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 2015. 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 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 feet from the
center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The
locations 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 Ley traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in
Table N4 (see pages A-4 through A-12 in the Appendix). Information included in
these tables consists 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 Table N5 (see
page A-13 in the Appendix). 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,
4 businesses and 102 residential receptors were determined to be impacted by
highway traffic noise in the design year. 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 jurisdiction. For example,
with the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further
development of incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise
levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N6 (see page A-14 in the Appendix) indicates the exterior traffic
noise level increases for the identified receptors in each roadway section.
Predicted noise level increases for this project range from +0 to +7 dBA. When
59
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 Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the
existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in
the lower portion of Table N2. Consideration for noise abatement measures must
be given to receptors which fall in either category. There are 106 impacted
receptors in the project area. Possible noise abatement measures are discussed
below.
a. Highwav Alignment
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 siting the roadway at
a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway
alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement for the subject
project.
b. Traffic System Management Measures
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.
C. Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often
be applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect
highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may
include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
60
The project will not maintain any control of access, meaning
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 (50 feet) from the
barrier would normally require a barrier 122 meters (400 feet) long. An
access opening of 12 meters (40 feet) (10 percent of the area) would limit
its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND
ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No.
FHWA-HHI-HEV-73- 7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page
5-27).
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.
6. "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, 105 residences
would experience traffic noise impacts in the design year based on the projected
traffic volumes by approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the
receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the
range of +0 to +6 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,
61
considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation
of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial.
The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made
structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive
construction noise.
8. 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.
F. Air Quality Analysis
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 dioxide (SO2), 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. In order
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 (328 feet)) 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 together to determine the ambient CO
concentration for the receptor in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere
where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive
62
emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient
ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to decrease as a
result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20
kilometers (16 to 32 miles) downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban
areas, not individual streets and highways as a whole, are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons. 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 burn 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 burn 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 2
grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon.
In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and
as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air 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
63
are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the
CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within the project limits. Carbon monoxide
vehicle emission factors were calculated for the year of 1995 and the design year of 2015
using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE5A mobile
source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be
1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor #5 at a distance
of 9 meters (30 feet) from the proposed centerline of the roadway and 30 feet from the
existing centerline. The "build" and "no-build" one-hour CO concentrations for the
nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 1995 and 2015 are shown in the following table.
Table 6 ONE HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS (PPM)
NEAREST SENSITIVE BUILD No-BUILD
RECEPTOR 1995 2015 1995 2015
R-5 4.4 5.1 4.3 9.0
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case one-hour CO
analysis is equal to 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard. See Tables Al through A4 on pages A-15 through A-18 of the Appendix
for input data and output.
The project is located within the jurisdiction of air quality of the Winston-Salem
Regional Office of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
The ambient air quality for Alamance County has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is not anticipated to create
any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
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 utilized under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust
64
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.
G. Stream Modification
earn modifications are proposed as a part of this project.
H. Hazardous Materials
1. Underground Storage Tanks/Hazardous Materials Involvement
Based on NCDOT's geological reconnaissance survey, 5 operational
facilities and 1 non-operational facility with the potential for underground storage
tank (UST) involvement were identified on this section of the NC 49 corridor.
The location of these sites and the respective number of UST's potentially
impacted by this project is given in the list that follows. If right of way is required
from any of these parcels, NCDOT will conduct a site assessment to determine if
there is any underground contamination within the proposed right of way.
ExxON (Inactive; UST Owner: Unknown)
This facility (no Facility ID number) is located in the northeast quadrant of
the US 70/NC 49 intersection in Haw River. Existing on the property are three
petroleum UST's, located at 14.6 meters (48 feet) from the centerline of NC 49.
One monitor well exists on the premises.
CITGO FOOD MART #11 (UST Owner: Howard Lunsford, Hurdle Mills, N. C.)
This facility (Facility ID No.: 0-032649) is located in the southwest
quadrant of the NC 49/Keck Road (SR 1204) intersection. Found on the premises
were two gasoline UST's (10,000 gallons or 37,879 liters each). The tanks,
located 32.9 meters (108 feet) from the centerline of NC 49, are made of steel
construction and were installed in October of 1990.
SANDY CROSS SHELL (UST Owner; Alaniance Oil, Burlington, N.C.)
This facility (Facility ID No.: 0-024196) is located in the southwest
quadrant of the NC 49/SR 1752 (Sandy Cross Road) intersection. On this
property are three petroleum UST's: one gasoline (4,000 gallons or 15,152 liters),
one diesel (1,000 gallons or 3,788 liters), and one tank of unknown contents (550
65
gallons or 2,083 liters). The largest tank is made of fiberglass reinforced plastic,
and the two remaining tanks are made of steel. All tanks have cathodic protection
and were installed in May of 1985. There are also monitoring wells on the
premises.
SEAMSTERS MINIMART (UST Owner: Huffman Oil, Burlington)
This facility (Facility ID No.: 0-024077) is located in the southeast
quadrant of the NC 49/SR 1752 (Sandy Cross Road) intersection. On this
property, there are 5 petroleum UST's, 3 gasoline (4,000 gallons or 15,152 liters)
UST's, one diesel (2,000 gallons or 7,576 liters) UST, and one kerosene (2,000
gallons or 7,756 liters) UST. These tanks, made of steel with cathodic protection,
are located 9.1 meters (60 feet) from the centerline of NC 49 and were installed
May of 1985.
Pump-N-PAx#5 (UST owner: Pump-N-Pak., Inc., Liberty, N.C.)
This facility (Facility ID No.: 0-022737) is located in the southwest
quadrant of the NC 49/SR 1990 (Hester Road) intersection. Found on this
property were 5 petroleum UST's, 3 gasoline UST's (8,000, 6,000, and 4,000
gallons or 30,303, 22,727, and 15,152 liters, respectively), one diesel UST (6,000
gallons or 22,727 liters), and one kerosene UST (4,000 gallons or 15,152 liters).
These tanks are located 9.1 meters (60 feet) from the centerline of NC 49 and are
made of steel. The gasoline tanks were installed in May of 1981, and the other
tanks were installed in April of 1985.
PLEASANT GROVE SHELL (UST owner: Alamance Oil, Burlington, N.C.)
This facility (Facility ID No.: 0-031310) is located in the southwest
quadrant of the NC 49/SR 1990 (Hester Road) intersection. Found on this
property were four petroleum UST's, 3 gasoline UST's (1,000, 1,000, and
550 gallons or 3,788, 3,388, and 2,083 liters, respectively), and one diesel UST
(2,000 gallons or 7,576 liters). These tanks, located 9.1 meters (60 feet) from the
centerline of NC 49, are made of steel and FRP. The gasoline tanks were installed
in September of 1989; the small tank was installed in September of 1974; and the
diesel tank was installed in January of 1964.
2. Landfills
There are no landfills in the project area that would be impacted by the
project.
66
3. Other Potentials Contaminated Properties
The files of the Division of Solid Waste Management were consulted to
ascertain whether any unregulated dump sites or other potentially contaminated
properties exist within the proposed project limits. Based on those records and the
EPA's Superfund list, there are no potential environmental problem sites that
should affect this project corridor.
I. Geotechnical Impacts
Physiography Relief, and Drainage
The study area is situated within the north-central part of the Piedmont
Physiographical Plateau of North Carolina. The topography generally slopes
towards the southeast and is relatively flat to gently sloping with some mildly
rolling hills.
The nearly level bottom land that lies along the rivers and larger creeks
varies from approximately a meter (3 feet) to about one-half kilometer (one-fourth
mile) in width. Along existing NC 49, the relief is fairly moderate with elevations
at an average of 198 meters (650 feet) above mean sea level. Mainly because of
the rolling terrain, the soils have moderate to rapid natural drainage. All of this
area is drained by the Haw River and its tributaries.
2. Geology and Soils
The main geologic formations of this area possibly occurred between the
latter part of the Triassic period and the first part of the Cretaceous period. This
region lies within the Carolina Slate Belt and predominantly consists of greenstone
schist which is chiefly volcanic in origin. Specifically, one large unit of greenstone
schist extends through Graham and Haw River and is oriented northeastward and
southwestward across this portion of the county. These rocks exhibit evidence of
having been deformed and sheared. According to the North Carolina Department
of Agriculture Bureau of Soils, the proposed roadway corridor along NC 49
consists of Cecil clays and Durham sandy loam as surface soils. The soil profile for
this project is shown in the Soil Conservation Service county soils manual to be
moderately to well drained and to include A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-7 soils of the
AASHTO soils classification system.
Mineral Resources
The chief material mined in this area is aggregate with two large
commercial quarries, Martin Marietta and Luck Stone, just west of the project
limits. The Martin Marietta quarry, which is closest to the project, is
67
approximately 300 meters (1000 feet) west of existing NC 49 and is well out of
reach of our proposed right of way. No impact to mineral resources is anticipated
during construction of this project.
4. Erosion Control
Soils within this corridor are anticipated to have some erosion problems in
roughly the first 5 kilometers (approximately 3 miles), measured from the southern
terminal) of the project just past Haw River. The soils in this portion of the
corridor are highly erodible and moderately to well-drained. Soils on the
remainder of the project along NC 49 to Pleasant Grove are not very erodible and
should not pose any problems.
5. Groundwater
Groundwater is anticipated to have a minimal effect upon construction of
the project. It is unlikely subsurface waters will be encountered within the project
corridor.
Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction, the following
measures, along with those already mentioned, will be enforced during the construction
phase.
1. All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's health and safety will
not be compromised during the movement of any materials to and from construction sites
along the project and that any inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a
minimum.
2. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent endangering the safety and
general welfare of the public and to prevent diminishing the value, utility, or appearance of
any public or private properties.
3. The contractor shall be required to observe and comply with all laws, ordinances,
regulations, orders, and decrees, including those of the N.C. State Board of Health
regarding the disposal of solid waste. All solid waste will be disposed of in accordance
with the Standard Specifications of the Division of Highways. These specifications have
been reviewed and approved by the Solid Waste Vector Control Section of the Division of
Health Services, N.C. Department of Human Resources.
4. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas provided by the contractor outside of
the right of way unless otherwise required by the plans or Special Provisions or unless
disposal within the right of way is permitted by the engineer. Disposal of waste and debris
68
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.
5. An extensive rodent control program will be established if structures are to be
removed or demolished.
6. The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious disruptions in
service to any of the utilities serving the area. Before construction is started, a
preconstruction conference involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and the
Division of Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures. This
conference will include a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during construction
to minimize interruption of water service.
7. Prior to construction, it will be determined whether any existing utilities in the
project area need to be relocated or adjusted. At that time it will also be determined
whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible for this work.
8. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be burned, removed from the project, or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken to insure burning is be done at the
greatest distance practicable form dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such
as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
9. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the contractor before work is
started. The schedule will show the time relationship between phases of the work which
must be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe construction practices and
temporary erosion control measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule, the contractor will be required to follow
those provisions of the specifications which pertain to erosion and siltation. These
contract provisions are in accordance with the strict erosion control measures as outlined
in the Department of Transportation's Federal Aid Policy Guide (FAPG) Part 650B.
Temporary erosion control measures such as the use of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc.
will be used as needed.
10. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project, the
contractor shall obtain a certification from the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
certifying that the removal of material from the borrow source will have no effect on any
known district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be
furnished to the engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
69
11. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be subjected to brief disruption
during construction of the project. Every effort will be made to insure that the
transportation needs of the public will be met both during and after construction.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received from Federal State and Local Auencies
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has coordinated with
appropriate local, state, and federal agencies regarding this project. Appropriate
coordination will continue throughout the design and construction phases of the project.
Listed below are the agencies which were contacted. Written comments were
received from those agencies marked with an asterisk (*). Copies of agency comments are
included in the Appendix, pages C-I through C-22.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
Federal Emergency Management Administration - Atlanta
* N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
* N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR)
* N.C. DEHNR - Division of Land Resources
* N.C. DEHNR - Winston-Salem Regional Office
* N.C. DEHNR - Division of Soil and Water Conservation
* N.C. DEHNR - Division of Environmental Management
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Health Services
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Human Resources
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources - Division of Archives and History
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
* Alamance County
Town of Haw River
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held for the subject project on June 17,
1993 from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. in the Haw River Town Hall (see copy of the news release on
page D-1 of the Appendix). Approximately 50 citizens attended the workshop and were
given the opportunity to comment on the proposed improvements and to ask questions.
An aerial mosaic showing the project was displayed, and handouts were provided (a copy
of the handout is found on pages D-2 through D-6 in the Appendix).
70
NCDOT representatives at the workshop stated that a 24-foot pavement with
8-foot grassed shoulders was proposed. A two-lane facility was anticipated to be
sufficient based on preliminary traffic projections. NCDOT also said that consideration
would be given to providing left-turn lanes where needed and to providing a three-lane
section (with a continuous left-turn lane) in congested locations (perhaps inside the Haw
River town limits). Furthermore, it was explained that a five-lane cross-section would be
considered if traffic projections warranted it. (Traffic projections subsequently received in
July, 1993, which showed volumes significantly higher than the preliminary volumes (see
Figure 3B), prompted NCDOT to study the five-lane alternative). Hence, NCDOT
included five-lane widening as an alternative to study. The NCDOT presented plans to
improve both the NC 49/US 70 (southern terminal) and the NC 49/NC 62 (northern
terminal) junctions to standard four-legged, signalized intersections.
NCDOT also presented the possibility of re-routing NC 49 along SR 1928 and
widening SR 1928 from US 70 to NC 49 instead of widening existing NC 49 from US 70
to SR 1928. This would provide more direct access to I-85. Most people favored the
existing routing of NC 49 and wanted improvements to occur along existing NC 49 rather
than SR 1928 because of potential right of way damages to houses and property on
SR 1928. Some people felt more traffic (bound for Graham and Burlington) use NC 49
than SR 1928 and, therefore, it is more reasonable to keep the present routing. Concern
was expressed regarding the heavy truck volumes on NC 49, and no one wanted increased
truck traffic on SR 1928.
Owners of property at the NC 49/US 70 intersection opposed the purchase of
more right of way in that vicinity since they were affected earlier by the construction of the
Haw River Bypass (TIP Project R-611). Many people felt that left-turn lanes are needed,
especially near the trailer park and residential neighborhood access points north of Haw
River and near the two rock quarries north of Haw River.
C. Public Hearin
A public hearing for the subject project will be held prior to the completion of the
final environmental document.
MAD/tp
71
_ t-nape) 3
1766 1908
h
1764 1.0 a a..
6i 2
1762 EN 1765
D b
PROJECT 1 Pleasant Grove `n
1- - 1 -
1-- -1 -y- .2 •y= 'I' - - -4
I,? - 49 ' -y- - -1- - -y- -'
51, 62 5rp5t2 2.2 FAS
/ 1909
At Jeffries FAS `?
Q
aovlinglm. e U • / Cross C14
1 ?5 Rrs: ;. dry mon 1002 jL
Ridge / R
1 le Aitamanaw j 62 ;0 49 I Ch. m r a?
e ?
1 1 87 -Gle..- ! 7? F Cro
• 'Eton ave. Buriingtan ?,Q 49 I?k
It ale - c
2.0 19la'
%ve
ALAMANCE 1 ?'awv
COUNTY 1.2 1 _.
pan` 6rahan, ?' 6 Q i ! 1911 119
1f Swe of ile
1794 y
I 87
a ?
t;'ALAMANC\ 1995 y,
\a ao
2. I?l.zh \ c
1 S? 1 Snow Cam ? • C f
1? si793 1990 1910
1 s 1999 9 .4 1912 Mile _
1912 Chapel
y Chapel >a \ / i
1749 1735 - 1921 ) l A
?72 1752 9 1915 1791 1777 1916 b LINE 1735
C 2005
1?? ar 1921
1915 _ .5
Green Level
" Hopedale 1917
1917 1919
1 1 Quaker N 1.5 .6
FAU Q Creek
`
Res. 1921
1 sP ?.
1 >> ? - 1988 1920
a
y> ?
.P 7746
r<1? /.?? `Q Sp»ys
1927 1948 1 r
I d I
`•? - .... ? \., BEGIN 1 I:i: l S?`?/ ? Gje I?
c:T
4i: 'Haw River
EXT.
`70
soft 4F,
N GTO N 2•2 ::::: , 1. a FAU•G I.2 /RAILWAY I
?.•:::
}J
FAu ;..,, '
1 `t - :t /• :i =%/ i is '.:
n7,266
?c4 . ::'r':? f.• y. L:.
. 'AU: 5 HAW RIVEr7?•::
`$:•rAU f I POP. ?':- :;' S01Tfai? NORTH CAROLINA DEPAMMENT OF
c . KERN PJ ? :, F 2 TRANSPORTATION
1 GUt 1,858 11
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
FAU : • _ _ ;•? PLANNING AND ENWRON7MENTAL
9 49 49 'yl ?''' `2,La?v BRANCH
54 FAP 150
87 ter: ..5 .5 NC 49
FAU , :. . FROM US 70
GRAHAM 4 F9 148} :::::: 85 v TO NC 62
POP. 5 '::?; :'; ='::• • 8,674 - F FA t?:•; . ; i
T. 1. P. NO. R-2543
:.\ J
:•. :-, • ? :.2 .. FIG. 1
?:,/ I• . 147 (• ?-

l?
v
Z
J
s
-: -..
-= : n
r ?.'
? J
?? 1 :?
?'
r ?J
^??.??
N
n
?_
N
n
??
?Y
A
?-..
:r
h
`1.
?J?
n r
..F M1
\?. _
.\_
?w
(!
?.
~ ?!
r
J? 1
r
Y?
?'*v
?'
fv
x

Z
O
U)
n
r
rn
Y Y Y Y Y L4 D A c 10
G a

f ? .D yD D C
i
?
-I
p
?1 ^I = N 1 y C C a
w w • -1 -i

N - 0 0 ?? 0 /?71 A 4 N ?

c? \
//S
T
tp !Z4
b k
v !0 y
co ??
tb:j O y y
'b
y ? ? O
y
• o
PA. WILL TRAIL
Sit 1747
SR 1912
SR 1990
NC 49
SR 1747
SR 1752
SR 1754
s-R o0.2
6
o?, sn
SR 1745

N

(A (A
c
y o sr o,
0 00
9
0
0

°o CD
CD &
Go
w
-/ 0O
\ ?o 0
O _ O O
MI LO
) w _
Ln O CD
p 0
_
W
_ ? 0 O a

0 0 N_

0 mml
0 w

o

\
O N

a

0 N r

A.

0°
O ON N ?.. ,,, J
,
o
o O . W ° -? bolo a -? ? N
d N d

0
0 OD

0 00 -I M
0) N
p d
00 -4

N OD W

N O

0 m

0
N
0 `
0 W o 4
D ?w N 0
M OD ° a0 00
? o 0 0
°
2
0 o'
OD -
O N

0 00
0 %
N
N I tJ1
N OD
0
00
N
w
.b
N _
O O
aw
00
d N
O
N C?
00/
O?0 W LO ODD N
NN 00
)o
tD ?
I s o F

p 0
J O a
O o
a N CO -4
f N o 0
J
6972 -
LA m
00 co cn w1

'
°
l w _?

l°
1°
11784
v
°Dl o
o
0 o
o
O 0
o
O
a
C-)
x
r
z
rn
m 00
00
m
N
O O
0% Ln LO L"
0 I
a N

o O

00
N
O
N
O I
0

d
00
? N
° NC 49
aw
O O
co
'O
i0
z
n
N
M N
O? OD N CD N
L"

Cc W
co ?
O 0 A. N -4

CO Q? a 0
N 0I0
I00
Fl6972
W N
O O
co
11784
a
n
x
r
Z
m
5640 NC 49
00 8900
1::? O O

W
n
-
? ?
N O
D

z m
n -4 X
a -5 D
:° .p
- C)
m

C) p, C-
rn LO
v' Olm%
D

a D
-

LA 0
? ;a
O
...

z D D

n
r
-n
u/
C
it
' Itll;i -n C IP t ? _
-0 X
Z y!„ ; t
d ^?
m.---R* ------------y- ------- - - -- -------- ---------- -? .------ -- -----,---i`-
Q
U ( J /?/ ! •• ? 'V.,?l ., 'L • °4 ! t ',? O fits Q
d , rte' V"4`•. - a IlAw" ? Y I 1
r .?
ql' 'I'I':illl?'.,I,'+?',G,Ij1!?' ? •,D -, ,r , H ( •jv i`' d•?...- ?o .,O a' d` ? i ? S.
'I: il' •!IMI III - A ? ? ?'n) ? ? ?` •? •? -a ? i ? .
l i,l!p o,r,?l??i.?•., fill ` \?-e --1 +.y» I ?? i? ? \ I ? \_. '
m I`•'l•- - '?'? `
00
I? , I y
(D 00
ICA
WI ? `? '
D N o ? ? v , •1 ?? ' d'°
r.j
C ?.i .,fib. F • e ?'` • I f•' ?..
r
? 0 0 0 0° o o° m ' ' ? • tl t
t^ f
a? jO
om m K t`..I f •.•? I
Z
-c ab
n C)
o
Z
, tr
L 41
_. - _ - - - - _ -._ - - _
---------------
w 3 . i ',!t ?,y
I
!

AV`
. x,<
R
p
w
am
w
?O
M
0

T- a
N
v
O
(O
et CO
N I
1
w
F-
Q~

?
Op
CL Z
O Q
m
a m
m

co r 4-
c')
w
o a
LL
= O
0
cc w
p Q ??o N
/?
w U- c T
ri)
I.A..
O
a: S
a
! CI f
O r i '
o? I
? i
C ! O N ??
G Cf) 1 r
? I
? I I
m
W
w
cf)
Op
a Z
V O Q
a CO
m
U
p
w
cp
Orr
a w
O m
m
a
z
O
H
U
w
J
Q
U
a
w
z
0
w
O
a
O
d
LL
s

m
CO
W
m
Z)
0
LL
T ?
AL i o
N I
O

i iJ
CVI J
m
I cm
r i
w
z
wl

a ! c6 v
i
o
wl
Cl)
O
a-
0

a
?i
1
N

co
?I

I
T
- Q
N? O
= t ;
NI w
N :;;r
,-
r d
w
i
1 ,^
Z
O
U
w
CD
J
Q
U_
a_
w
z
J
N
0
w
CO
O
a-
0
cc:
CL
O
rn
a) C U)
r-
cc ?a
to cf)
o c O N
' a m
W CE
1?• N O
?zU?
N rn Q CL W
O F-
CO) ^
X CL VJ I..L.
U --? ,? m
z W CL
' m m
-D V -
go 93
t
0)
LO
/? U •'
m m
-- CD a
U o oy
Z - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - z zm
-?
t§v tag
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O
N
t- I ,-----------------------
N O
z
CD I
-? :------------------
,z --U ? N
z cp Z
0) -'? N
• U --? ? z U
Z z

??
r
?`
s
a=-
"s
r
?O O r?
a ,^,
e-?
:?1 ti„ ?
_? ??
?% it !; r
'? f;
w T
y' .+"'
r
?:
;r
'T.
.r
??
r
t?
. .apt mo'o`
®e ?
$ O
D - \
e yO? • % i
(JJOO
Y ? l O
i
' d l / Vf
S
.? vi ?.de '•• `
Lc?
woo

C-Z
N5 Voj
Ya °
BY
ads,
J J?
46
LJ ? 3C?• , ? ? ~ J

,n

s
Ai?
k4 ,

7
r
z
gs
IT
ad
mr
r
a
Z
u n n u (n Cs.
?rn
pC(3)00V??
Qo?
y? o
f ?-
CATES LOOP R
a? 100
IS m e 2
4\ I I I o
1 ` .482.435
1 \ N
Yrw s fn
1 \ uypi0 ? ? ?,
1 1 aw
t
S --
i
Ole 0
1
®o®
JV: cL

ti.
. ? s
400.
' •
R '.000.
-?'
1 4Q . ? o"0
\ C
r is a. r?? ?
I
11 11
/
ems' °" .,.•"" o A
1 •
?'
?"`?-?..
????
??
c e
\?
V
pp ? 8f. I.T f
i? ' `
?.
? .?
?? ? ??
? ? ? o
? $ ,?,
-.-
' e, ^
? `1 ?: T
• --t n Z
i
i
z
0
H
?
?
? ?
_
?
o.
?
? `? ?
b
o
?
N w
"' ?
?.j vi
`Z'?
(JQ

n
?,
?rn
??
CO

J
r

?.r

r sv w

} r;
\ 1\
`,1
f

FIGURE N2 - NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES
NC 49 Alamance County
US 70 to NC 62
TIP TR-2543A State Project TM 5.1470601
FIGURE 11
I
APPENDIX A
Additional Tables
(Traffic Noise and Air Quality)
a
r,
TABLE 11
HEARING: SOUNDS BCMW=ING US DAILY

DjIjZ
Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff
140 HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
7 Motor test chamber
130
s
-
1p
` der: pneumatic jackhammer
wd
UNCCMFORTABLY LOUD
L
rock music
Amplified
I10
m
100
in, farm t=actor
.n, elevated tra
F
mower, newspaper press LOUD
L

taffic, noisy factor! .
"?
40
Diesel t--uck 40 mph 50 ft. away
0
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal

C Average factory, vacuum cleaner 4
,M0p?yAT::+.'t LOUD
passenger car 50 =h 50 f_. away
8 70
Quiet typewriter
60 Singing birds, window air-conditionsr
_ L

S Quiet automobile
QUIET
Norval conversation, average office
50
Household ref: gerator
VERY QUIET
Quiet office
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 fast away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
THRESHOLD OF VARING
'
S
AVERAGE PERSON
JUST AUDTTM--
Whisper
1
j
THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
i

-10
world Book, Band MWally Atlas of t. Human Body,
Sources: Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. alishifski and E. R. Barford
(Researched by N- Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
A-1
TABLE N2
NOISE MX=MWT =TEA
Hourly A-weighted Sound Level - dec`-bets (dBA)
Activity Leq(h) Description of activity Category Category canes and sense an impor-,.ant public
aordinary sigsufl
Lands on which wrenitY apd quiet are Of aocz:
A 57 servation If those qualities is easent-al if the area is to continue a
(Exterior) weed and where the Pr
serve its intended purpose.
67 Picnic areas, recreation areas. playgrounds, active sports areas. parks, residences, motels,
3 reties, and hospitals.
(Exterior) hotels, sanOOls: churches. lib
Developed lands. properties. or activities a" included in Categories A ar 2 above.
C 72
(Sxtsricr)
Undeveloped lands
D ches, libraries. hospitals. and
_ Residences, Motels, hotels, public meeting =4o23'}seaools, c'.ur
_ 52
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title-23 Code of Federal Regulations
Admire sy ation
DEFINI ^ON OF SUBsz=I+AL n;mm
Hourly A-` Oigttted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Noise Level Increase in d8A from Existing Noise
Existing Future Noise Levels
in Leq(h) Levels to
> 15
< 50
> 10
> 50

source:
A-2
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Le4)
NO 49 From US 70 to NO 62, Alamance County,
State Project # 8.1470601, TIP # R-2543 A
a
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1. NC 49, .15 Mile North of US-70 Grassy 63
2. NC 49, .09 Mile South of SR 1745 Grassy 68
3. NO 49, .68 Mile South of SR 1990 Grassy 69
4. NC 49, .42 Mile South of NC 62 Grassy 66
's
Note: The ambient noise level sites were measured U-50 feet from
the center of the nearest lane of traffic.
A
A-3
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID B LAND USE CATEGORY
......................
From US-70 to SR 1747

1 Business C NC 49 80 L 61 NC 49 80 L - - 67 + 6
2 Business C " 60 L 63 60 L - - 69 + 6
3 Business C " 80 R 61 " 80 R - - 67 + 6
4 Business C 80 R 6i " 80 R - - 67 + 6
5 Residence B " 30 L 66 " 30 L -------------------- a1w--------------
6 Residence B " 50 L 64 " 50 L -------------------- R/W-------------_
7 Residence B " 70 L 62 " 70 L - - * 68 + 6
8 Business C 70 R 62 70 R - - 68 + 6
9 Business C 190 R 54 " 190 R - - 60 + 6
10 Residence B 70 L 62 70 L - 68 + 6
11 Residence ', . B " 50 L 64 " 50 L --------------------R/W--------------

12
Residence
.B
" 50
L
64 '
50
L -------------------- R/W--------"'-°
13 Business C 60 L 63 " 60 L - - 69 + 6
14 Residence B 210 R 53 •' 210 R - - 59 + 6
15 Residence B " 40 R 65 " 40 R --------------------R/W--------------
16 Residence B " 110 L 58 " 110 L - - 65 + 7
17 Residence B " 70 L 62 " 70 L - - * 68 + 6
18 Residence B 140 R 56 " 140 R - - 63 + 7
19 Residence B " 280 R 50 280 R - - 56 + 6
20 Residence B " 140 L 56 " 140 L - - 63 + 7
21 Residence B " 50 L 64 '• 50 L --------------------R/W--------------
22 Business C " 40 L 65 " 40 L --------------------R/W--------------
23 Residence B " 70 R 62 " 70 R - - * 68 + 6
24 Residence B 80 R 61 " -80 -'rt - - * 67 + 6
25 Residence B " 70 R 62 " 70 R - - * 68 + 6
26 Residence B " 70 L 62 70 L - - * 68 + 6
27 Residence B " 60 L 63 " 60 L - - * 69 + 6
28 Residence B " 50 L 64 50 L --------------------R/W--------------
29 Residence B " 150 R 56 " 150 R - - 62 + 6
30 Residence B 80 L 61 •' 80 L - - * 67 + 6 f
31 Residence B " 60 L 63 " 60 L - - * 69 + 6
32 Business C 80 R 61 •' 80 R - - 67 + 6
NOT E: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L --> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise
Category E levels
noise are hourly A-weighted noise levels.
levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). -Y-->
* _> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-4
1/9
NC 49 From US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County,
State Project N 8.1470601, TIP N R-2543 A
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
.................. ..... .................. ........................ ........
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 49 From US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County,
State Project # 8.1470601, TIP # R-2543 A
i
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE( ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft)
From US-70 to SR 1747 (Cont.d)
33 Residence B NC 49 70 L 62 NC 49 70 L
34 Residence B " 80 L 6i '• 80 L
35 Residence B 80 L 61 80 L
36 Residence B 80 L 61 " 80 L
37 Residence B " 11C L 58 " 110 L
38 Residence B " 70 L 62 70 L
39 Residence B 110 L 58 " 110 L
40 Residence B 80 L 621 80 L
41 Residence _ B 80 i 61 80 L
42 Residence B " 80 L 61 " 80 L
43 Residence • B " 80 L 61 " 80 L
44 Residence B 80 L 61 '• 80 L
45 Residence B " 80 L 61 " 80 L
46 Residence B •' 80 L 61 " 80 L
47 Residence B '• 120 L 58 " 120 L
48 Residence B 120 L 58 " 120 L
49 Residence B " 120 L 58 " 120 L
50 Residence B '• 120 L 58 " 120 L
51 Residence B 120 L 58 120 L
52 Residence B '• 120 L 58 " 120 L
53 Residence B " 130 L 57 " 130 L
54 Residence B " 130 L 57 130 L
55 Residence B " 130 L 57 " 130 L
56 Residence B " 130 L 57 " -130 =Ir
57 Residence B " 130 L 57 130 L
58 Residence B 130 L 57 " 130 L
59 Residence B 100 L 64 " 100 L
60 Business C " 100 L 64 " 100 L
61 Residence B 50 L 68 •' 50 L
62 Residence B 100 L 64 100 L
63 Residence B " 80 L 65 80 L
64 Residence B " 70 L 66 " 70 L
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
2/9
NOISE
LEVEL.
INCREASE
- - * 68 + 6
- - * 67 + 6
- - * 67 + 6
- - * 67 + 6
- - 65 + 7
- - * 68 + 6
- - 65 + 7
- - * 67 + 6
- - * 67 + 6
- - * 67 + 6
- - * 67 + 6
- - * 67 + 6
- - * 67 + 6
- - * 67 + 6
- - 64 + 6
- - 64 + 6
- - 64 + 6
- - 64 + 6
- - 64 + 6
- - 64 + 6
- - 63 + 6
- - 63 + 6
- - 63 + 6
- - 63 + 6
- - 63 + 6
- - 63. + 6
- - * 66 + 2
- - 66 + 2
-------------------R/W---- ----------
- - * 66 + 2
* 67 + 2
- - * 68 + 2
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). * » Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-5
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 49 From US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County,
State Project # 8.1470601, TIP # R-2543 A
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
=ID=#=LAND:USE CATEGORY =NAME .... DISTANCE (=f L) LEVEL
==DISTANCE(f=)
NAME
From US-70 to SR 1747 (Cont.d)
65 Residence B NC 49 130 R 62 NC 49 130 R

66 Residence
B
150 R
60
150 R
"
67 Residence B
•' 120 R
62
" 120 R
68 Residence B 100 R 64 100 R
C
60 R
•
67
" 60 R
69 Business
70 Residence
B '•
70 L
66
70 L
"
71 Residence B
•• 60 L
67
60 L
72 Residence B
60 L
57
" 60 L
73 Residence B 90 L 65 90 L
74 Residence B
•• 80 L
65
" 80 L

75 Residence
,B
100 L
64
100 L
"
76 Residence B
110 L
63
110 L
77 Residence H 190 R 58 190 R
78 Residence B
•• 60 R
67
'• 60 R

79 Residence
B
100 L
64
100 L
•'
80 Residence B
•• 100 L
64
" 100 L

81 Residence
B
90 L
"
65
90 L
?•
82 Residence B
" 120 R
62
" 120 R
From SR 1747 to SR 1752
83 Residence B NC 49 50 R 68 NC 49 50 R

84 Residence
B
70 R
••
66
70. R
'•
-4
•• 70 R 66 " -70 -Ir"
85 Residence B

86 Residence
B
50 L
68
50 L
"
87 Residence B
•• 60 L
67
" 60 L

88 Residence
B
60 L
••
67
60 L
"
89 Residence B
'• 90 L
65
" 90 L

90 Residence
H
90 R
•'
65
90 R
•'
91 Residence B
'• 30 R
71
" 30 R

92 Residence
B
120 L
62
120 L
"
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
63 + 1
62 + 2
64 + 2
* 66 + 2
_ - 69 + 2
_ _ * 68 + 2
_ _ * 89 + 2
_ _ * 69 + 2
_ - * 66 + 1
_ - * 67 + 2
_ - * 66 + 2
_ - 65 + 2
_ - 60 + 2
* 69 + 2
* 66 + 2
* 66 + 2
_ - * 66 + 1
64 + 2
-------------------- R/W--------------
* 70 + 4
* 70 + 4
-------------------- R/W------------
* 71 + 4
* 71 + 4
* 68 + 3
* 68 + 3
-------------------- R/W--------------
* 66 + 4
3/9
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. *
_> Traffic noise impact (per 23 Cf'R Part 772)•
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48).
A-6
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 49 From US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County,
State Project # 8.1470601, TIP # R-2543 A
A
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft)
From SR 1747 to SR 1752 (Cont.d)
93 Residence B NC 49 90 L 65 NC 49 90 L
94 Residence B " 70 L 66 " 70 L
95 Business C " 60 R 67 " 60 R
96 Residence B " 40 R 69 " 40 R
97 Residence B " 100 R 64 " 100 R
98 Residence B " 70 R 66 " 70 R
99 Residence B " 70 R 66 " 70 R

100 Residence
B
70 R
66
70 R
"
101 Residence -_ B
60 L
67
" 60 L
102 Residence B 60 L 67 60 L
103 Residence S_H
70 L
"
66
" 70 L
104 Business C " 60 L 67 60 L
60 R 67 60 R
105 Business C
106 Residence B " 120 R 62 " 120 R

107 Residence
B
70 L
66
70 L
•'
108 Residence B " 60 L 67 " 60 L
109 Residence B " 60 L 67 60 L
110 Residence B " 70 L 66 70 L
111 Residence B 40 R 69 •' 40 R
112 Residence B 30 R 71 30 R
113 Residence B 70 R 66 70 R
114 Residence B " 110 R 63 " 110 R

C
60 R
"
67
60 - R
115 Business
100 L
64 4
'• 1C0 `I:
116 Residence B
117 Residence B " 60 R 67 " 60 R

118 Residence
B
80 R
?•
65
80 R
"
119 Residence B " 80 R 65 " 80 R
120 Residence B " 80 R 65 " 80 R
121 Residence B " 90 R 65 `• 90 R
122 Residence B 90 R 65 90 R
123 Residence B " 100 R 64 " 100 R
124 Residence B 100 R 64 100 R
4/9
NOISE
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
68 + 3
70 + 4
71 + 4
-------------------- R/W--------------
_ _ 67 + 3
70 + 4
70 + 4
7C + 4
71 + 4
71 + 4
70 + 4
_ - * 71 + 4
71 + 4
66 + 4
70 + 4
71 + 4 .
71 + 4
70 + 4
-------------------- R/W--------------
-------------------- R/W--------------
_ 70 + 4
67 + 4
71 + 4
67 + 3
_ - * 71 + 4
69 + 4
69 + 4
69 + 4
68 + 3
68 + 3
67 + 3
_ - • 67 + 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 contributinPart g roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). s Traffic noise impact (per
A-7
I
I
TABLE N4 5/9
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 49 From US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County,
j
State Project A 8.1470601, TIP N R-2543 A
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
I
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
=mINCREASE
ID $ LAND USE CATEGORY NAME ?DISSTANCE(=t) LEVEL NAME ==DISTANCE(ft) _L_===-__ MAXIMUM
From SR 1747 to SR 1752 (Cont.d)
125 Residence B NC 49 200 R 58 NC 49 200 R
_ - 61
+ 3
+ 3
126 Business C 100 L 64 '. 100 L - - 67 + 4
127 Residence B •' 150 R 60 150 R _ - 64 + 3
128 Residence B
130 R
62
130
R
_ _ 65
*

+ 4
129 Residence H 80 L 65 80 L 69
_
60 + 3
it
130 Residence H 230 L 57 230 L -
60 +
3
131 Residence H 220 L 57 220 L = =
- 67 + 3
132 Residence 3
100 R
64
100
R
- * 67
+ 4
i
133 Residence - • B „
110 R 63 " 110 R -
- - 67
+ 3

134
Residence
B
100 R
••
64
100
R
-
62
+ 4

135
Residence
2 B
190 R
••
58
190
R

- 70
+ 4
136 Business C
• 70 L
;; 66 70 L -
_ 67 + 4

137
Business
C
110 R "
63

110

R

-

+ 3
138 Business C 90 L
" 65 90 L - - 68
_
6d + 4
139 Residence B " 150 L 60 " 150 L _
- 63 + 3

140
Residence
B n
160 L '•
60
160
L
-
- 62
+ 4
141 Residence H 190 R
•'
58
190
R
-
+ 4
142 Business C 70 L
" 66 " 70 L - - 70
67
"
+ 4
163 Business C •• 110 R 63 " 110 R -
- 68 + 3
144 Business C .. 90 L 65 " 90 L -
- 64
+ 4
145 Residence B •• 150 L 60 '• 150 L -
63
" + 3
146 Residence B " 160 L 60 160 L - + 3
147 Residence H •• 90 R 65 90 R
-4 - - " 68 + 3
" 90 R 65 --go 68
148 Residence B - * 72 + 4
149 Residence B 50 R
° 68 50 R -
- * 71 + 4
150 Residence B 60 R 67 " 60 R -
* 71
_ + 4
151 Residence B " 60 R 67 60 R _
- * 71 + 4
152 Residence B 60 L 67 60 L -
* 71
_ + 4
153 Residence B " 60 R 67 " 60 R -
- 62 +
154 Residence B
n 180 R
59 "
180
R
-
of the existing
t or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
NOT E: Distances are fro er
m cen -Y -=> Noise level from other contrib uting roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. 23 CFR Part 772).
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per
A-8
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 49 From US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County,
State Project # 8.1470601, TIP # R-2543 A
a
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NEAREST ROADWAY
NAME DISTANCE(ft) NOISE
LEVEL PROPOSED ROADWAY
NAME DISTANCE(ft)
From SR 1752 to SR 1990/SR 1754
155

156
157

158
159

160
161

162
163

164
165

166
167

168
169

170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181 Residence

Residence
Residence

Residence
Residence

Residence
Residence

Residence
Business

Residence
Residence :

Residence
Residence

Residence
Residence

Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Business
Business
Business
Residence
Residence
Business
Business B

H
H

H
H

B
B

B
C

B
1 B

••B
B

H
8

B
B
H
H
B
C
C
C
B
B
C
C NC 49 100

390
•
130
230

310

240
++
• 160

180

• 240

150
•
•' 80

90
+•
230

100
•'
+• 90

100
+•
•• 70
80
••
•• 80
80
••
•• 50
60
++
+•
80
•• 140
140
•'
•• 80
130
'• L

R

R
L

L

R

R

L

L

R

R

R

L

L

R

L

L
L
L
L
R
L
R
R
R
L
L 65

52

63
58

54

57

61

60

57

61

66

65

58

65

65

65

67
66
66
66
69
68
66
62
62
66
63 NC 49 100

390
'•
" 130
230

310

240
"
160

180
"
" 240

150
"
" 80

90

" 230

100
"
'• 90

100
"
" 70
80
"
" 80
80
"
'• 50
60
"
80.
"
1d0
140
•'
80
130
" L

R

R
L

L

R

R

L

L

R

R

R

L

L

R

L

L
L
L
L
R
L
R
-4
-R
R
L
L
PR=EDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-Y- MAXIMUM
6/9
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
_ - 65 0
_ - 52 0
_ - 63 0
_ - 58 0
_ - 54 0
_ - 57 0
_ - 61 0
_ - 60 0
_ - 57 0
_ - 62 + 1
- 66 0
- 66 + 1
58 0
65 0
- 66 + 1
_ - 65 0
_ - * 67 0
_ - * 66 0
_ - - 66 0
_ - - 66 0
_ - 69 0
_ - 68 0
_ - 66 0
_ - 62 0
_ - 62 0
_ - 66 0
_ - 63 0
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.
* _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772)•
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48).
A-9
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 49 From US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County,
State Project k 8.1470601, TIP H R-2543 A
7/9
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
ft) -L- -y- MAXIMUM
ID 8 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) From SR 1990/SR 1754 to SR 1002

182 Residence B NC 49
183 Residence B "
184 Residence B
185 Residence B "
186 Residence B "
187 Residence B
186 Business C "
189 Residence B
190 Residence B ?•
191 Business C
192 Business i` 2_ C "
193 Residence ••B "
194 Residence B '•
195 Residence B "
196 Residence B
197 Residence B
198 Residence B "
199 Residence B
200 Residence H
201 Business C "
202 Residence B "
203 Residence B •'
.?
204 Residence B
205 Residence B "
206 Residence B '•
207 Business C
208 Residence B '•
,.
209 Residence B
210 Residence B
211 Residence B
?.
212 Residence H
213 Residence B •'
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
n
- * 66 + 1
100 L 65 NC 49 100 L '
x 67
" + 2
90 L 65 " 90 L - + 2
90 L
x 67
- "
90 L 65

"
63 + 1
140 L 62 140 L -
- - 64 + 1
130 R 63
130 R
x 68
" + 2
80 L 66 " 80 L

'• 50 R - - 70 + 1
50 R 69
- 62 + 2
170 R 60 '•
170 R
-

110 L
64
110 L 65
- " + 1

+ 2
80 R 66
? 80 R - - 68
- 62 + 2
170 A ••
60 170 R -
" 40 R
40 R 70

60 R "

68
60 R
- - * 70

1
70 R ••
67 70 R - - * 68 + 2

150 R ••
61 150 R - - 63
+ 1
220 L 58 •' 220 L - 59
-
+ 1
220 R 58 " 220 R - - 59 + 1
250 R 57 •• 250 R - - 58
+ 1

100 R ••
65
100 R
- - 66
+ 1
330 R +•
54 330 A - - 55
+ 1
130 R ••
63 130 R - - 64
- 58 + 1
250 R •`
57 250 R -

- 64 + 1
130 R ••
63 130, R - + 2
120 I - - 65
120 A 63
- 65 + 1
110 R ••
64 110 A - + 1

130 L
63 •• 130 L - - 64
+ 2

120 L •`
63 120 L - - 65
+ 1
110 L 64 •' 110 L " 65
+ 1
110 L 64 " 110 L 65
- "
+ 1 t,
110 L ••
64 110 L - - 65 + 2

150 R •`
61 150 R - - 63

- 63 + 1
140 R
••
62
140 R
-
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. (per 23 CFR Part 772).
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). , ?> Traffic noise impact
A=10
TABLE N4 8/9
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 49 From us 70 to NC 62, Alamance County,
State Project H 8.1470601, TIP M R-2543 A
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST E DISTANCE(ft) M
I
_ MA INCREASE
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAM MU
X
--L---=====Y

From SR 1990/SR 1754 to SR 1002 (Cont.d)
214 Residence B NC 49 130 R
63
NC 49 130 R
- - 64
- 64
+ 1
+ 1
215 Residence B " 130 R 63
130 R
-
- 65
+ 2
216 Residence B 120 R 63
120 R
-
- 63
+ 2
217 Residence B " 150 R 61
150 R
-
- 66
+ 1
218 Residence B " 100 R 65
100 R
-
- ` 66
+ 1
219 Residence B 100 R 65 •100 R -
- 62 + 2
220 Residence B 170 L 60
170 L
-
- 62
+ 1
221 Residence B 160 L 61
160 L
"
-
- 65
+ 1
222 Residence.' B 110 L 64 110 L
'• -
-
* 67 + 2
223 Residence B 90 R 65 90 R -
-
68 + 1
224 Residence B 70 R 67 70 R
•• -
_
225 Residence B 80 R 66

-
? 67
+ 2
226 Residence B " 90 R 65 90 A
• -
-
61 + 1
227 Residence B " 180 L 60 180 L -
-
64 + 1
228 Residence B " 130 L 63 130 L
" -
-
68 + 1
229 Residence B '• 70 L 67 70 L
" -
_
68
+ 1
230 Business C " 70 L 67
70 L
-
From SR 1002 to NC 62

231 Residence B
NC 49 180 L
57
NC 49 180 L _ 59
_ 67
- + 2
+ 2

232 Residence B
60 L
••
65
60 L
'•
-
54
-
+ 1

233 Residence B
280 R
••
53
26Q R
-
-
57
-
+ 1
234 Residence B '• 210 R 56 Ff
Z10 -
_ 60 + 2
B 160 L
'• 58 " 160 L -
235 Residence
•

150 L
" 60

_ + 1
236 Residence B 150 L
•• 59 56
- + 1

237 Residence B
230 L
••
55
230 L
"
-
60
-
+ 2

238 Residence B
160 L
•'
58
160 L
"
-
57
_
+ 1

? 239 Business C
210 R
56
210 R
•'
-
_
57
+ 1

240 Business C
210 R
••
56
210 R
-
_
60
* 2

241 Residence B
160 L
•'
58
160 L
-
_ 61
+ 1
242 Residence B
" 130 L
60
130 L
-
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. ;
=> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFA Part 772)•
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48).
A-11
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 49 From US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County,
State Project # 8.1470601, TIP # R-2543 A
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft)
From SR 1002 to NC 62 (COnt.d)
243 Residence B NC 49 120 L 61 NC 49 120 L
244 Residence B " 150 L 59 '. 150 L
245 Business C " 60 L 65 '• 60 L
246 Residence B '• 150 R 59 '• 150 R
247 Residence B " 170 R 58 " 170 R
248 Residence B 200 R 56 200 R
249 Business C " 60 R 65 60 R
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
_ - 62 + 1
- - 60 + 1
- - 67 + 2
- - 60 + 1
_ - 59 + 1
_ - 58 + 2
- - 67 + 2
9/9
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
:s

NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-12
TABLE N5
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 49 From US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County,
State Project # 8.1470601, TIP # R-2543 A
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
(Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
dBA
50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA
A B C D E
? Description
88 64 58 <49' 89' 0 37 0 0 A
1. US-70 to SR 1747
70 66 60 56' 113' 0 43 4 0 0
2. SR 1747 to SR 1752
69 65 59 32' 80' 0 7 0 0 0
3. SR 1752 to SR 1990/SR 1754

40' 94'
70 66 60
0 15 0 0 0
4. SR 1990/SR 1754 to SR 1002
I 67 63 57 <31' 64' 0 1 0 0 0
5. SR 1002 to NC 62
TOTALS 0 102 4 0 0
NOTES - 1. 501, 100', and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
4
A-13
j
TABLE N6
I? TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMhRY
NC 49 From US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County,
State project # 8.1470601, TIP N R-2543 A

RECEPTOR EXTERIOR
NOISE
LEVEL INCREASES Substantial
Noise Level Impacts Due
to Both
Section
<=0
1-4 5-9
10-14
15-19 20-25
>= 25
Increases(1)
Criteria(2)

1.
US-
70 to SR
1747

0

23 50

0 0

0 0 0 0

2.
SR
1747 to
SR 1752

0

66 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

3.
SR
1752 to
SR 1990/SR 1754
24
3 0
0 0
0 0 0 0

4.
SR
1990/SA
1754 to SA 1002
0

48 0

0

0 0 0 p 0

5.

SR

1002 to

NC 62

0

19 0

0 0

0 0
0
0

TOTALS

24

159 50

0 0

0 0 0 p
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
--• _z

A-14
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2543A: NC 49 Alamance County RUN: BUILD, 5-LN/12'LNS, YR-1995, 35-MPH
DATE: 06/10/1994 TIME: 15:14:13.48
• SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S =,AS = 6 (F) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H w V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 ' (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 493. 21.6 .0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 493. 21.6 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LCCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M) '
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
1. R05, 30'L CL, RES * -1.8 .0 1.8
JOB: R-2543A: NC 49 Alamance County
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 4.4
DEGR. * 2
RUN: BUILD, 5-LN/12'LNS, YR-1995, 35-MPH

A-15
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2543A: NC 49 Alamance County RUN: BUILD, 5-LN/12'LNS, YR-2015, 35-MPH
DATE: 06/10/1994 TIME: 15:14:45.56
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S zo = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 6 (F) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES

* LINK COORDINATES (M) *
LINK DESCRIPTION
* X1 Y1 X2 y2 *
LENGTH
(M)
BRG TYPE
(DEG)
VPH EF
(G/MI)
H
(M)
w V/C QUEUE
(M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link * 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 *
L1'nk * .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 * 1609.
1609. 360. AG
180. AG 919. 14.8
919. 14.8 .0
.0 13.4
13.4
2. Near lane
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
RECEPTOR
1. R05, 301L CL, RES
COORDINATES (M)
X Y Z
.0 1.8
JOB: R-2543A: NC 49 Alamance County
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : in search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* EEC
MAX * 5.1
DEGR. * 2
RUN: BUILD, 5-LN/12'LNS, YR-2015, 35-MPH
's
1
A-16
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2543A: NC 49 Alamance County RUN: NOBLD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-1995, 35-MPH
DATE: 06/10/1994 TIME: 15:19:21.50
SITE s METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS . .0 CM/S VD .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
MIXH = 400. M AMB
= 1.9 PPM
CLAS - 6 (F) ;:IM = 60. MINUTES
U 1.0 M/S
LINK VARIABLES

" LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
LINK DESCRIPTION
2 *
(M) (DEG)
(G/MI) ?)
(M) (M)

Y1 X2
* X1
Y
7 -804.' 3.7
* 3 804.7 * 1609. 360. AG 493. 21.6 .0 9.8
.
1. Far Lane Link
0 -804.7 * 1609. 180. AG 493. 21.6 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link " .0 804.7 .
RECEPTOR LCCATZCNS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z

* -5.5 .0
1. A05, 301L CL, RES
1.8
RUN: NOBLD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR- 1995, 35-MPH
JOB: R-2543A: NC 49 Alamance County
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum

concentrations, is indicated as maximum. F
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 4.3
DEGR. * 4
A-17

TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2543A: NC 49 Alamance County RUN: NOBLD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-2015, 15-MPH
DATE: 06/10/1994 TIME: 15:19:53.74
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS = .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. =4
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS = 6 (F) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION ' LINK COORDINATES (M)
< R1 Yl X2 * LENGTH
Y2 * (M) BRG TYPE
(DEG) VPH EF
(G/MI) H
(M) W V/C QUEUE
(M) (VEE)
1. Far Lane Link
2. Near Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7
.0 804.7 .0 804.7 * 1609.
-804.7 * 1609. 360. AG
180. AG 919. 34.7
919. 34.7 .0
.0 9.8
9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
1. R05, 3011, CL, RES ' -5.5 .0
JOB: R-2543A: NC 49 Alamance County
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 9.0
DEGR. * 4
1.8 *
RUN: NOBLD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-2015, 15-MPH

f

A-18
wELOCATION REPORT
? E.I.S. f7 CORRIDOR 0 DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1470601 COUNTY Alamance
I.D. NO.: R-2543 A F.A. PROJECT STP-49 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 49 from US 70 to NC

_ E5TINIATED.DISPLACEES ]NCQME I EVEL
Type of
Disblacees Owners Tenants 11 Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Families 5 0 5 1

Businesses

Farms

Non-Profit
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
Yes No Exp lain all "YES" answers.
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary"
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
X 3. Will business ser%ices still be available after

„ project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so.
indicate size. type. estimated number of
employees. minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage.
X 6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
na 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
12t:.i.OCATION9 10 `
3 0
VALUE OF DWEI:LING 2 0 0
DS3 I)wELLIN(: AVAII;aBLL
Owners Tenants For Sale 11 For Rent
0-20M 3 SO-150 0 0-20M 011 $ 0-150 0
2040NI 0 150-250 0 20-40M 0 150-250 0
40-70NI 2 250-M 0 40-70-M 4 250400 6
70-100M 0 400-W 0 70-100M 26 ?-fm 12
loo UP 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 34 600 ilP 5
TOTAI 5 0 64 23
RE-NIARKS(Respond'by Number)
3. No businesses affected.
6. MIS, Realtors, newspapers
8. Low value of some houses may require improved situations
that cause high RHP's.
9. This is always probable on every project.
11. Burlington has public housing.
12. It is available, though more expensive.
13. By appearances, several may be very low income with
substandard houses.
NOTE: All of the buildings are in the existing RIW. They are counted as displacees at the instruction of Project Planning
Engineer Missy Dickens, but applicability of Relocation eligibility is undetermined (normally not eligible).
AM Simpso L?-mn Date
Date A ved by
Relocation gent `
original & I Copy. State Relocation Agent
Form 15.4 Revived 5/90 B-1 2 Copy Area Relocation Office
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
Alternate 1 of 1 Altemate
Haw River
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and federally-
assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
Relocation Assistance
Relocation Moving Payments and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
a With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and
prices of homes, apartments. or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing programs. The Relocation :loving Payments Program. in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing
Payments or Rent Supplement Program willicompensate up to 522,500 to
owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are
eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-13). 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, sett, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its
work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and
possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary
standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice
after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will
be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
= property will be within the financial means of the families and
individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places
of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of
displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in
searching for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing,
either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing
to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
B-2
information concerning other state and federal programs offering
assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services
as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in
adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expenses Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a
highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will
participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing
costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants fog
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental
purchase expenses may not exceed 522,500 (combined total), extent under
the Last Resort Housing provision. j
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
t7e rant supplement exceeds 55.250.
It is a policy of the state that no persbn will be displaced by the
N-:C'7 s state or °edera__y-35s_s%°t'. constr'.lc:4-on projects unless and
untie comparable replacement housing has been of=ered or provided for
each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement.
No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the
purposes of the Interal Revenue Code of I954 or for the purposes of
determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for
assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing
is not available. or when it is unavailable within the displacee's
financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state
legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes
in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and
sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary for this project, since there appear to be
adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
I
B-3
APPENDIX C
Comments Received From Federal, State and Local Agencies

¦
P??ENT OF Tye A9
Q?P zm United States Department of the Interior AM 'UN
P
N O
j S
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
yqq ,spa Raleigh Field Office
CH a Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
CE / ?j
March 8, 1993 0
/0
MAR 0 9.1993
L.J. Ward, P.E. % p??"
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch ?`fcCvOF
Division of Highways L IGH-vAYS F
Department of Transportation
/RpNMEttCP?
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina
27611-5201
Attention: Ed Lewis
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your January 14, 1993, technical assistance
request for information concerning environmental impacts
associated with proposed improvements to NC 49, from US 70 to NC
62, Alamance County, North Carolina (TIP Number R-2543A). The Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) makes the following recommendations
in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The proposed improvements may adversely affect wetlands along NC 49
between Burlington and Pleasant Grove. Review by the Wilmington
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required to
determine the presence and extent of wetlands along the proposed
route. Areas of concern to the Service include potential project
impacts to marshes, submerged aquatic vegetation, scrub/shrub, and
forested wetlands. Such wetlands are of high fish and wildlife
habitat value, and perform important water quality and land
stabilization functions. If wetlands are likely to be affected,
the Service will recommend the use of alternatives that avoid
wetland impacts. These alternatives may include different
alignments, the use of bridges instead of culverts, or special
construction techniques. Unavoidable wetland impacts should be
reduced, and the fish and wildlife habitat value of affected
wetlands should be replaced with suitable mitigation.
At this time, no Federally-listed species, or species that are
candidates for Federal listing, are known to occur in Alamance
County (Attachment). As our records are revised, however, new
species occurrences for Alamance County may become known. If any
threatened, endangered, or candidate species are likely to be
C-1
affected, further coordination with this office will be required.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
If you have any questions, please contact David Dell, Permits
Coordinator for this office (919/856-4520).
Sincerely, /
Lk l9?A
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
A
C-2
t,
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM208 7 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
r RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
03-25-93
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO: FROM:
N.C. DEPT• OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGG£TT
L.J• WARD DIRECTOR
PLANNING E ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 491 FROM US 70 TO NC 621
ALAMANCE COUNTY TIP #R-2543A
SAI NO 93E42200604 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWIN
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSt PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
4
C•C• REGION G
?t V
1KAA 2 9 1993
X22 piVISIGN OF
HIGH` P"'S,`??
ti
ENWROLvN
C-3
tJ- >C
?i pr
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 93-0604 - Improvements for NC 49 from US 70 to NC 62,
Alamance County
DATE: March 8, 1993

The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has- reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will be provided
during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the- opportunity to respond. If during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional information
is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective
divisions.
attachments
David Foster
y `l

P.O. E3ux 276S7. Raleigh Torch Carolina 27611.76 Telephone [phone] Fax = 919.733-0513
C-4
An Equal Opportunity Am.-adve aeon Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
© J
??cc
James G. Martin, Governor PRQTECT R r41XW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: C County:
Project Name: ?L y
Geodetic Survey
i
L/ This project will impact 2L/ 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 (919:733=3,c
r\
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment ,
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimeritd`ion-
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
? If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
• Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control commission.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
C-5
GAG
P ` 5;z'
Borth Carolina
, Health, and Natural Resources
Deb
C m Regional Office
ry 8, 1993 Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
James B. Hunt, Jr., Gc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Linda C. Sewall, Deputy Director
Division o Environmental Health
FROM: Ernest P ain, Regional Engineer R
D
Winston-Salem Health Office
SUBJECT: NC 49, from US 70 to NC 62 FES 1993
Alamance County
Federal Aid Project STP-49(1) pIV ?; E;y'd;r
State Project No. 8.1470601
TIP Project R-2543A
The Town of Green Level is located on the southern end of the
project, beginning at the limits of the Town of Haw River.
The Town of Green Level is served potable water by a water dis-
tribution line extending along Hwy. 49. There is a compelling need
for reasonable and prudent care in construction and realignment of
Hwy. 49 to avoid, when possible, any long periods of depriving
water to the people of the Town of Green Level.
Whenever there is a need to shut off the water, these people should
be notified the day before the shut-off, when possible.
EPC:ka
CC: Public Water Supply Section, Raleigh
yr
F17 9 "'1 3
»t?
U
f ^ :4 I' U.
310 Last Third Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27101-4131 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity ARnnative Action Gnploycr
C-6
_sct2sli^
A
ttate of Notch Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment. Health, and Natural Resources
o'ec
INTERGOVERNMENTAL MIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Pr t + Number.
,ea
Due Date:
3 -) -9 3
After review of this project it has been determined that the EMNR permit(s) andfor approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
Alt applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
ti Normal Process
eoional Office. Terne

PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS (statutory time
Limit)
Permit to construct It operate wastewater trNUMnt Application W days before begin construction Of award of 310 nays
D "wet system extensions, t slower
facilities construction contracts On-site inspection. Pos+appiwtion
,
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual ts0 days)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water andtor Application 160 days before begin activity On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and ConstruCf wastewater baCHilies
tate surface waters.
i
i Pre-application conference usual Additionally obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility•granteC after NPDES Reply
MIA)
mg
nto s
disrharg time. 310 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit+nichever is later. •
3>0 oars
D Water the Permit Pre-r?pplication technical conference usually necessary MfA)
7 days
D Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 says)
i
Application copy must be served on each ad,acent riparian property
SS asys
? owner On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual Filling
ermit
DreOye and Fill may require Easement to Fill from N.C Department of (e0 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
60 Gays
Permit to construct t operate Air Pollution Abatement (90 days)
D facilities andior Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21M NIA
ny open burning associated with subject proposal
must been compliance with 1SA NCAC 2D.0=1.
DpAolition or renovations of structures containing 6fl drys
restos malerias must be in compliance with 16A

NCAC 20052: which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition Contact AsSestos Control Group (90 days)
919733.0820
? Complex Source Permit required under 1SA NCAC 2D.0800.
mentatio
d
d
i
se
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be pioperly addressed for any land disturbins activity An erosion
ional Office (Land Ouslity Sect) at least 30
ro
er Re
ith
fil
P
d 20 days
? p
p
g
w
lan
e
control plan wilt be required if one or more acres to be disturbed
e of SIC for the first acre and S20M to! each addittena' acre or art mus, accompany the tan
t A f 30 davst
e
dais before be^,nn,n actrvt
ntal,on Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the refeitenced Local Ordinance:
dim
Th
S (30 days)
? e
e
e ---
On site inspection usual. Surety bond filed w,in EHNR Bond amount
l 30 days
? Mining Permit es
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any a
mined grealer than one acre must be permitM. The apptopnate bond 30
days)
(
must be received before the permit can be issued.
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources it permit S day
(NIA)
exceeds A days

Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N 0. Division Forest Resources required -if more

tions
d I (I day
NIA)
? counties In coesla• N.C. with organic sells nspec
than five acres of ground clearing activities we involve
s before actual burn is planned:'
t least ten da
t
d
y
a
e
should be reques
g0 120 day
•
(NfA)
? Oil Relining Facilities NIA ?-?
if permit requited, application 60 days before begin construction. 30 days
Applicant must hi,c N C. qualif,ed enginecr to rtepa!e plans.
i
D .u ENNR approv
struction, certify construction k 'r .:.
Inspect co dr s
(60 Y
Dam Safely Permit. /
ed plans. May a•so require permit under mos`u o control pipgiam. And
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verity lia:atd Cfass,fica:ion. A minimum rte of S2^,.r•` 00 must ac-
company the appficafion. An adcitiunat processing foe based on a
_ _-_--'--- _. - 1-1 -;- rn•.1 will tie ieojired ucon completion
C.-7
Normal Process
Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bona of f15,ow with fMNR running to state of N.C. 7o clays
D Farntt to drill w.ploretory oil or on WWI conditional that any well opened by drill operator shalt, Won
l
l
d r
ti
A M4rAj
es an
equ
a
ons.
ru
abandonment, be plugged according to ENN

D Geophysical Espicirmion Fwmit Application filed with EHNR at Mast 10 days prior to issue of permit
applicatron form.
No stanaard
l
tter
l 1o days
(NIAj
.
.
e
ication by
App
State lakes Construction Perrot Application lee based on structure size is charged must Include 1S•20 days
D descriptions t drawings of structure t proof of ownership (NIA)
/ of riparian properly.
e0 days
401 Water Ouallt , Cenifcalton WA (130 devil
SC. YJyi
D CAUA Permit for MAJOR d"tiloprilml ff-2 i :r.' ;.;,;ampsny application (150 days)
22 days
D CAIAA Permit for MINOR development 11.90.00 fee must etcompany application 05 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or nes, the project area it any monuments need to be moves or destroyed, please notify:
D N.C Geoaetrc Survey, Bo: 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
D Abandonment of any wells. If requireC. must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2CA100.
D Notification of the proper regions; office is requested If `orphan' undarground slorage tanks (LISTS) are drszo erect during any excavation operation.
t5 days
5 Gays
n Compliance with 15A NCAC 2M 1000 (Coasts! Stormwater Rules) is required.
• Other comments (attach addrtmonat pages as necessary, being eerta'n to elte comment authority):
ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING CLEARING, GRADING, AND
EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES RESULTING IN THE DISTURBANCE OF FIVE (5) OR MORE
ACRES OF TOTAL LAND ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A NPDES STORMWATER PERMIT
PRIOR TO BEGINNING THESE ACTIVITIES.
41-- OVIh
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be*addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28301 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] (9191486-1541
? Mooresville Regional office
919 North Main Siteet, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
?µ?ashington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Wz.shington, NC 27889
(919) 946-W1 C-8
?Ra!eigh Regional Office
3NX Warren Drive, Suite 101
Ra'eigh, NC 27609
(9191 ?33-2314
0YJilrni.ryton regional Office
127 Ca,dnal Dave Exlcnsion
Wilmington. NC 28405
[phone]
d „a STATE o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
• James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
January 27, 1993
c .. '7-
MEMORANDUM
°7
TO: Melba McGee
?Q -
FROM: David Harrison
SUBJECT: Improvements for NC 49 from US 70 to NC 62, Alamance
County. Project No. 93-0604.
The proposal is to widen NC 49 between US 70 and NC 62 with
accompanying intersection realignments at SR 1928. The
Environmental Assessment should identify any unique, prime, or
important farmlands that would be impacted by the project. A
wetlands evaluation should be included.
DH/tl
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Fax # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
C-9
?S_
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 2761n B. Howes, Secretary
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor February 25, 1993

MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihart', Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments - NCDOT Improvements to NC 49, from US
70 to NC 62, Alamance County, State TIP #R-2543A,
Project Review #93-0604
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.
REGIONAL OFEiCES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 7041663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An EqW Opporumity Aifianadve Action Employer
C-10
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) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Prior to the approval
of any borrow source in a wetland, the contractor shall obtain
a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilized the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
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.
8090er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
C-11
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission E
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 1, 1993
SUBJECT: Reauest for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for improvements to NC 49, from US 70
to NC 62, Alamance County, North Carolina, TIP No.
U-2543A, SCH Project No. 93-0604.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. L. J. Ward of
the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife
resources resulting from the subject project. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has 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).
The proposed work involves improvement of a two-lane
highway, with widening to a multilane facility at selected
locations. Upland habitat in the project area consists of
patches of forested and agricultural land, with numerous areas of
residential development. Small headwater streams and farm ponds
are the predominant aquatic habitat in the area.
The NCWRC prefers improvement of existing facilities over
other "build" alternatives and supports the NCDOT in its choice
of such an option for this project. Concerns remain regarding
fragmentation and loss of wetland and upland wildlife habitat,
installation of culverts and relocation of stream channels at
road crossings, and secondary habitat loss from future
development facilitated by the road improvements.
C-12
Memo Page 2 March 1, 1993
Recent NCDOT environmental documents have typically
addressed most environmental concerns for projects of this scope.
For purposes of reference, our informational needs are listed
below:
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. When practicable, 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. O. 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 Program
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. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the
C-13
?SEATEv
?.ft t
01,
`tyy4lrn A.?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 23, 1993
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tratrs tation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State istoric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Proposed improvements to NC 49 from US 70 to NC
62, Alamance County, 'R-2543A, 8.1470601, STP-
49(1), CH 93-E-4220-0604
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:
Malone King House. South side of SR 1002, 0.2 mile west of the junction
with NC 49.
John Wyatte Ruins. West side of NC 49, 0.1 mile south of the junction
with SR 1995.
W. J. Anderson House. East side of NC 49 at the junction with SR 1909.
P. V. King House. North side of SR 1752, 0.1 mile west of the junction
with NC 49.
Frank Rogers House. East side of NC 49 at the junction with SR 1921.
Amos Kendall Roney House. North side of East Main Street, Haw River.
None of the above properties have been evaluated for National Register eligibility.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
C-14
01
1
L. J. Ward
March 23, 1993, Page 2
Two recorded archaeological sites may be affected by the proposed project. Site
31 AM32 has been determined not eligible for the National Register, but 31 AM29,
which is Middle Archaic, will need testing if it is to be affected. The majority of
the project area has not been surveyed, and it is likely that the northern portion of
the project will need to be surveyed for archaeological resources. As soon as
specific project plans are available we will be able to make recommendations
concerning any necessary archaeological investigations.
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
Renee Gledhill-Earley,
concerning the
rev ew coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
environmental
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse y
B. Church '
T. Padgett
Nicholas Graf
C-15
ROBERT C. SMITH
COUNTY MANAGER
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER
124 WEST ELM STREET
GRAHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27253
January 25, 1993
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201

TEL. [phone]
/?
ll?j?l / 7 AfimirrPOE 919
1 ?
GIi?)S-C? C;
..t • 1N ? d
?V/Rn? 1? .cnTC P?'
Reference: NC 49, from US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County
TIP Project R-2543A
Dear Mr. Ward:
This letter is in response to your request for Alamance
County to comment on the above referenced project. Alamance
County staff have examined the proposed corridor and found
several historic properties that may be impacted by the proposed
project. A map showing the historic properties that may be
affected has been forwarded to you by Max Way of the Alamance
County Planning Department.
Our staff has also determined that the proposed realignment
of NC 49 to follow Wilkins Road (SR 1928) in the Town of Haw
River may adversely affect the residents along SR 1928. It is
also likely that the residents of the Town of Green Level will be
directly affected by the proposed project. I am therefore
requesting that the Department of Transportation work closely
with both Green Level and Haw River to minimize any possible
impacts of this project. It appears to our staff that the impact
of the proposed project to county residents outside of Haw River
and Green Level will be minimal.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
If I may be of further service to you, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Smith
County Manager
RCS: pi
C-16

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary S. Price, Jr., Director
September 14, 1993 G E
Q• ?
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration 1 6 1993
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 ZZ DIVISICNI
Re: Archaeological Survey Report, Proposed widening of P? HIGH::'.
49 from US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County, Federal Fi?lAOi?i.
Aid No. STP-490 ), TIP No. R-2543A, ER 94-7137
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of July 26, 1993, transmitting the archaeological survey report by
Bill Jurgelski concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following properties are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion D:
31 AM29, 31 AM32, 31 AM336 * *, 31 AM337 * *, 31 AM338 * *, and 31 AM339
None of these sites retain sufficient integrity to yield information important in history or
prehistory.
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
Specific concerns and/or corrections which need to be addressed in the preparation of a
final report are attached for the author's use.
We have determined that no additional archaeological investigation is warranted in
connection with this project as currently proposed.
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,
L-David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachment
cc: "L. J. Ward
T. Padgett

1 ? i^o
3
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
C-17
Qt
SEAIZ
r
o7
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor William S. Price, Jr., Director
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary November 30, 1994

Nicholas L. Graf.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Architectural Survey Report for NC 49
from US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County, Federal
Aid STP-49(1), State Project 8.1470601, TIP R-
2543A, ER 95-7491
Dear Mr. Graf:
?CEIV\
Q, O
DF- p 5 1994
r
Di':'!SIG^i Ot- Q
Thank you for your letter of September 14, 1994, transmitting the above
in our response, but we have been
referenced report. We apologize for pthe rojects.
short the reviewer for
For purposes of Section 106 we concur that the following properties within the
project's area of potential effect are eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places under the criteria cited:
Amos K. Roney House--Criterion C for architecture
W. J. Anderson Farm--Criterion A for agriculture and Criterion C for
architecture
We also agree that the other three properties do not appear eligible for listing for
the reasons outlined in the text.
The. report provides a map of the ne ropo be boundaries for the Roney House, but
no explanation. This omission
On page five the report discusses Criterion C and its applicability to the log
structures within the Anderson Farm. We assume the author also meant to find
the main house, which is not log, eligible under Criterion in C. There is an the second underlined
typographical error in the use of Criterion C,
item. We have altered our copies to reflect this. You may wish to do the same.
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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
??1
C-18
Nicholas L. Graf
November 30, 1994, Page 2
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,)
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
Max Way, Alamance County HPC
C-19
j p Federal Aid r0 yam- 401County kA "t4ce_
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSNSENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description 9c 41. Bonn tic, -To -re a? 102
On AP¢tL 217 , 1115 , representatives of the
V North Carolina Depart:nent of Transportation (NCDOII?
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 grope..-y within the project's area of potenda
effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible grope pies located within the project's area
of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Resister-listed propern,/grope dies widdn the project's area of
potential effect. The properryiproperties and the effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible properry/properties within the project's area
potential effect. The propene /prope^ies and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
Signed:
,eprese ti ! NCDOT Date
w ^ , or the ivision Administrator, or other Federal Agency ate
A -z7
•
a. sentative, 0 Date
/ ? S j PS
state Historic Preservation Officer Date
(over)
C-20
TIP r 2y43 A Federal Aid 7'r STP - 41 () County At-wmA tg-,
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is National
Resister-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
AMoti ?• ?NE? ?a?lsE CDE) - t,Io EFF?" vJ?? ?vtR-?*?M?AI, cowtwt?T1+1E?J'r-?
I,ANv??L+?P?rJa tJ Wtu. aE REV ?efl FAR THE- AREA OF 714F. TSwleogA,4?
Gor.Y+T¢UGnot? EAsEwtE+Jr 11J ca?J LT?.?'totJ W1.nk 4,w'0 "P T+r
pRo?ER'f`? oh1?J? • tP 'i?{•E PR°P?T'`( etanl>?¢ aPh1?? tttt?..s 1Jo L.AU?c.?PtNG-
W?t,t. ? D?rJE vvJ ?Fis ?2o PEA .

P-operties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR or DE;
and describe effect.

initialed: NCDOT rHwA /5-t-3 SHPO
C-21
Alamance County
March 7, 1996
Schools
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
P.O. Box 358
609 Ray Street
Graham, North Carolina 27253
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
AGE/?
FQ
Department of Transportation R
Division of Highways 1995
P. O. Boa 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: NC49, from US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County, Federal Aid Project
STP49(1), State Project No. 8.147060 1, TIP Project R-2543A
In regard to the above NCDOT project, we understand the Pleasant Grove
Recreation Center (PGRC), located in the southwest quadrant of the NC 49/NC 62
intersection, qualifies for protection under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966.
We recognize that NCDOT will require some temporary construction easements from the
PGRC to do the proposed construction.
In accordance with the acquisition of temporary construction easements, we
understand the requirement of a documented agreement of the local official having
jurisdiction over the property. You may use this letter as official agreement from
Alamance County Schools for the proposed use of the Pleasant Grove Recreation Center
land under the conditions listed in your letter of February 12, 1996.
Sincerely,
Charles O. Vel
Associate Superintendent
wd
c: Mr. Dean Coleman, Alamance County Recreation and Parks
an equal opportunity employer
C-22
APPENDIX D
Citizens Informational Workshop Information

NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPNON62HE
PROPOSED WIDENING OF NC 49 F US 70 C
R-2543A Alamance County
Project 8.1470601
Representatives of the North Carolina Department f 17, 1993
Transportation will hold dh8PMbin therkshop on June
River Town Hall.
between the hours of 4 an is to provide the public an
The purpose of the woarthof the initial planning for the
part
opportunity to be a
proposed widening. The information gathered at the re workshop
rksh or
will be included in the Environmental Assessment ppared for
the project. lain the various options for
The DOT representatives will explain
public is encouraged to
widening and address questions. The attend the workshop at their convenience during the scheduled
hours. If additional information is desired, you may
Mr. Ed Lewis at 919-733-3141 or P.O.Box 25201, Raleigh, NC
27611. aids
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary
and services for any qualified disabled person interested in
attending the workshop. To request the above you may call Mr.
Lewis at the above number no later than seven days prior to
the date of the workshop.
D-1
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch

0
f
NC 49
FROM US 70
TO NC 62
k
ALAMANCE COUNTY
T. I. P. NUMBER R - 2543 A
JUNE 17, 1993
Citizens Informational Workshop
D-2
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
NC 49
From US 70
To NC 62
Alamance County
Federal Aid Project STP-49(1)
State Project 8.1470601
Transportation Improvement Program R-2543A
PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP
This workshop is being held to review the proposed widening of NC 49
from US 70 to NC 62. Any comments or questions you may have concerning
the proposed improvements will be appreciated.
All comments and suggestions received will be considered in the
project study. It is realized that persons who are near the project want
to know exact information about the effect on their home or place of
business. Exact information is not available at this stage of the
project's development. Additional design vgork is necessary before the
actual right-of-way limits can be established. Therefore, it is not
possible for representatives of the N. C. Division of Highways to provide
exact information about the effect of the project on individual properties
at this time. More definite information will be available at a future
Public Hearing.
A comment sheet is attached at the back of this information packet
for your use. Written comments or requests for additional information
should be addressed to:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls for
widening NC 49 from US 10 to NC 62. The proposed improvements will
require the acquisition of right-of-way. The attached map shows the
location of the project.
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed project involves multilane widening, shoulder
improvements, and possible intersection realignments. The length of the
proposed project is approximately 7 miles.
D-3
CURRENT SCHEDULE
A Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for February 1994-
Right-of-way acquisition is scheduyear led 1for 996October, 1995- Construction for
the project is scheduled for The above schedules are subject to the availability of funds.
EXISTING FACILITIES
NC 49 is a two-lane roadway that is 22 feet wide plus 8-foot wide
shoulders. It connects US 70 to NC 62, and it serves the town of Haw
River. Current average estimated traffic vole me for the6 design ?year 2015 es
per day (vpd),
ranges from 3,680 vpd to 121,000 vpd.
ESTIMATED COSTS
5200,000 project of $8,600,000 which
The TIP includes forto construction non f this
includes $8,400,000
acquisition.
1

D-4
T76s I.O c-
1765
1762 Ej? e
PRO?nC'I' Pleasant Grove cn
ALAMANCE
COUNTY
\9J'
1729 17's b h , C • / \
-r?' - 2.2 FAS 6 .
.2
!o 1909 1 n
- -" -??- ;? Jeffries `qS : 1 v,
u-- e Cross 1002
Anamanaw. fit W Ch. 49 Cc 00
1 81 ?QO \(
Buriingtan 49
yu ` ,i% 4
2.0 19101
' ..v w 1.2
„!M Bran, sw? , ne 6 ?p 1911
yy,? 119
' 1794
I
r ?.?. f at 54
is"ALAaMANCE r 1995
-vH •6 , \ll 1 ? i 0
??d;e 1 aaao ,2.1? j.Z• h Q l ?
\ ? 4 U3
1 l9 ' Sna. Camt flit h ?
/ °. 1793 ;? 1990 1910
1 1999 .9 ,.4 1912 Mile
s Chapel
Chapei 1912
t7_9
1735 N • 121 2
1791 T 1777 117°2 9 1916 u 1915
Hopedale
AU \
'l
\LL•
70 i I
--7 TO7N
b
FA L
,266 FAU I
:t putNERN FP ,
PAU
49 49 ,
PAP
87
U r:. S • A •4 ' 1 d8
• ° GRAHAM '°,?_.,:.;
?POP: 8,674 - F
2r 71
1921 ?• /
,yi; I.f'1 T
Quaker
` I Creek
_ Res,
1927
•: ix 11
SIRWEC:
'Haw River
9G L 1.2 R\.. I? 70
411
,. Q ?-
?:.:': ' FAU:.. /Ra1r war
HAW 1
POP.
1,858
as
zoo
915 r
1917 1919 19
•?
;.a LS
1921
a ' 1988 1920
1948 ?
EX7. \ -A-1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTIMENT OF
Co TR.?LNrSPORTATION
G DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
$ PLANNING AND EINWRONINIENTAL
?•r _ 13RANC14
NC 49
FROM US 70
TO NC 62
T. I. P. NO. R-2543
FIG. 1

D-5
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
NC 49
FROM US 70
TO NC 62
ALAMANCE COUNTY
R - 2543 A
JUNE 17, 1993
COMMENT SHEET
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND / OR QUESTIONS:
STATEMENTS RELATIVE EE PROPOSED
WARD. MANAGER OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
MAILED TO: MR. L. J.
P. 0. BOX 25201 RALEIGH, N. C. 27611
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
./
D-6
APPENDIX E
Discussion of Properties Evaluated and Determined Not To Be Eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places
Discussion of Properties Evaluated and Determined Not To Be Eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places
RESIDENCE # 2
Location. This building is located in the northwest quadrant of the
NC 49/SR 1747 intersection.
Date. This residence appears to have been constructed around 1920.
Descriptiofl. This one-and-one-half story frame building is three bays wide with a
hip roof. A one-story porch covers the front and east elevations. The porch is supported
by simple rectilinear wooden columns which rest on brick piers. A central dormer is
located above the front door. The sash on the original house are two over one. A one-
story side gabled frame addition was added to the east side of the house in 1942. The sash
on the addition are six over one.
Evaluation. This building is a common house type in this portion of Alamance
County. Background research, conversations with neighbors and with Mr. Max Way,
county planner, reveal nothing which might suggest that this building is eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places under any criterion. Background research of
this and all other properties in the APE enabled their consideration within the context of
the history of the area. There are no historical events or persons of any significance
associated with this property, and as such it is not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under Criteria A or B. This property was also considered within the
architectural context of the county, and it has been found to be an average example of a
commonplace type. It does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction, nor does it possess high artistic values. It is therefore not eligible
for the National Register under Criterion C. The architectural component of this property
is not likely to yield information important in history; it is therefore not eligible for the
National Register under Criterion D in that respect.
Residence #3
Location. This structure is located on the west side of NC 49 approximately
halfway between the Luck Stone Quarry entrance and SR 1752.
Date. This house appears to have been constructed around 1920.
Description. This three bay, one-and-one-half story masonry building has two
windows symmetrically flanking the front door.and a single window located in the gable
end. All sash are four over one. A one-story porch with a shed roof is located on the
south (front) elevation. The porch is supported by simple rectilinear wooden columns
resting on brick piers.
E-1
Evaluation: This building is a common building type found throughout Alamance
County. Conversations with the residents and neighbors as well as with the Alamance
Planning Department reveal nothing which would suggest that the building is eligible for
the National Register under any Criterion. Background research of this and all other
properties in the APE enabled their consideration within the context of the history of the
area. There are no historical events or persons of any significance associated with this
property, and as such it is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under
Criteria A or B. This property was also considered within the architectural context of the
county, and it has been found to be an average example of a commonplace type.
It does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, nor does it possess high artistic values; it is therefore not eligible for the
National Register under Criterion C. The architectural component of this property is not
likely to yield information important in history, it is therefore not eligible for the National
Register under Criterion D.
Residence #4.
Location. This structure is located on the west side of NC 49 approximately
halfway between the Luck Stone Quarry Entrance and SR 1752 (adjacent to Residence #3
to the north).
Date. This house appears to have been constructed around 1920.
Descrition. This masonry one-and-one-half story bungalow is three bays wide
with one central dormer symmetrically located above the front door. The roof is
supported by battered wooden rectilinear columns which rest on brick piers. As may be
seen from the attached illustration, a carport supported by metal poles and a rear ell were
added to the house circa 1970 and 1962, respectively.
Evaluation. This house type (bungalow) is very well represented in Alamance
County. The numerous character-altering changes which have been made to the residence
seriously compromise the integrity of the building. No information from the neighbors or
the Alamance planning department could be found which would appear to make this
building eligible for listing in the National Register under any criterion. Background
research of this property in the APE enabled their consideration within the context of the
history of the area. There are no historical events of persons of any significance
associated with this property, and as such it is not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under Criteria A or B. This property was also considered within the
architectural context of the county, and it has been found to be an average example of a
commonplace type. It does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction, nor does it possess high artistic values. It is, therefore, not
eligible for the National Register under Criterion C. The architectural component of this
property is not likely to yield information important in history; it is therefore not eligible
for the National Register under Criterion C.
E-2
Archaeological Artifact Inventory
31AM29
ACC # 93419
Surface Collection
Historic
I Ceramic, White Salt Glazed Stoneware
Glazed Brick Fragment
2 Total Historic
Prehistoric
I Projectile Point, Savannah River, Brown Rhyolite
7cm x 4cm
I Biface Fragment, Grey\Brown Rhyolite 4cm x 3cm
1 Biface Fragment, White Quartz, 3.5cm x 6cm
I Tertiary Flake, Grey\Brown Rhyolite, Possibly Utilized
3cm x 2cm
1 Secondary Flake\Core Fragment, Grey\Green Rhyolite,
8cm x 6cm
I Possible Secondary Flake\Core Fragment, Grey\Brown
Rhyolite, >2cm x 2cm
2 Tertiary Flakes, Grey\Brown Rhyolite, >2cm x 2cm
4 Tertiary Flakes, Grey\Brown Rhyolite, <2cm x 2cm
1 Secondary Flake, Dark Grey Chert, 4cm x 3cm
1 Secondary Flake, Grey Smokey Quartz, 4cm x 1 cm
1 Tertiary Flake, White Quartz, Possibly Utilized,
4cm x 3cm
1 Tertiary Flake, White Quartz, 2cm x 1 cm
I Tertiary Flake, White Quartz, 2cm x 2cm
4 Blocky Debris, White Quartz, >2cm x 2cm
I Blocky Debris, Clear Quartz, 2.5cm x 2cm
Possible Tertiary Flake, Black Metavolcanic, 5cm x 2cm
23 Total Prehistoric
25 Total Artifacts, 31AM29
31AM32
ACC # 93420
Surface Collection
Historic
5 Ceramic, Whiteware, Body Fragments
2 Ceramic, Pearlware, Base Fragments
F-1
I Ceramic, Pearlware, Body Fragments
I Ceramic, Pearlware, Tan Glaze On Exterior
I Ceramic, Red Lead Glazed Earthenware, Course, Banded
With Dark Stripes
1 Ceramic, White Tile
I Brick Fragment
1 1946 Penny
13 Total Historic
Prehistoric
1 Tertiary Flake, Rhyolite, 1 cm x 2cm
3 Tertiary Flakes, White Quartz, <2cm x 2cm
2 Tertiary Flakes, White Quartz, >2cm
1 Blocky Debris, White Quartz, 2cm x 2cm
7 Total Prehistoric
-----------------------------
20 Total Artifacts, 31AM32
-----------------------------
31AM339
ACC # 93418
Surface Collection
Prehistoric
1 Biface Fragment, Grey Rhyolite, 3cm x 3cm
4 Tertiary Flakes, Grey\Brown Rhyolite, >2cm x 2cm
1 Tertiary Flake, Grey\Black Metavolcanic, 2cm x 2cm
1 Blocky Debris, Possible Expended Core, Dark Grey Chert,
2cm x 2cm
7 Total Prehistoric
-----------------------------
7 Total Artifacts, 31AM339
-----------------------------

e
r
F-2
• I
s.aSGVF°
r ?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor February 25, 1993 Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments - NCDOT Improvements to NC 49, from US
70 to NC 62, Alamance County, State TIP #R-2543A,
Project Review #93-0604
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.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opport mity Affimative Action Employer
f
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) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Prior to the approval
of any borrow source in a wetland, the contractor shall obtain
a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilized the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
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.
8090er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
1

STAI't
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
`'?'
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: NC 49, from US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County, Federal Aid
Project STP-49(1), State Project No. 8.1470601, TIP Project
R-2543A
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has begun
studying the proposed improvements to NC 49. The project is included in the
1993-1999 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for
right of way in fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal year 1996.
Preliminary planning calls for widening NC 49 to a multilane facility at
selected locations. Other segments of NC 49 will undergo two-lane improvements.
The NC 49 and SR 1928 intersection located near the southern end of the project
(see map), may be realigned and NC 49 relocated along SR 1928 to US 70.
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 document evaluating
environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable that your agency respond
by 1993 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this
document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ed Lewis,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJW/pl r
Attachment
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
January 14, 1993
AnFniminnnnrfimity/Affi-nf;- A .;,,.,C.,...,i..,-
r
1766 1908
1764 I•o cn
Q a
1762 END 1765 b
PROJECT
c - Pleasant Grove c?n
,•2 •z
i -i-
'1-? ?C? -1---1---1--? "-i
b
.5 .2? pS?2 2.2 FgSVC 52 c
.0 1.1 1909 •o
III , Burton
vraa.' J I Jeffries FqS ?, Union IS Res f."Ridge / Cross 1002
N Q
l
Altamaha! 62 to 49 1 Ch. CO CO
11 n, Gaven _Surlingtun O Cros.
ALAMANCE aWRvj G 49 .4
2'0 191
COUNTY ` 6 ='7= : , 111 119 12
9
S
LINE
T 1
1i + e -
anc Grah+U. ?
,?ms ?,?. Swe le 6 ,rt 1911
119
??9 8i ' sa 1794
ALAMANCE?0 .6 1995
Ile AV 18 ??-r axaD ?.z C .
%SV .2.1 rh N
Eli iN N .4 P?
111 49 ? Snow Camp 1
15 111 l 1793 /.1990 1910
1999 10 S •9 •4 1912 Miles
Chapel 1912 Chapel U
1749 1
.'y ^ 1735- 1 N 1921
1791 1777 1752 1
1915
? 9 `
1916
1729 1735 b
r
1921 7• s' 2005
1915 .5
h :3 Hopedale Quaker 1917 1919 1917
•a
FAU Creek 1.5 b
j ` 1921
Res. N
c 5 1 \ \ Q 1988 1920
?J? l I 1927 1948 C
FP .. Y .. f: 1
Z. ' BEGIN je?1`
1 I: ` 1 c I
Fq? _ PROJECT 1 /
A i i
'Haw River ?" I <
EXT
NGT
ON, ;
P. 37,266 FAU.
FAU S . t HAW RIVER:.
9o c.'.....? FAV ` POP.
87
s _
i. FAU
49 49 .1
i•: }
54 .150• ?.
87 PAP \ it
.7 FAU.5 4 ,o - 85 :.5 5
9?
GRAHAM
co X
t.:. FA1 ??::'• :: c
::5::; pOP.
:•,? 8,674 - FqU G: ''
0, 1A7
FpU - 1.7.
/RA!( WAY -
Tr? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
„ BRANCH
NC 49
FROM US 70
TO NC 62
T. I. P. NO. R-2543
FIG. 1

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP I t'5- q
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
fir. C i c- ;1 r? ,ln oem -j?F. R
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
f - ^
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
Q RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE. APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
tyf ?? O
V _
•? QUW
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
January 14, 1993
.?N191
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch 9
SUBJECT: NC 49, from US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County, Federal Aid
Project STP-49(1), State Project No. 8.1470601, TIP Project
R-2543A
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has begun
studying the proposed improvements to NC 49. The project is included in the
1993-1999 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for
right of way in fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal year 1996.
Preliminary planning calls for widening NC 49 to a multilane facility at
selected locations. Other segments of NC 49 will undergo two-lane improvements.
The NC 49 and SR 1928 intersection located near the southern end of the project
(see map), may be realigned and NC 49 relocated along SR 1928 to US 70.
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 document evaluating
environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable that your agency respond
by March 26, 1993 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this
document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ed Lewis,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJW/plr
Attachment ECEIV
JAN 1 9 1993
TR"IM4l4 1A CERT.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
ALAMAN CE
COUNTY
?l
1
1i
1766 1908
h
1764 I .o
to Q
Q
1762 END 1765 e
PROJECT "
Pleasant Grove cDn
•? 1- - -1- b r .2 -1 v _1
5 pSI>2 2 2.2 PAS NC 6 A
.
0
,O 1.1 909 2
Jeffries 1 Fqs
??' Cross
Ch. 1002
' ' Cros
R 1 G? N
Q ( 49
a 2.0 191 .4
1.2
k le 6 1794 ?a 1911 119 l
•6 \ X1995
I
xap .2.1 1 h •`
111 Eli h `a49 Snow Camt, 1 N ty 4
l 1793 1990 1910
1999 .q •4 1912 Miles
s _
Cha e1 1912 Chapel
? 1749 1 p
r17291735 1921 1791 7 l752 .9 1915 1916 LINE b °• ^?ah
(O V \.
1921 1.'?
A 2005
x ?
?Q1 J / 1 1915 .5
I? Hopedale C.? 1? 1917 1919 1917
Quaker
FAU v ) ?' LS < Creek b
t Res. 1921
J 1... 9G ?a Q 1
I' ?'' •:?r ? ?° `1 1927
:•:?Z. ' BEGIN 1 1 / / Greek
I:: a
` PROJECT
Haw River
r:??•:::: y \
70
N o 22 q G ,1 1.2
-INGTO
FAU ;.. 1'' ti•..:;•: ....... 4U:. /RAILWAY
P. 37,266
4 ?''' HAW RIVEK.:
9.o :::(X%
:.. ':a • AU I n''
POP. '''..:.
87 00tHER QQ :I 1,858
'. FAU :t
9 49 49
. C5
",.1 b 54 87 FAP ... 150
7 FAU,: .5 • ,o 5
.f GRAHAM ?4 148 FA 8
POP. 8,674
v (t 1 ?:
.:.y
?• 2. 147
?• .' ' GAP, a •. .c,
1988 1920
EXT.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
'T'RANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 49
FROM US 70
TO NC 62
T. I. P. NO. R-2543
FIG. 1
;I<
z
0
F
a
07
z
d
a
F
F
z
W
F
IYi
a
W
A
U
c u z z rc
m m I a d
I- j
w
0 Z -C
W
rc W O rc O
W ? n f
0 0 Z W L 4 O <
O O O Z< U W f
C t o^ rc > > > > ; u
Z 2 -- c i y> i m
k
' IL 0: z ?>
O K a 6 6 4 W 4 a Z

???????
W
O
C J
L F a <

J Q
UI ? W ? ; O
O c m E

W ? C
<
W 4 F
• ¢ O
W ~. x W W <
J
J C
L W W
z

Z
Q
W
~ a 2 C C
0 0; O ? d /+

N
Z Z Z W 6
<
< a
< < F

F'

L

W W 7 W < d W
w
< z

W

Q F I-
'w 0 t W W<
6
<
Z Z C 2
6 F
.
LL ? ? ? El El El El u
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
D ?6 .d?
NOV 1 T
JAMES G. MARTIN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR November 13, 1992
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM- DEHqR, 6th Floor
f.e
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
80-%, Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Improvements to NC 49 from
US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County, Federal Aid Project
STP 49(1), State Project 8.1470601, TIP Project R-2543A
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 December 18, 1992 at 9:30 A.M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date (please
reference page 4 of the scoping sheet).
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 Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-3141.
EFL/wp
Attachment
Uv C? ? ??a? rv

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
ALAMAN CE
COUNTY
1766 1908
h
1764 7.0
Q A
1762 END 1765 ?0
PROJECT
Pleasant Grove cyn
CID
?- - 1-- -1- _ _2 -4,
v -
.5 .2x pS?2 C 62
2.2 FAS
1909 0
'o 1.1
Jeffries FqS -
Cross
Ch. 1002 C9 co
Cro
G? 49 N
.4
2.0 1910
119 1.2 ,
6 1911
54 1794 119
X1995
2.1
Eli cv
1793 `.* 1990 ?c` 1910
1999 'O
1 .9 •4 1912 Files
s
Chapel 1912 Chapel
z 1749 T 1735 1 1.0 ,
N 1921 cc: 1791 1777 lr 752 ' 9 1916 1915
.
?v ?a
4NL
LINE 1729 1735 b
C Cz_A (1Z)
Ilk 1921 /.0 x 200 5
J 1 1915
j Hopedale Quaker 1917 1919 1917
Q
FAU ?, v ) Creek `? L5 A
-44- Res, l?zl %N
• 1988 }920
c
sL... 9G aay 11 J
1927 1948
-L. BEGIN
F,9 PROJECT ?+.
'Haw River
p"? : ;:y 4 ::1 !,r . EXT.
X17 FAU
_INGTON 2.2?' , 2 70
P. 37,266 Fq A1/:'• /RAILWAY
HAW RIVER:.
9.o c r' :.. :a :FAU
i POP.
87 1 OU7HE ?p , : a _ 1,8581:::::
i'.• FAU ,..
fl 49 49
... 54 FAP
i; 150
.'. L& 87
7 FAU,:• '
.5 • ,4 .c 148 ;. •:. 85 :.5 5
....!..•: GRAHAM ?>
a
POP. 8,674 < FqU FA
v. :1 •S
•.y ?.. 147 G.
I
I
7
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 49
FROM US 70
TO NC 62
T. I. P. NO. R-2543
FIG. 1

f
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 11/09/92
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # R-2543
Project # 8.1470601
F.A. Project # STP-49(1)
Division SEVEN
County ALAMANCE
Route NC 49
Functional Classification
OTHER PRINCIPLE ARTERIAL & RURAL MAJOR COLLECTOR
Length
5.4 MILES
Purpose of Project:
Description of project (including specific limits and major
elements of work): NC 49 FROM US 70 TO NC 62. UPGRADE
EXISTING TWO LANE ROADWAY, AND WIDEN SOME SECTIONS TO MULTI-
LANES.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA/FONSI
Environmental study schedule: BEGIN END
EA IN PRO JAN 94
FONSI MAR 94 SEP 94
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or (%)
How and when will this be paid?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Features of Proposed Facility
Type of Facility:
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway: TO BE DETERMINED AT SCOPING MEETING
Interchanges Grade Separations Stream Crossings
Typical Section of Roadway: TO BE DETERMINED AT SCOPING
MEETING
Traffic: Current 6700-9600 vpd Design Year 12,000-17,280 vpd
% Trucks % DHV
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
De,.sign 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,150,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 200 , 000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,350,000
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED ( )
COMMENTS
COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . .
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . .
Earth. . . . . . . . . . . .
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . .
Drainage (List any special items) . . . . .
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x
New Bridge X
Widen Bridge X
Remove Bridge x
New Cu.lverts: Size Length
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . .
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht.
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . .
Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . .
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . .
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lighting.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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
Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo
Markers
Delineators .
Other . .
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $
K
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subtotal: $
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No
Existing Right of Way Width: 100 FT
New Right of Way Needed: TO BE DETERMINED AT SCOPING MEETING
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost (Includes R/W): $
Prepared By:
Date:
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 & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Ct h;rs
_ Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper
_ Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
_ Roadside Environmental
_ Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
_ Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
_ FHWA
- Dept. of Cult. Res.
- Dept. of EH & NR
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.
z
F
F
Q:
0
a
z
x
F
F
z
e W
F
• W
Q
U

°
° Z
o z
0 0:
0
0 m F J F f w
I a F a
O a
w z
w z
n
C Z W LL 4 ?O a
C
o
? K
O O rc
U a
C ?
C U
C
w w
O 6 /?
/ ,,?
Z C
K ]
° ]
° 7 7 j l7
w Z l w > ° z
Z N

o

a

w

a s

a

2
N W
>

z

z ww
o
IL V z
Q J F

w
Y

W

>
N
> Z

O
Q o ° m a 1
w a K

N 2
K
w]
LL :1 w C
O
I
~ W

w
N

W
N 4

Y
W w
a

O
z
Q p O
z z ;
z z
a w
w m
i
F ?-?
Lm a a a N Q a z
r w w 7 w a a W W
f
p 0 0
z z W
z O
z w
a w
a Xa
f f
f
U. ? ? ?
? ? ? ? u
STAIZ
a?m
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR January 4, 1993
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Minutes
NC 49 from US 70 to NC 62, Alamance County, Federal Aid
Project STP-49(1), State Project No. 8.1470601, TIP
Project R-2543A.
A meeting was held on Friday, December 18, 1992 in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470) to determine the scope of
work for the subject project. The following people were in attendance:
Robin Stancil SHPO
Danny Rogers Program Development
David Langston Locations and Surveys
Ray Moore Structure Design
Don Sellers Right of Way
Eric Galamb DEM-Water Quality
Jesse Gilstrap Traffic Control
Philip Culpepper Traffic Control
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Dave Cochran Roadway
Connie McGee Roadway
Schenck Cline Planning and Environmental
Ed Lewis Planning and Environmental
Sarah Gardner Planning and Environmental
Mr. Lewis opened the meeting and updated those present on the status of the
project. Existing conditions for the roads and structures in the project
vicinity were related in detail to those present.
Robin Stancil from the State Historic Preservation Office was given the
opportunity to address any cultural resources in the project area. She noted
there were structures of historical significance listed on the National
Register. The pictures of the houses taken by Mr. Lewis are to be given to
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Jawary 4,, 1993
Page 2
Barbara Church for further investigation about their eligibility. It was
also mentioned that the Pleasant Grove Recreational Center is located at the
northern end of the project and could constitute a 4(f) involvement. An
archaeological site, No. 31-AM-29, is located in the project vicinity and
some other sites needito be surveyed in order to determine if they have any
archaeological significance.
Several environmental concerns were mentioned and will have to be looked
into. The Charles Richard Drew Memorial, the Pleasant Grove Recreational
Center, and some other possible eligible structures will have to be
investigated by the staff historical archaeologist. The results and
recommendations will be sent to SHPO for their concurrence. Other facilities
located along the project are two churches, the Pleasant Grove Recreation
Center, and a cemetery which appears to be on NCDOT right of way.
Eric Galamb noted Quaker Creek Reservoir receives drainage from east of
NC 49. If the project is within one mile of the watershed intake, then Best
Management Practices will have to be used.
?J4A'
It was noted there was an error in the TIP cost on the scoping sheets. The
correct costs are $9.3 million for construction and $4 million for
right-of-way giving a total project cost of $13.3 million.
Traffic Engineering recommended the right triangle rotary intersection at
NC 62 and NC 49 be modified to a four-legged intersection with turn lanes and
signals provided.
At the southern end of the project, it was suggested the NC 49/SR 1928
intersection be realigned. Then, the widening could continue along SR 1928
down to US 70. SR 1928 could serve as new NC 49 down to US 70. This
alternative would eliminate the need for widening NC 49 from SR 1928 to US 70
since this section of NC 49 is very "tight", and there is a possible
hazardous waste site that would be avoided. Further information about the
traffic volumes and turning movements will be needed by Roadway Design in
order to determine tht feasibility of this option.
The necessary widening of different segments of the project was also
discussed. The necessity for widening to a 5-lane facility along the length
of the rest of the project was also questioned. It was suggested that
SR 1752 might be a break point. NC 49 would be widened to multilanes south
of SR 1752, and north of SR 1752 two-lane improvements might be sufficient
for NC 49. Again, Roadway Design would need information from the Traffic
Forecast Unit in order to develop any alternatives. Mr. Lewis will contact
the Traffic Forecast Unit to try and expedite the traffic request.
There were no additional comments and the meeting adjourned.
SLG/wp
1.766 1908
1764 1.0 N A
Q 'o-
762 END 1765 b
PROJECT
Pleasant Grove cDn
b -1- - -1- - -1- -
.5 PS 32 C 6 `
.2 2.2 PAS'
lit --
t, _ .0 1909 19
e .r ?1 qS -
?S Res. Union Jeffries
Cross
Ilk ` PoaBe 'i
1002 `i
i Itamaha ez ,a Ch.
e \ 49 ' i W
Eton O Cro
8 aven
7 Gie Burlingt'on
ALAMANCE ` 'e ' _ 70 O 49
a o -%11 2.0 1910 .4
COUNTY ' 1* 119 , 2 -
manc
?, 5 o Graha s? so Ie ' 6 1911 1
9 0 .? e7 Y \ 1794 119
ALAMANCE 6 1995
?v I I8 \ xav 2.1 1.2 I h Cb
Eh V? , .4 `r
49 snow camp 1 N P?
1 ' 1793 1990 ?c 1910
? 1999 .9
s •4 1912 *< Miles
Chapel 1912 Chapel V r.
r
A% N 1749 1735 1 1921 1.0
?J 1791 1777 ,1752 "Y I
9 19 6 1915
k
LINE N 1729 1735 b
?• x 2005
1921
1915
?. Hopedale 3 1 .5
5
917
1917 1919 •rD
EAU ' Quaker
Creek 1.5
Res. 1921
.?1 9G a5 ' qp 1988 1920
?-
?' I 1927 1948 F
BEGIN
•: ?+;:' Cif
PROJECT
r: a
. ,? 'Haw River 1.
'• 4
::? ;:? ?.^• C? EXT.
70 .;;? .??. • ??' '?? ?'?6 ' FAU ......
2 2 :.r 1.2 T 70 _
y q '".
'. 37,266 ;.:
FA FqU: RAILWAY
r .. :. F:
' FAU :•>: HAW RIVEa::
FqU :•<: ?':1 POP. VEIi.•
87 00 1,8581:;:;:
t'.• FAU
7 49 49
/;.
54
87 FAP 150 ?•:;
T.'.,.
.7 FAU )" 5 • :•5 5
yA 148 85
GRAHAM ?.4
v
. 8, 674- F ::• FAQ 1;. :?r::
P01
,.:? ):2
?... 147 G
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
'PRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVFRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 49
FROM US 70
TO NC 62
T. I. P. NO. R-2543
FIG. 1

FILE COPY
January 14, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Ed Lewis
NCDOT - P&E
From: Eric Galamb
DEM
Subject: Scoping Meeting Minutes
NC 49 from US 70 to NC 62
Alamance County
TIP # R-2543A
The subject Minutes has been reviewed by this office and I request the
following clarifications. During the meeting, I requested that hazardous
spill catch basins be installed at all water supply classified stream
crossings. This request was based on the cooperation clause of DOT's BMP
manual which states DOT will cooperate with DEM to contain and clean-up
spills within the right-of-way at the request of DErI. I also stated that NC
49 appears to be on a ridge. Streams draining to the east would be
classified as water supply. You stated that DOT would utilize the
requirements in the BMP for the Protection of Surface Waters (if the
project is within one mile of the watershed intake, then the catch basin will
have to be used).
I request that the Minutes be changed to reflect my statements. I realize
that the meetings proceed very quickly and you are not faulted for the
mistake in the Minutes. Thank you for the invitation to the scoping meeting. --
cc: Mr. David Foster