20001432_Complete File_19970527

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howesy Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 27, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Through: John Dorn
From: Cyndi Bell (?, !r i3
Subject: Finding of No Significant Impact for Rutherford College, Malcolm
Boulevard (SR 1001) from I-40 to North of US 64-70
Burke County
State Project DOT No. 8.2851201, T.I.P. No. R-2617, EHNR # 97-0726
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the Section 401 Water Quality Certification Program for activities
which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The project will involve no fill in
wetlands and no stream crossings. The project area is not located within one mile of any
waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters, High Quality Waters, or Water
Supplies. DWQ offers the following comments based on the document review:
A) DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken from upland
sources in the construction contract awarded for this project.
Based upon the project description in the FONSI, a 401 Water Quality Certification will not
be required. DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this document.
Questions regarding the 401 Water Quality Certification Program should be directed to
Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Steve Lund, COE, Asheville
R2617FON.DOC
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recyded/10% post consumer paper
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmerital Affairs
Project Review Form
? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville ?Ail R/O Areas ?Soil and Water ?Marine Fisheries
Air El Coastal Management ? Water Planning
Fayetteville Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville VGroundwater Wildlife ? Solid waste management
? Raleigh ,Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources El Radiation Protection
hi
? W ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
ngton
as ? Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ?Others nvironmental Management RECLEIVED
? Winston-Salem PWS Sonica Swihart
NOV 2 ;; 1995
Et/V1R0; t4TAL
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agen

r
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
? No objection to project as proposed
0J 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-1a
Rutherford College, Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001),
From I-40 to US 64-70
Burke County
State Project No. 8.2851201
Federal Aid No. STP-1001(8)
T.I.P. No. R-2617
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
i
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
and 49 U.S.C. 303
APPROVED:
at R. Fran in Vic , P. E., Manager
h lanning and Environmental Branch
f/4Dt e
-Ni c o a raf E.
fw'Sivision Administrator, FHWA
Rutherford College, Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001),
From I-40 to US 64-70
Burke County
State Project No. 8.2851201
Federal Aid No. STP-1001(8)
T.I.P. No. R-2617
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
September,' 1995
Documentation prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Clarence W. Coleman, Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Unit Head
v CARP Sr
?4 •..•
ip?., 9
?,•?EESS
B Sr ?e q?
9/9
SE AL
Richard B. Davis, P. E., Asst. Ma ag r = t
6-944
Planning and Environmental Branch
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Purpose of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
C. Traffic/Truck Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Existing Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
D. Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
E. Speed Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
F. Access Control . . 3
G. Intersections and Type of Control 3
H. Utilities 3
I. Project Terminals 3
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT . . . 3
A. Length of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Design Speed Proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
E. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
F. Grade Separation over Railway . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
G. Retaining Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
H. Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
J. Bicycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
K. Landscape Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
L. Speed Zones
o
* 5
M. Type W Control
Intersection TreatmeW and 5
N. Estimate of Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Five-Lane Curb and Gutter (Recommended) . . . 5
B. Four-Lane Divided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Co Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
D. "No Build" Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
VI. LAND USE PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. Scope and Status of Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
C. Future Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
D. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE IMPACT OF
THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Neighborhood Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
C. Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . 8
D. Probable Impact of Proposed Action to the
Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Relocation of Individuals and Families . . . . . 8
2. Social Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
E. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
F. Air Quality Analysis . . . . 10
G. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis . . 13
1. Characteristics of Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2. Noise Abatement Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Ambient Noise Levels . . . . . 15
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels 15
5. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis/Abatement
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Do Nothing Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Construction Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
H. Ecological Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. Biotic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3. Jurisdictional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4. Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
J. Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
K. Special Permits Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Best management practices will be adhered to during construction to
minimize negative environmental impacts.
Cleared areas will be revegetated as quickly as possible after
construction is completed.
Solid wastes will be disposed of in strict adherence to the Division
of Highways' Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. The
contractor shall be require to observe an to comply with a laws,
ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees regarding the disposal of
solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed into any existing land
disposal site which is in violation of state rules and regulations.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas that are outside of the
right-of-way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by
the plans or special provisions or unless disposal within the right-of-way
is permitted by the Engineer.
The contractor shall maintain the earth surface of all waste areas,
both during the work and until the completion of all seeding and mulching,
or other erosion control measures specified, in a manner which will
effectively control erosion and siltation.
Vegetation from land clearing and other demolition and construction,
and land clearing materials will be disposed of in accordance with
applicable air pollution and solid waste regulations.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken
not to block existing drainage ditches.
Rutherford College, Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001),
From I-40 to US 64-70
Burke County
State Project No. 8.2851201
Federal Aid No. STP-1001(8)
T.I.P. No. R-2617
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of
Transportation NCDOT , Division of Highways, proposes to widen
Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001) from a two-lane roadway to a multi-lane
facility. The recommended typical cross-section for the proposed
project is a five-lane, 19.2-meter (64-foot) face to face of curbs,
curb and gutter facility. The total length of the proposed project
is 1.0 kilometer (0.6 mile). The estimated cost in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is $3,614,000. The current
total cost is estimated to be $5,162,000.
2. Summar of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a
positive overall impact on the area by improving traffic circulation
and traffic safety in Rutherford College. It will improve the
accessibility to Valdese General Hospital, Burke County Emergency
Services, and the Lovelady Fire Department. The proposed project
will require the relocation of one residence and one business. No
recreation facilities or historic sites eligible for the National
Register will be involved. There may be some erosion and siltation
during construction, but strict adherence to Best Management
Practices for Erosion Control will minimize the damage. Long-term
impacts to water quality are not expected as a result of the proposed
improvements. Construction of the proposed project will not impact
any jurisdictional wetlands. Future noise levels are expected to
increase from a range of +0 to 14 dBA.
3. Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of this project, only one corridor alignment was
considered. However, in addition to the recommended five lane cross
section, a four lane divided facility was considered, but was
rejected. A public transportation alternative was eliminated since
the Town of Rutherford College does not have a public transportation
service and public transportation will not serve the purpose of the
project. The "no build" alternative was also considered, but
rejected since the widening of Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001) will
provide a more efficient, north-south route through the Town of
Rutherford College. The five lane cross section is recommended
because it provides adequate capacity to accommodate anticipated
future traffic volumes and provides increased safety benefits due to
the separation of traffic movement with a center turn lane.
4. Coordination - Several Federal, State and local agencies were
consulted Curing the preparation of this environmental assessment.
Comments from the following were received and considered during the
preparation of this assessment:
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives
and History
N. C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Town of Rutherford College
Burke County Board of Commissioners
5. Actions Required by Other Agencies - No permits will be required by
any agencies.
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P. E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
Rutherford College, Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001),
From I-40 to US 64-70
Burke County
State Project No. 8.2851201
Federal Aid No. STP-1001(8)
T.I.P. No. R-2617
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to widen Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001) from a two-lane
roadway to a multi-lane facility in Burke County. The project originates
at the northern I-40 ramps (See Figure 1) and culminates just north of the
Malcolm Boulevard/US 64-70 intersection. The total project length is
approximately 1 kilometer (0.62 mile). The recommended typical
cross-section is a five-lane, 19.2-meter (64-foot) face to face of curbs,
curb and gutter facility. The proposed right-of-way width along the
project ranges from 25 to 30 meters (80 to 100 feet). Additionally, the
project proposes to construct a new bridge to carry Malcolm Boulevard over
the Norfolk Southern Railway. The recommended length for the bridge is
approximately 51.8 meters (250 feet). A 7.01 meter (23-foot) minimum
vertical clearance is proposed. This project is included in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with the right-of-way acquisition
scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1996 and construction to
begin in FFY 1998. The estimated project cost in the 1996-2002 TIP is
$3,614,000. This includes $1,614,000 for right-of-way acquisition,
$1,900,600 in construction costs, and $100,000 in prior costs. The
project is currently estimated to cost $5,162,000. This includes
$1,212,000 in right-of-way costs and $3,950,000 in construction costs.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Purpose of Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve safety and traffic
flow along Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001) through the Town of Rutherford
College. Malcolm Boulevard is classified as a Major Collector. The
provision of a grade separation over the Norfolk Southern Railway and a
wider roadway width on Malcolm Boulevard is needed to provide adequate
capacity for existing and future traffic volumes. The construction of the
grade separation eliminate accident potential and delays resulting from
the at-grade crossing. The grade separation would also provide a higher
level of traffic service and would improve emergency access. Valdese
General Hospital is located on Malcolm Boulevard approximately 1.0
kilometer (0.62 mile) north of the US 64-70 intersection. Burke County
Emergency Services and Lovelady Volunteer Fire Department are also located
north of the railroad.
B. Economic Development
There are several businesses located along the project corridor. The
Valdese Weavers Manufacturing plant, which is located near the Malcolm
Boulevard/Perkins Road (SR 1740) intersection, has approximately 400
employees. The proposed project will improve access to the businesses
located on Malcolm Boulevard.
2
C. Traffic\Truck Volumes
Projected 1994 Average Daily Traffic Volumes along Malcolm Boulevard
(SR 1001) range from a 8400 vehicles per day just south of the US 64-70
intersection to 9500 vpd north of the US 64-70 intersection. In the year
2020, the traffic along Malcolm Boulevard is expected to increase to a
high of 22,800 vpd north of the I-40 interchange and a low of 21,000 vpd
north of the US 64-70 intersection.
III. EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
A. Existing Streets
The recommended project alignment will involve the following existing
streets:
1) Perkins Road (SR 1740)
2) Alpine Street
2) SR 1750
3) US 64-70
B. Existing Cross-Section
The typical cross-section for Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001) consists of
a 6.6-meter (22-foot) paved roadway with 0.9-meter (3-foot) unpaved
shoulders. Intersecting roads along the project alignment have the
following typical cross-sections:
1) Perkins Road - Two-lane, 5.6-meter (18-foot) shoulder section
with 2.0 meter (6-foot) unpaved shoulders
2) Alpine Street - Two-lane, 5.0-meter (16-foot) unpaved shoulder
section with 2.0-meter (6-foot) shoulders
3) SR 1750 - Two-lane, 5.0-meter (16-foot) shoulder section with
2.0-meter shoulders
4) US 64-70 - Two-lane, 6.0-meter (20-foot) shoulder section with
2.0-meter (6-foot) shoulders
C. Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way width along Malcolm Boulevard is 18 meters
(60 feet).
D. Brid es
There are no existing bridges along the proposed project corridor.
3
E. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit along Malcolm Boulevard is 72 km/h (45 mph)
from the northern I-40 ramps to just north of the at-grade crossing of the
Norfolk Southern Railway. The speed limit then reduces to 56 km/hr
(35 mph) to the end of the project.
F. Access Control
The existing roadway has no control of access, with the exception of
the I-40 ramp terminals which have full control of access.
G. Intersections and Type of Control
All roads intersecting the project alignment are at-grade. All
intersecting roads are stop sign controlled except US 64-70. The US 64-70
intersection is signalized.
H. Utilities
The following utilities are located within the project corridor:
water and sewer, electricity, phone, natural gas, and cable television.
Utility impacts are anticipated to be medium.
I. Project Terminals
The southern project terminus is at the northern ramps of the
I-40/Malcolm Boulevard interchange. The bridge that carries Malcolm
Boulevard has a 6.6-meter (22-foot) clear roadway width. The US 64-70
intersection with Malcolm Boulevard is signalized. At this intersection,
Malcolm Boulevard consists of three lanes with an exclusive left turn lane
in the northbound and southbound approaches. The pavement width at
Malcolm Boulevard is 9.9 meters (33 feet) at the intersection.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
A. Length of Project
The total length of the proposed project is approximately 1 kilometer
(0.62 mile).
B. Design Speed Proposed
The proposed design speed is a minimum 80 km/hr (50 mph). Design
speed is a correlation of the physical features of a highway which
influence vehicle operation and reflects the degree of safety and mobility
desired along a highway. Design speed is not to be interpreted as the
recommended or posted speed.
C. Cross-Section
The recommended typical cross-section is a five-lane, 19.2-meter
(64-foot), face to face of curbs, curb and gutter facility. The proposed
bridge consists of the recommended typical cross-section with a sidewalk
on one side. The proposed bridge is estimated to be 51.8 meters (170
feet) long.
4
D. Right-of-Way
It is recommended that the proposed project be constructed on
30 meters (100 feet) of right-of-way. In the vicinity of the bridge, the
right-of way will increase to approximately 48 meters (160 feet) in order
to contain the amount of fill required.
E. Access Control
No control of access is proposed along the project except in the
vicinity of the bridge.
F. Grade Separation Over Railway
The project will provide a grade separation crossing over the Norfolk
Southern Railway at site just west of the existing at-grade crossing of
Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001). The railroad track currently carries 14
trains per day with a train speed of 64 km/hr (40 mph). Currently, 8,400
vehicles per day travel Malcolm Boulevard which leads to an Exposure Index
of 117,600 (Exposure Index = 8400 (ADT) x 14 trains per day = 117,600).
According to local officials and area residents, the crossing is
frequently blocked for 8 to 10 minutes, resulting in substantial traffic
congestion and delays. Occasional blockings of 10 to 15 minutes are
reported to occur. Interruption of traffic service by train movements
results in severe problems. Congestion extends northward to US 64-70 and
blocks traffic not directly involved with the railroad crossing. Fire,
ambulance,and other emergency services located in Rutherford College are
severed from areas south of the studied crossing. Letters and /or
petitions supporting the project have been received from the Town of
Rutherford College, the Town of Valdese, the Burke County office of
Emergency Services, the Lovelady Fire Department and others. These
requests stressed the delays to emergency vehicles.
The estimated cost of the proposed grade separation is $707,616. The
structure will have a 19.2-meter (64-foot) clear roadway width with a
sidewalk on one side. A 7.01-meter (23-foot) minimum vertical clearance
is required. The total bridge length is 51.8 meters (170 feet).
G. Retaining Wall
A retaining wall is proposed to avoid conflicts with the Duke Power
Sub Station (See Figure 2 in Appendix). The retaining wall will have an
average height of 1.8 meters (6 feet). The estimated cost of the
retailing wall is $173,250, which is included in the construction costs.
H. Parkin
Parking will neither be provided for nor permitted along the project.
I. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are proposed as part of this project.
5
J. Bicycles
No special bicycle accommodations are recommended for the project.
K. Landscape Planting
In accordance with the NCDOT Highway Planting Policy, funding for
landscaping is included in the construction cost estimate for this
project; However, no special landscaping is proposed.
L. Speed Zones
The existing speed limit at the southern terminus of the project is
72 km/hr (45 mph). The existing speed limit north of the at-grade rail-
road crossing is 56 km/hr (35 mph). The speed limit on Malcolm Boulevard
is expected to remain 72 km/hr (45 mph) throughout the project corridor.
M. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
The Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001)/US 64-70 intersection will remain
signalized. All other intersections with the proposed project will be
at-grade and stop sign controlled.
N. Estimate of Costs
Construction $ 3,950,000
Right-of-Way 1,212,000
Total Cost $ 5,162,000
* Includes engineering and contingencies
** Includes relocation, acquisition and utility costs
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Five-Lane Curb and Gutter (Recommended
One corridor alignment was evaluated for the proposed project (See
Figure 2). A summary of this alternative is as follows:
The recommended alignment consists of widening Malcolm Boulevard to a
five-lane curb and gutter facility from the northern ramps of the
I-40/Malcolm Boulevard interchange to through the US 64-70 intersection.
The proposed typical cross-section provides two travel lanes in each
direction with a center turn lane. This project will also include the
construction of a grade separation over the Norfolk Southern Railway. A
20.4-meter (68-foot) clear structure roadway width is recommended.
The proposed roadway will be widened symmetrically and asymmetrically
throughout the project, as needed, in order to avoid existing businesses
along Malcolm Boulevard. Moreover, asymmetrical widening is necessary to
accommodate the new bridge proposed on the west side of the existing
roadway. The recommended improvement also proposes to set up for future
widening of Malcolm Boulevard north of the US 64-70 intersection to a
five-lane section. The need for this future widening is anticipated due
to projected traffic volumes and the fact that Malcolm Boulevard is a
direct link to I-40 for those traveling from Caldwell County. The
proposed right-of-way width ranges from 25 to 30 meters (80 to 100 feet)
and will require the relocation of 1 residence and 1 business. The
project will setup for future widening of Malcolm Boulevard to a 5-lane
curb and gutter facility north of the US 64-70 intersection (See Figure 2
in Appendix).
B. Four-Lane Divided
A four-lane facility was considered but rejected due to the reduction
of safety that occurs when the center turn lane is eliminated. Left
turning traffic generated by the development will clog the center lanes of
a four lane roadway reducing the effective capacity to two lanes.
Additionally, this alternative would cause additional relocatees which
would increase right-of-way costs significantly.
C. Public Transportation
Burke County currently does not have a public transportation system.
The privately owned automobile is the major form of transportation for
residents. The development of a public transportation system is not
considered to be a prudent alternative due to current and projected
traffic volumes along Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001).
D. "No Build" Alternative
The "no build" alternative was considered but rejected since the
project will provide a safe, more efficient route in this area.
VII. LAND USE PLANNING
A. Scope and Status of Plannin
The proposed roadway is located within the jurisdictions of the Town
of Rutherford College and the Town of Valdese. Both towns enforce a zoning
ordinance and subdivision regulations, although neither have adopted a
land use plan or other long range planning documents.
B. Existing Land Use
Land use within the project area is mixed. Commercial development
has occurred near the I-40 interchange, and includes an automobile
dealership and a convenience store. One industry, Valdese Weavers, is
located on Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001) just south of the Norfolk Southern
Railway. Several undeveloped parcels remain between I-40 and the
railroad. North of US 64-70, land use along Malcolm Boulevard is
predominantly residential, though some small commercial uses are also
located in the area.
C. Future Land Use
The Town of Rutherford College has zoned most of the land along
Malcolm Boulevard as a General Manufacturing district from I-40 to
US 64-70. One exception is a small parcel of land on the east side near
I-40, which is zoned for general business. The area north of US 64-70 is
zoned for residential uses.
The Town of Valdese has jurisdiction over the land between the
Southern Railway and SR 1740, which contains the Valdese Weavers mill.
This is also zoned for industrial uses.
D. Farmland
The Farmland protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal;
agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. Land which has been
previously developed or is committed to urban development is exempt from
the requirements of the Act. The proposed improvement is located in an
urbanized area where current zoning permits industrial development on
existing vacant parcels along Malcolm Boulevard. Therefore, no further
consideration of potential impacts to farmland is required.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE
IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
A. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed action is located in Burke County. Burke County is
located in the West Central Section of the state and is bounded by
Catawba, Cleveland, Rutherford, McDowell, Avery,and Caldwell counties.
The population of the county according to Link System - N. C. Data Center
for 1992 was 77,276. In terms of Racial Composition, Burke County as of
the year 1990 had a white population of 69,251 and the nonwhite population
was 6,223. During the same year, it is recorded that the population
density (Persons per Square Mile) of Burke County was 149.47.
In the vicinity of the southern project terminal at the I-40
interchange, the neighborhood consists of commercial development.
Paramount Ford Dealership, Philips 66 Gas Station, and Valdese Weavers.
North of Valdese Weavers and south of the Norfolk Southern Railway, the
proposed action veers to the west on new location while continuing to
parallel Malcolm Boulevard in a northerly direction. The proposed action
is to tie back into Malcolm Boulevard before it approaches the US 64-70
intersection. This vicinity of the project is also characterized by
commercial development. Establishments in this area consist of Brinkley
Lumber Company and Burke Gas Station.
B. Economic Factors
During the month of May 1994, Burke County had a total Labor Force of
42,660. Out of this total labor force, there were 41,120 persons
gainfully employed. This left and unemployment figure of 1,540 or 3.6
8
percent. The proposed grade separation over The Norfolk Southern Railway
and the improvement of Malcolm Boulevard by widening from the northern
I-40 ramps through the US 64-70 intersection will not have an adverse
impact on the economy. Impacts received as a result of this proposed
project will be positive ones: Businesses using Malcolm Boulevard will
realize increased efficiency because they will no longer be impeded by the
train traffic on Southern Railway. Visibility will be improved and safety
factors will be enhanced because of the proposed improvements to Malcolm
Boulevard.
C. Public Facilities
The proposed improvements will not adversely impact any public
facilities.
D. Probable Impacts of Proposed Action on the Environment
1. Relocation of Individuals and Families Impact
The proposed action will require the relocation of one
residence, and one business.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state
and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina
Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize
the inconvenience of relocation:
*Relocation assistance,
*Relocation moving payments, and
*Relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplement".
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff
will be available to assist displacees with information such as
availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale
or rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation
Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will
force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost
or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership),
the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted
in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or
the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through
133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do
business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
9
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard
to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will
schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets
decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at
least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property.
Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not
generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial
facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be
within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced
will receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as
(1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement
housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing
owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation
officer will also supply information concerning other state or
federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will
provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate
the displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired
for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners,
NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for
replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any
increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement
to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased
interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed
$22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing
provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to
exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down
payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a
replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by
the NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless
and until comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided
for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as
income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for
the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility
of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any
other federal law.
10
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable
replacement housing is not available, or when it is unavailable
within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment
exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by
the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can
be provided. It is not felt that this program will be necessary on
the project, since there appear to be adequate opportunities for
relocation within the area.
2. Social Impacts
The proposed
interfere with the
will not split any
E. Cultural Resources
project will not disrupt community cohesion,
accessibility of facilities and services; and, it
neighborhoods.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's for Compliance with Section
106, codified at CFR Part 800. It is also subject to compliance with
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4, the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer was consulted and he reported that he was aware of no
structures of historical or architectural importance located within the
planning area. This finding concurred with the N. C. Department of
Transportation Architectural historian who surveyed the area and found no
structures of Historic significance. The SHPO concurred with the NCDOT's
conclusion (see concurrence form in the Appendix).
According to the State Historic Preservation Officer (see letter
dated August 12, 1994 in the Appendix), "it is unlikely that any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction". Therefore, no archaeological survey was recommended in
conjunction with this project. Since there are no properties either
listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
in the area of potential effect of this undertaking, no further compliance
with either Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
or with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 is
required.
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 (S02), and lead (Pb)
11
(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) 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 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 downwind of the source of hydrocarbon
emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all
sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide,
and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air
pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less
than 7 percent of particulate matter emissions and less than 2 percent of
sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions
are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial,
commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can 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
12
octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency 3(EPA) has required the reduction in the
lead content of leaded gasolinesuucJhe overall average lead content of
gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams pergallon. 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 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 2000 and the
design year of 2020 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 #14
at a distance of 60' from the proposed centerline of the roadway and 75'
from the existing centerline. The "build" and "no-build" one-hour CO
concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 2000
and 2020 are shown in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest Build No-Build
Sensitive
Receptor 2000 2020 2000 2020
R-14 3.2 3.7 3.1 4.6
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
13
the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded
that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Tables Al
through A4 for input data and output.
The project is located in Burke County, which has been determined to
be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR
part 51 is not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an
attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
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 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. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
widening and grade separation in Burke County on noise levels in the
immediate project area (Figure N1). This investigation includes an
inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of
ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a
comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to
determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the
proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current
procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction
noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and
evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
1. 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).
14
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.
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 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 different sensitivity to noise. Loud
noises bother some more than others and some individuals become upset
if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of noise also enter
into an individual's judgement 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 relate(
activities of individuals. In
conversation would be possible %
activities requiring high levels
by loud noises while activities
interrupted to the same degree.
to the interference of noise with
a 60 dBA environment, normal
Me sleep might be difficult. Work
of concentration may be interrupted
requiring manual effort may not be
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.
15
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. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of
constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the
same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the
fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of
a steady noise level with the same energy content.
3. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing background noise levels. The
purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level along SR 1001
as measured at 50 feet from the roadway at a point 0.2 mile south of
US 64-70 is 63.6 dBA. The ambient measurement sites and measured
exterior Leq noise levels is presented in Table N3.
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 2.6 dBA
of the measured noise levels for the location where the noise
measurement was 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 continual changing highway configuration and
surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict highway
traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and
OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction)
procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses
the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds,
the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed,
elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable,
barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
16
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The project
proposes to construct a grade separation over the existing Southern
Railway line and widen the existing two-lane highway to a five lane
curb and gutter facility from the I-40 interchange through the
US 64-70 intersection. Only those existing natural or man-made
barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway sections
and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade.
Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical
conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are
highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during
the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were
used with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other
time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
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 2020. 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 location of these receptors were
determined by the changes in projected traffic volumes and/or the
posted speed limits along the proposed project. The result of this
procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using
this grid, noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Table N4. Information included in these tables consist of
listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their
ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level
increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that
are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in
Table N5. 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, three residential receptors were determined to
be impacted by highway traffic noise. 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.
11
Table N6 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted
noise level increases for this project range from +2 to +11 dBA. When
real-life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise
level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving
of the loudness of the sound.
5. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis/Abatement Measures
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 three
impacted receptors in the project area.
a. Hiahwav Alianment
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.
b. Traffic Svstem Manaaement 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. The project will maintain only
limited control of access, meaning most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct access
connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersections will
adjoin the project at grade.
18
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction
it must be high enough end long enough to shield the receptor
from significant sectic of the highway. Access openings in
the barrier severely re ,:e the noise reduction provided by the
barrier. It then becomE 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 50 feet from the barrier would
normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of
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, one residence would experience traffic noise impacts by
approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors could
anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the
range of +5 to +6 dBA. As previous 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.
7. 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, 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.
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,
19
and unless a major project change develops, no additional noise reports
will be submitted for this project.
H. Ecological Analysis
1. Physical Resources
a. Soils
The project vicinity in Burke County is located in the
Piedmont physiographic region in mid-western North Carolina.
This area lies within the Inner Belt of metamorphic rocks
composed of mica schist. The elevation averages about 312 m
(1220 ft). The terrain is rolling to hilly, set between higher
hills to the south and lower elevations at Lake Rhodhiss on the
Catawba River to the north. The project area lies on a narrow,
irregularly-defined ridge, upon which streams have formed only
downslope, away from the project area. Some major drainageways
are in the project vicinity, and narrow floodplains are located
along some of the streams.
The soils of the project vicinity were not identified for
this study. No hydric soils are found within the project area.
Soils in the region are susceptible to heavy erosion when
disturbed.
b. Water Resources
The project vicinity is in sub-basin 03-08-31, the middle
drainage of the Upper Catawba River Basin, a large part of which
drains the Blue Ridge escarpment. Drainage from the project
area is in the lower part of the sub-basin, flowing northerly
into the Catawba River at Lake Rhodhiss, approximately 5 km
(3 mi) to the north, through Hoyle Creek and Island Creek.
There are no intermittent or perennial streams in the project
area, but small perennial streams lie in the project vicinity
just outside of the project area, the nearest stream being about
488 m (1600 ft) to the east. Any runoff from the roadway and
construction activity would enter Smith Branch, a tributary of
Island Creek, on the east side and tributaries of Micol Creek, a
tributary of Hoyle Creek, on the west side.
There are no streams in the project area. Streams of the
project region are typically medium to low gradient sandy
streams. Small streams within the project vicinity include
Micol Creek and Smith Branch. Fish (1968) describes these
streams as "too small to be of fishing significance."
All classified streams in the project vicinity are in Class
"WS-IV" (NCDEHNR 1993). All tributaries carry the same
classification as the streams to which they are tributary.
WS-IV waters are defined as follows: "waters protected as water
supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds; point source discharges of treated wastewater are
permitted pursuant to Rules ... {of Subchapter 2B of the
20
Administrative Code; local programs to control nonpoint sources
and stormwater discharges of pollution are required; suitable
for all Class C uses (NCDEHNR 1994). Class "C" streams are
"freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing,
aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife."
This is the lowest freshwater classification; all freshwaters
receive this classification at a minimum.
There are no chemical and/or biological classifications [from
stations for chemical or benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN) samplings]
available for Micol Creek, Hoyle Creek, Smith Branch, Island Creek,
or any of their tributaries (NCDEHNR 1988, 1989,1990,1991,1992).
Further, there are no BMAN sampling stations in the immediate region.
In the region, there appears to be only one discharger with a
permitted flow greater than or equal to 0.5 MGD. The Valdese Lake
Rhodhiss PCF is permitted at 7.5 MGD, discharging into Lake Rhodhiss.
The cities of Marion and Morganton are the major cities in the
Upper Catawba River Basin. There are localized problems with
point-source dischargers. Lake Rhodhiss is considered to be
eutrophic, with conductivity = 75-106, and with a trophic state index
of 2.3. Most of the streams in the Upper Catawba River Basin are
rated as supporting their designated uses.
Impacts to water resources should be minimal because the project
area lies above flowing streams. Construction impacts can,
nonetheless, degrade waters that are off-site with sediment loads and
other pollutants that can affect water quality from a biological and
chemical standpoint. Because of the generally acute sensitivity of
aquatic organisms to discharges and inputs deriving from
construction, appropriate measures will be taken to avoid spillage
and control runoff. These measures will include an erosion and
sediment control plan, provisions for waste materials and storage,
storm water management measures, and appropriate road maintenance
measures. Best Management Practices will be employed consistently.
Construction of this project will not require the installation
of any culverts or bridges. No intermittent or perennial streams
will be crossed. Construction of this project will not modify the
flow of any stream.
There will be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. There are
no sites that meet the definition of jurisdictional wetlands. There
could be potential indirect impacts to downstream off-site wetlands.
The project, as described, will not impact any waters classified
ORW (Outstanding Resource Waters), HQW (High Quality Waters), WS-I
(water supplies in natural watersheds), or WS-II (water supplies in
predominantly undeveloped watersheds). The project does not lie
within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of such resources.
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWO - Water Quality Section Ric
MEMORANDUM
M- Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
* Wetlands
O John Dorney
*Cyndi Bell (arr)
O Greg Price (airports, coE)
O Steve Kroeger (utilities)
O
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
O Trish MacPherson
O Kathy Herring (forest/oxw/HQw)
O
* Toxicology
O Larry Ausley
O
44Y 191991,
Technical Support Branch (Archdale 9th)""
O Coleen Sullins, P&E
O Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
O Kim Coleson, P&E, State
O Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
O Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
O Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
O
Operations Branch (Archdale 7th)
O Kent Wiggins, Facility Assessment
O Tom Poe, Pretreatment
O Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
Planning Branch (Archdale - 6th) O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston-Salem
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
RE,
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisd;uo level of expertise or permit authority. P gK
check the appropriate box below and return this form ong with your written commgp , if any,
by the date indicated. ?-
RESPONSE DEADLINE:
O NO COMMENT ? COMMENTS ATTACHED
Name:
Date: -l
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are greatly
appreciated!
Notes:
You can reach me at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
mis:Ncircmemo.doc
Rutherford College, Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001)
From I-40 to North of US 64-70
Burke County
Federal Aid No. STP-1001(8)
State Project No. 8.2851201
T.I.P. No. R-2617
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)
and 23 U.S.C. 128(A)
APPROVED:
2S 97
date.'
311-01f,7
Date
Nicl V Graf, P. E.
r' '<Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Planning and Environmental Branch
Rutherford College
Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001), From I-40 to North of US 64-70
Burke County
Federal Aid No. STP-1001(8)
State Project No. 8.2851201
T.I.P. No. R-2617
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
February, 1997
Documentation prepared in the Planning and Environmental Branch by:
-00&t4-7 .? .
Clarence W. Coleman, Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
Q.
Teresa A. Hart
E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N CA R t```?•
SEAL
6944
i '
Gf EEQ`' C,.:
RD B.
Project Planning Unit Head
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1. TYPE OF ACTION 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 1
III. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2
IV. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 2
A. N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural 2
Resources
B. U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 3
V. PUBLIC HEARING
3
VI. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL 4
ASSESSMENT
A. Right-of-Way 4
B. Length of Bridge 4
C. Sidewalks 4
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 4
APPENDIX
Best Management practices will be adhered to during construction to minimize
negative environmental impacts.
Cleared areas will be revegetated as quickly as possible after construction is
completed .
Solid wastes will be disposed of in strict adherence to the Division of Highways'
Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. The contractor shall be required to
observe and to comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees
regarding the disposal of solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed into any existing
land disposal site which is in violation of state rules and regulations.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas that are outside of the right of way
and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special
provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the Engineer.
The contractor shall maintain the earth surface of all waste areas, both during the
work and until the completion of all seeding and mulching, or other erosion control
measures specified, in a manner which will effectively control erosion and siltation.
Vegetation from land clearing and other demolition and construction, and land
clearing materials will be disposed of in accordance with applicable air pollution and
solid waste regulations.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate
breeding areas for mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block existing
drainage ditches.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation in
Consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on
the human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment which
has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The
Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that
an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility
for the accuracy, scope and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to widen Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001) from a two-lane roadway to
a multi-lane facility in Burke County. The project originates at the northern I-40 ramps
and culminates just north of the Malcolm Boulevard/US 64-70 Intersection. The total
project length is approximately 1 kilometer (0.62 mile). The recommended typical cross-
section is a five-lane, 19.2-meter (64-foot), face to face of curbs, curb and gutter facility.
The proposed right-of-way width along the project ranges from approximately 30 to 50
meters (100 to 165 feet). Additionally, the project proposes to construct a new bridge to
carry Malcolm Boulevard over the Norfolk Southern Railway. The recommended length
for the bridge is approximately 65 meters (213 feet). A 7.01 meter (23-foot) minimum
vertical clearance is proposed. This project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal
Fiscal Year (FFY) 1997 and construction to begin in FFY 1998. The estimated project
cost in the 1997-2003 TIP is $5,350,000. This includes $1,200,000 for right-of-way
acquisition, $3,950,000 in construction costs, and $200,000 in prior costs.
2
The current total cost estimate of this project is $5,162,000, including $1,212,000
for right-of-way and $3,950,000 for construction.
III. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA) were circulated to the federal,
state, and local agencies listed below. Agencies from which written comments were
received are denoted by an asterisk (*). Additionally, the EA was made available to the
public. Copies of the correspondences received are included in the Appendix of this
document.
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*N. C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
N. C. Department of Human Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U. S. Department Of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Geological Survey
Regional Council of Governments
*Town of Rutherford College
Burke County Board of Commissioners
IV. COMMENT F.. IVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL A E M NT
Written comments were received from five agencies. The following is a summary
of the comments received which required a response.
A. N. C. Department of Environment. Health. and Natural Resources (NCDEHNRI
Division of Environmental Management ,DEMI
1.) Comment:
"DOT is reminded that the endorsement of an EA by DEM would not
preclude the denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland or water
impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practicable."
Response:
So noted.
B. U. S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service
1.) Comment:
"The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has no objection to this
project and believes the project will not result in significant environmental
impacts. However, we do encourage the implementation of stringent erosion
control measures during all construction activities in order to minimize possible
sedimentation in streams adjacent to the project area."
Response:
The NCDOT will adhere to Best Management Practices during construction to
minimize impacts to the environment. Special attention will be give to proper
installation and maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control devices.
2.) Comment:
"The service concurs with the "no effect" determination made regarding
this project and its potential impacts to federally listed endangered and threatened
species. In view of this, we believe the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Act
are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that
may affect endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered. (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner not
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the action.
Response:
If it is determined that this project may affect endangered or threatened species or
critical habitat, then NCDOT will coordinate with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as obligated by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
Following the completion of the Environmental Assessment, a public hearing was
held on February 26, 1996 in the Rutherford College Elementary School Auditorium.
Approximately 30 citizens attended the hearing, including representatives of NCDOT.
Everyone at the hearing agreed that a grade separation is needed at the Norfolk Southern
Railway to increase safety along Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001). However, some citizens
expressed opposition to widening Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001) to a five-lane curb and
gutter section because they felt this would cause increased traffic volumes through the
Town of Rutherford College. Furthermore, these citizen's worried that the increased
4
traffic volumes would threaten the Town's small town appeal. NCDOT officials
explained based on current traffic volumes, widening Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001) to a
multi-lane facility is warranted based on current traffic volumes.
VI. REVISIONS AND ADDITION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Since the circulation of the Environmental Assessment, several revisions to the
project have occurred. These changes/additions are listed below.
A. Right-of-Way
Section I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION, on page 1 of the EA, stated the proposed
right-of-way width was 25 to 30 meters (80 to 100 feet). Currently, 30 meters (100 feet)
of right-of-way is proposed for the project, with 48 meters (160 feet) of right-of-way in
the vicinity of the bridge.
B. Length of Bridge
SECTION I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION, on page 1 of the EA, stated the length
of the proposed bridge over Norfolk Southern Railway is 51.8 meters (170 feet). The
length of the bridge has been revised to 65 meters (213 feet).
C. Sidewalks
Section IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED
ALIGNMENT, on page 4 of the EA, stated that sidewalks were proposed as part of this
project. Currently, sidewalks are proposed along the east side of the project only. The
Town of Rutherford College will be responsible for participation in the funding of
sidewalks.
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The comments received on the Environmental Assessment did not reveal any
significant impacts resulting from the proposed connector. As stated in the EA, the
recommended improvements would result in the relocation of one residence and one
business. It was determined that the project will not result in the fragmentation of any
established neighborhoods.
Based upon study of the proposed project as presented in the EA, and upon
comments received from federal, state, and local agencies, it is the finding of the Federal
Highway Adminstration (FHWA) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) that this project will not have a significant impact upon the human
environment. The proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on natural,
ecological, cultural, or scenic resources of national, state, or local significance. The
project will not have significant adverse impact on air, noise, or water quality in Burke
County. The project will provide a more safe and efficient route. The provision of a
grade separation over the Norfolk Southern Railway and a wider roadway width on
Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001) would provide a higher level of traffic service and would
improve emergency access to Valdese General Hospital, Burke County Emergency
Services, and Lovelady Volunteer Fire Department.
Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement or further environmental analysis
will not be required, and for all these reasons it has been determined that a Finding of No
Significant Impact is applicable to this project.
CC/
APPENDIX
I
im

JI-A
pROJECT
LIMITS
p? aM 71 Msw Y' r ? j ? .r .
's C r i f s :.
rJl. L_ ?.4 71
L9.
? C
PROJECT
LIMITS
% 40
11]i J.
LLL
1l2t

J9Y1
I'. ? /\
%b
Um 1gQ1 ;i
COLLEGE r ? }
C?
Salk It ? 1
of
?- .VaLNf? ,.,?
S ?,
e'u9r cF ,o
" \1:14.c m BOULEVARD
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
RUTHERFORD COLLEGE, MALCOM BLVD (SR 1001)
FROM 1- 40 TO US 64.70
BURKE COUNTY
T. I. P. NO. R-2617
0 mile 1/2 FIG. 1
non
w 110,
r
?,`? RA'«6 ? r lye,. r ?,•- }
p? 1
4 `r
T.. ) 1
K y
00 1*4 ms,
•? - 1 -,`,?? it it ? ? ? •? ? .?• - p' `?-.- ? -
yy? ? '? r• •?'' a, <' 'h,l ? ,,?.r ? , ;. `ir :?• \1 yi,, - i -r'? ya,.
r" r s r
O'l 16
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville. North Carolina 28801
November 13, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Fcreral environmental assessment for the
Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001) from I-c0 to
County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-2617.
I EA
U proposed widening cf

US 64-70, Burke
in your letter of November 1. 1995, you requested our comments on tie
subject
the Fish and document. The oord?natQOnoActntasaamendedid(16 UnScCco6o1r6o;Ic)?
Wildlife C
and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
According to the environmental assessment, this projec7 lr,i11 involy?E
widening of a 0.6-mile section of Malcolm Boulevard from I-a0 to
US 64-70. The project will also involve the construction of a ne&,-Ii yT
over the Ncrfolk Southern Railway. No intermitten-L or perenn a
will be crossed by the project: however. there are small pererniai
streams immediately outside the project area, including Smith Branch.
tributaries of etldsewi11 be aimpacted. The purposeyof therprojec? is
jurisdictional wetlan
to improve safety and traffic flow along this section of Malcolm
Boulevard.
The U.S. Fish and WildfeService willenotcresult in sbgnifi?anto this
project and believes the project
environmental iacontrolomeasureseduoringcallaconstructpionmactivitiesTin
stringent erosion
order to minimize possible sedimentation in streams adjacent tot the
project area.
to federallydetermination listedmade
enregard I dangered and
The Service concurs with ntialnimpactseffect"
this project and its pote
threatened species. In
Section 7(c) of the Act v arewfu1ft11ed.WeHowevere obligationsmunderof
Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect endangered or
threatened species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered. (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner not
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat is determined that may be affected by the action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any
questions regarding our comments, please contact Ms. Janice Nicholls or
our staff at 704/258-3939, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence
concerning this project. please reference our Log Number 4-2-94-098.
Sincerely.
/R! d G. Bie9i
A ng Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau. North Carolina wildlife Resources Ccmmission,
320 S. Garden Street. Marion. NC 28752
---
?rl - DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
O?
2.0
F!1 116 WEST JONES STREET
. RALEIGH NORTH CAR0GWA 7- M 4 -
DEC i
.:.
12-07-95 `
}

`- INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS

FROM
MAILED TO
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
WHIT WEBB
PROGRAM DEV. BRANCH
TRANSPORTATION BLDG-!INTER-OFF
PRCJECT DESCRIPTION
MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
DIRECTOR
N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
?C
="4v- ASSESS. - P?OPOSE7 Ii1PROVEmEITS TO ?1ALC13LM BLVC. (SP 10Cl)t FROM I?
1
I-4G 7C US 64-70 TIP 4P,-Z6!7
Sri :;C 3.5=622CC-2?S PYOGK.AM TITLE - ENV. ASSEESS-
Icy- H' UE'•'1 - TO T?- NC.RTH CARCLINA
_NTcRrOV_RNM_NTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A ;ESULT CF T'-E REViEr THE F-CLLJWIVG
sIC COMMENTS WERE REC_IV=n
T
( Y) Cu?!;?EiITS ATTACHE:
,r;n-UL: Y'CU HAVE AP•lY CUESTICtIS i
C.C. REGION N
FLEASE CALL THIS CF=IC= (919) 733-7Z-2•
(/4UC;e
? ,L X995 ;,
J
h
??G & ENNF?
off I -W
' - State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E --? N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMO
TO: Chrys Baagett
FROM: Melba vfcGee U
RE: -96-0339 - EA Malcolm Boulevard Burke County
DATE: December 5, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed project. The attached comments are for your file.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachments

10
DEC 6 W9
N.C. STATE CLEAP.INGI?OUS-c
p.o. eox 27687. Rcleigh. North Corolino 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Ecucl appcrturyty Attrmctive Ac:icn Employer Eu recycled/ 10% post-ccnsumer pcrer
State of North',Carolina
Health and NofuralrResourctes
He
Division of Environmental Manage; ant
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary
A. Preston Howard. Jr., P.F.. Dii
Ncve'ri ber 22, 1995
it
MEMORANDUM 1
i
To: Melba McGee I
From: Eric Galamb? I
Subiect: EA.for Malcolm Boulevard
SR 1001)
AM%
Burke County
State Project D OT DE? . 851201, TIP lip, R-2617 1115
EIiNR # 96 03 , I
The subiec't document has been ti ebor is office. ssuanceThe Dt vis:cn .icn 401 Waver the i of Environmental Managements aonsi weilar,
Quality Certification for aetivitiWGwel?nC ding vwyetlarestwthe s4ate ill be r ,paC C"9
The document states that no i
DOT is reminded that endorsement of am EA by DEM would n hpre ince t erdGni l cl
a 401 Certification upon aoolicaiion if w
and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 CertifaiSciences Branco Eric GaiGmb (753-
1786) in OEMs Water Quality Environmental
c--: Monica Swihar, I
Asheville COE !
sr1001 bu.ea
919-7.'.3.7015 FAX 91;-733 ?496
P.O. Box 29535. RGeigh. Ncrrl ccroiina 27o2?C 3a 7elepncne
An cQ?:01 r?;pcxl?rii? Arl-c::ve Ac-lon - olcyer 5?'"b roc /=feel 1 C COr+n_ ;.ar n ,=Or
21
2. Biotic Resources
The biota and natural and secondary communities are typical of
the Inner Piedmont Ecoregion. No unusual or significant elements
were located during the field investigation, as noted below. Only
common names are used in the discussion below after the scientific
name is first introduced.
a. Plant Communities
Community descriptions are based on observations derived
from the general vegetation in and near the project R/W. The
natural vegetation of the project area would likely all be
classified as Dry Oak--Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakley
1990). However, most of the land surface in the project
vicinity is no longer covered in the natural vegetation. Most
of the forested areas consist of secondary communities, with
pines usually predominant. For purposes of discussion and
quantification, the following natural communities are recognized
in the R/W: Pine Forest, Early Successional Community, and
Upland Thicket. Most of the R/W and project area consists of
developed land types as follows: Maintained Fields, Lawn,
Residential Landscape, Built-up Area, Graveled Lot, Maintained
Roadside, Highway Pavement, and Railroad Right-of-Wa . Natural
communities comprise 25% of the R/W; 75% of the R1W is in
developed land types. Acreages of impacted communities and land
types under R/W are given in Table 1. Driveways and most lateral
roads, except for some larger roads, are included within the
communities and land types within which they are located.
Narrow borders of trees and thickets were usually not separated
from the predominant community or land type with which they were
connected. Numerous small ruderal areas were also not
separately calculated or described.
Pine Forest. There is one stand of young relatively
even-aged Virginia pine (Pinus vir iniana) Some scattered
small red cedars (Juni erus virginiana and shortleaf pine
(Pinus echinata) occur. T ere are a few hardwood saplings
present, including black cherry (Prunus serotina), tuliptree
(Liriodendron tuli ife?ra), and red made Acer rubrum). The
forest is very open beneath the canopy. Th-eforest floor is
mostly barren and covered only with pine needles and small
hummocks of moss and reindeer lichen (Cladonia sp.). A few
small Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera L '-a- and privet
(Li ustrum sinense) are scattere a out. Herb coverage is
sparse, incT_u ing ebony spleenwort (As lenium lat neuron),
running-pine (L copod?ium flabelliforme , grape fern Botrychium
vir inianum), wild onion A ium sp.), little bluestem
Anro 0 own sco arius), and panic grass (Panicum sp.). One
small moist area within this forest is dominate y red maple,
black cherry, white pine (Pinus strobus), Japanese honeysuckle,
blackberry (Rubus sp.), anff-trumpet creeper (CamPsis radicans),
with Japanese grass (Microste ium vimineum), Christmas fern
(Pol stichum acrostichoides , hay-scenes-fern (Dennstaedtia
punch o ula), an bristly greenbrier (Smilax his i a a so
present.
22
Early Successional Community. This community occurs mostly
under a powerline and in open areas near the railroad crossing.
The dominant plants are broomsedge (Andro 0 on virginicus),
sericea (Les edeza cuneata), aster (Aster sp. , re td op grass
(Tridens avus panic rass, fescue (Festuca sp.), and
goTaenrods So dago spp.). Other herbs present include
wingstem (Verbesina sp.), Johnson-grass (Sorghum halepense),
beggar's tic s Desmodium sp.), and fennel Eupatorium
h sso ifolium). T? ommunity includes some Japanese
honeysuckle, blackberry, and scattered woody seedlings and small
saplings.
Thicket. These are developed along some edges and borders
and as small successional units. Various plants are dominant
depending on the site. Some of the more common species included
Japanese honeysuckle, privet, blackberry, black haw (Viburnum
ru?nif,o_l,ium), multiflora rosa (Rosa multiflora), common
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Smoot sumac Rhus glabrraa),
grape (Vitis sp. , an kudzu Pueraria lobata). Coarse?herbs
such as p ume grass (Erianthus sp. and sundops (Oenothera sp.)
were frequently present, as well as some saplings an small
trees typical of the pine and hardwood forests in the area.
Maintained Fields. This type has elements similar to the
early successional community and maintained roadside. Asters,
fescue, redtop grass, and crabgrass (Digitaria sp.) appeared to
be most common.
Lawn. Bermuda grass (Cynod?on da?ct, lemon) and fescue appeared
to be most common. Many of the p and is found in the roadside
community were often present.
Residential Landscape. This category generally includes
yards that have a more wooded aspect rather than being primarily
open in lawn. The most common residual trees were post oak
( uercus_ stellata), southern red oak (Q. falcata), white oak
(Q. alba), moc ernut hickory (Car_ya tomentosa , and dogwood
(Cornus florida).
Built-up Area. This category defines lands that include
structures or are otherwise highly developed or built-upon. Any
associated lawns and residential landscapes, if present, are
also included in this category when structures are present.
Most commercial areas were fronted by paved parking lot and
included no vegetation.
Graveled Lot. One large area has been covered in gravel,
apparently for potential use as a parking lot or staging area.
Maintained Roadside. This is a community maintained in a
low state of succession by regular mowing. Bare areas are
frequent. The community is grass-dominated, with occasional
forbs occurring. Dominant grasses included fescue, foxtail
(Setaria sp.), lovegrass (Era rostis sp.), bluegrass (Poa sp.),
rye E ymus sp.), and broomse ge. Japanese grass and arthraxon
(Arthraxon his idus) occurred in some moist places. Common
23
forbs include Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), white clover
(Trifolium rePens), groundsel (Sened sp. , aster, goldenrod,
wild onion, ra3bit tobacco (Gna a ium sp.), cinquefoil
(Potentilla sp.), vetch (Vicia sp.),-
p. , an sow thistle (Sonchus
sp. . Occasional low Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora rose, and
woody seedlings were present. A 3.0 m (10 ft) roadside on each
side of the existing alignment was assumed throughout its
length. Some other small areas were also included.
Highway Pavement. This category includes all the pavement
under the existing alignment, as well as under major road
crossings. A 6.1 m (20 ft) wide section was assumed throughout
the existing alignment.
Railroad Right-of-way. Coarse stone and regular spraying
make this type mostly devoid of vegetation. Horse nettle
(Solanum carolinense) was one of the few plants observed here.
b. Terrestrial Fauna
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than
the flora of an area without special efforts being expended.
Evidence of the typical fauna is sought through habitat
evaluation, casual sightings, and observation of sounds, tracks,
scats, dens, and other indirect evidence. Studies of range
distributions are also important in estimating the expected
fauna of a given area.
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area,
given the evidence available and the human population density
and development, are given below. Those taxa actually observed
in the field or for which direct evidence was seen are noted
with an asterisk (*) in the text.
The diversity of habitat types in the project area is not
great, and the overall habitat quality of the project area is
judged to be poor. A large diversity of species is not
expected. The primary habitat types were in the natural
communities and in the maintained fields with their associated
ecotonal areas. The best habitat consisted of the early
successional community and the thickets. There are no large
contiguous forest tracts. The avian fauna was typical of
developed areas but was not found to be notably abundant.
Traffic noise probably obscured many bird sounds. No ponds or
wet areas were noted in the project vicinity, and the distinct
array of reptiles, birds and mammals that frequent such areas is
not expected in the project area.
Based on available habitat, animals are here divided into
four general groups, three mostly expected in a specific habitat
type, and the fourth being somewhat ubiquitous. These are more
open areas, consisting of early successional communities,
maintained fields, lawns, residential landscapes, and maintained
roadside; intermediate habitats, consisting of thickets and most
ecotones; an pine forest.
24
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians that might be
expected are American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad (B.
woodusei), upland chorus -frog Pseu acres triseriata), and
spring peeper (Hyla crucifer). Salamanders are not expected to
be important.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here
probably include the five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta), black racer Co u er constrictor),
tor),
rough green snake 0eodr?s aestivus), earth snake Virginia
valeriae), and copperhead (Ag inc stnodon contortrix). In
intT ermediate habitats, likely occurrences include eastern fence
lizard (Scelo orus undulatus), eastern garter snake (Thamno his
sirtalis , an easter 7k snake (Lam ro eltis triangu um .
Ty»-ical reptiles expected in the small forested habitats might
include eastern box turtle (Terra ene carolina), ground skink
(Scincella lateralis), brown snake Storeeka i), redbelly
sna a S. occciipiitomaculata), ringnecci-snake Diadophis
punctatus), an worm snake Carphophis amoenus).
The avifauna of open areas that might be expected in the
area include mourning dove *(Zenaidea macroura), field sparrow
(Spizella usilla), common gracicQuisca Tus uiscula), *robin
(Turdus mi ratorius), starling (Sturnus vu garis , eastern
mea ow ar Sturne la magna), grass opper sparrow (Ammodramus
savannarum), an eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis). Birds
intermediate areas include brown thrasiFer Toxostoma rufum),
mockingbird (Mimus of lottos), goldfinch (Carcue Tis trT is),
and indigo bunt ni g Passerina cya-nea). Few forest species are
expected but might incl'luu a to tf ed titmouse (Parus bicolor),
eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), and red-eyeVireo
olivaceus). Species ranging through many habitats inc uce
re -tai ed hawk (Buteo 'amaicensis), screech owl (Otus asio),
*common crow (Corvus brac r nchos), cardinal (Carry na is ,
Carolina wren (T hr othorus u ovicianus), blue jay C anocitta
cristata), *rufous-sided towhee Pipilo er thro ht a mus ,
1 Icier (Cola tes auratus), and Carolina -chickadee Parus
carolinensis . *Rocks (Columba livia) were common in the
area, associated with the urban a itat.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include
southeastern shrew (Sorex lon irostris), least shrew (CCrryptotis
arva), long-tailed weasel Muste a renata), meadow vole
Microtus enns lvanicus), an ispi?cotton rat (Sigmodon
his i us . Those ranging into forests as well as open and
us
intermediate habitats are northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina
brevicauda), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), striped?nk
(Me itis , gray fox (Uroc on cinereoar enteus), white-footed
mouse Perom scus l euco u_s , an *eastern cottontail (S l vii l a uuss
floridanus . Several species usually shunning open areas, but
in the intermediate and forested areas, include opossum
(Didel his virginiana), pine vole (Microtus inetorum), golden
mouse Oc rotom s nuttalli), and eastern chipmunk (Tamias
striatus . Several inds of bats, such as little brown myotis
25
(_MV!otisotis lucifu us), eastern pipistrelle (PiRistrellus
subflavus , an red bat (Lasiurus borealis), might-erected
or?g over the fragment?ests admixed urban/residential
landscape. Exclusively forest species are probably not common
but should include raccoon (Procyon lotor) and gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis). Evidence oT` white-tailed deer
(OQoco Teus vir inianus), a typically mid-successional species,
was not o serve in the area.
C. Aquatic Life
Aquatic life was not observed in the project area.
Suitable habitats are not present.
d. Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts
Projected direct impacts due to project construction are
given in Table 1. Calculations are best approximations given the
design specifications available and the precision possible in
this study. Area measurements were calculated on aerial photo-
graphs onto which the prospective R/W was drawn. The existing
maintained roadside community will be destroyed in its entirety.
The edges of most other communities and land types will be
affected, thus reducing in small part the total natural habitat
in the project area and displacing some of the developed land
types. The actual impacts to biotic communities would be less
than those indicated in Table 1 if some of the R/W is not
utilized in construction.
Table 1. Area estimates of community and land types impacted under R/W.
hectares acres
Pine Forest 0.29 0.72
Early Successional Community 0.24 0.60
Upland Thicket 0.17 0.42
Maintained Fields 0.12 0.17
Lawn 0.15 0.38
Residential Landscape 0.11 0.28
Built-up Area 0.60 1.47
Graveled Lot 0.10 0.25
Maintained Roadside 0.47 1.17
Highway Pavement 0.47 1.17
Railroad R/W 0.04 0.09
TOTAL 2.76 6.84
26
The data in Table 1 suggest only the direct impacts on land and
community types due to construction. There will be some net loss of
habitat for small animal species and predators and scavengers that
utilize open areas. There will be a reduction in the available
habitat for animals that require forest and intermediate habitats.
Mortality rates for all species due to road kills may increase,
because of the additional pavement to be negotiated. Other indirect
effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not
change significantly. The existing roadway already disrupts natural
animal movement patterns, so road widening and grade separation of
the railway should not introduce a significantly new factor except
during the construction phases of the project.
Effect on aquatic systems should be minimal. There are no
aquatic systems on-site. Any effects would be due to runoff
affecting off-site locations. Increased sediment and pollution from
highway construction activity and runoff pollution after construction
are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce water
quality. Aquatic organisms are generally acutely sensitive to these
inputs. The impact on aquatic systems will be minimized through the
use of Best Management Practices.
3. Jurisdictional Issues
Highway construction affects wetlands by direct taking and by
alteration of characteristics and functions in adjacent areas.
Freshwater wetlands are important because of their habitat value for
fish, wildlife and endangered species; maintenance of biological
diversity; food chain support; nutrient retention and removal;
sediment trapping; shoreline anchoring; regulation of flooding and
groundwater hydrology; recreation; their uniqueness in their own
right; and their aesthetic value in some cases. Highway construction
in wetlands has major impacts on their value for these functions.
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other
federal and state statutes and regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or
fill materials into these waters and wetlands. Determination of
jurisdictional wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b) based
on best judgement of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory
1987).
It is determined that no jurisdictional wetlands are located in
the project area and none are anticipated to be impacted by this
project. Some jurisdictional wetlands may be present downstream of
the project area and potentially will receive inputs from road
construction. It is difficult to judge the extent of wetland
impacts, except for actual takings under R/W, until the particular
design requirements are known for the terrain in question.
Permits
This project will not require permits from the COE.
27
4. Protected Species
a. Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E),
Proposed Threatened (PT), and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive
federal protection under Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of
November 17, 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports
seven species with one of these classifications for Burke County
(Table 2). No specimens of any of these taxa were observed in
the project area. Most of the protected species found in Burke
County are from the mountainous section in the western part of
the county.
Table 2. Federally protected species in Burke County, with state
category also given.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FED. CAT. STATE CAT.
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus
Spreading avens Geum radiatumI
Roan Mountain Hedyotis purpurea
bluet var. montana
Dwarf-flowered Hexastylis naniflora
heartleaf
Mountain golden Hudsonia montana
heather
Small whorled
pogonia
Isotria medeoloides
Heller's blazing
star
Liatris helleri
E
E
E
T
T
T
T
E
E-SC
E
E
E
E
T-SC
E = Endangered, in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (or in the state);
T = Threatened, likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future;
SC = Special Concern, requires monitoring.
1 No specimen from Burke County in at least 20 years.
28
The peregrine falcon nests in mountainous areas where
cliffs are found. This type of habitat is not found in the
project area. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Spreading avens is a plant found on high elevation rocky
summits. This type of habitat is not found in the project area.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The Roan Mountain bluet is a plant of high elevation rocky
summits and grassy balds. This type of habitat is not found in
the project area.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs in deciduous forests,
bluffs and ravines. It is a small evergreen herb, several
similar to several other Hexast lis species, therefore it is
easily overlooked. It has een found in only five southwestern
Piedmont counties of North Carolina, including Burke County.
Suitable habitat for this species does not occur in the project
area.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Mountain golden-heather occurs on rocky summits, rim
outcrops of gorges, and pine-oak heath ridges. These types of
habitats do not occur in the project area.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The small whorled pogonia typically occurs in upland
forests throughout the state, but mostly in the mountains,
especially with white pine (Pinus strobus) on wooded slopes and
along streams. This type oT__Fa_bitat__Toes not occur in the
project area.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Heller's blazing star is found on high elevation rocky
summits and cliffs. Habitat of this type does not occur in the
project area.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Construction of this project will have no adverse effect on
any federally protected animal or plant species.
b. Federally Candidate and State Protected Species
Candidate 1 (Cl) and Candidate 2 (C2) taxa are not legally
protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject
to any of its provisions until formally proposed or listed as E
or T. C1 species are supported by sufficient information to
warrant listing as E or T, but they are not yet listed because
29
of the large number of backlogged C1 taxa. C2 species show some
evidence of vulnerability, but there are not enough data to
support listing proposals at this time.
North Carolina affords protection to Endangered,
Threatened, and Special Concern (SC) species in the state.
Plants are legally protected under the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, and animals are legally protected
under the N.C. Endangered Species Act of 1987.
There are eleven taxa listed as federal candidate species
for Burke County (Table 3). They are mentioned here for
information purposes in the event they become federally listed
in the future. The state listing is also given. None of these
candidate species were found in the project area.
Table 3. Federal Candidate and State Listed species for Burke County.
COMMON SCIENTIFIC FEDERAL STATE SUITABLE
NAME NAME CATEGORY CATEGORY HABITAT
Eastern woodrat Neotoma floridana C2 SC No
mm gister
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa C2 T No
A liverwort Ce haloziella1 C2 C No
obtuse o u a
Butternut Juglans cinerea 1 C2 W5 No
Sweet pinesap Monotrops ds o0 orata C2 C No
A liverwort Plagiochila caducilobal C2 E No
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii C2 C No
var. spinigera
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivontii C2 C No
var. su-l l ivanti i2
Rock skullcap Scutellaria saxatilis C2 C No
Oconee-bells Shortia galacifolia C2 E-SC No
Short-styled Shortia alacifolia C2 E-SC No
oconee-bells var. brevisty a
W5 = Watch Category #5, rare because o severe decline; T = t reatene ,
likely to become endangered in N.C. within foreseeable future
throughout all or portion of range; C2 = taxon shows some evidence of
vulnerability, but there are not enough data to support listing
proposals at this time; C = Candidate, very rare and likely to merit
listing as E or T if trends continue; SC = Special Concern, a species
which requires monitoring.
1 No specimen from this county in at least 20 years.
30
I. Construction Impacts
There are a number of short term environmental impacts normally
associated with the construction of highways that will be experienced with
the construction of this project. Measures will be taken to mitigate these
effects to the extent possible.
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.
Solid wastes will be disposed of in strict adherence to the Division
of Highways' Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. The
contractor sha be require to observe and to comply with a laws,
ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees regarding the disposal of
solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed into any existing land
disposal site which is in violation of state rules and regulations.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas that are outside of the
right-of-way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by
the plans or special provisions or unless disposal within the right-of-way
is permitted by the Engineer.
The contractor shall maintain the earth surface of all waste areas,
both during the work and until the completion of all seeding and mulching,
or other erosion control measures specified, in a manner which will
effectively control erosion and siltation.
Vegetation from land clearing and other demolition and construction,
and land clearing materials will be disposed of in accordance with
applicable air pollution and solid waste regulations.
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,
including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the time
of construction that will minimize damage or rupture to water lines and
interruption of water service.
Erosion and sedimentation will occur during the construction of this
project. For this reason, an erosion control schedule will be devised by
the contractor before work is started. The schedule will show the time
relationship between phases of work which must be coordinated to reduce
erosion and will 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 the provisions of the plans and specifications which pertain to
erosion and siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the use
of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures
31
which is entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation and Pollution." The
N. C. Division of Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Program which has been approved by the N. C. Sedimentation Control
Commission. This program consists of the rigorous requirements to
minimize erosion and sedimentation contained in the Standard Specifi-
cations for Roads and Structures.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken
not to block existing drainage ditches.
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the contractor will obtain a certification from the State
Historic Preservation Officer of the State 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 or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places. A copy of this certification will be furnished to the
Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances, along with regulations of North Carolina Plan for Implementing
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Burning will be done only on the
right-of-way, under constant surveillance, with good atmospheric
conditions, as remote from the dwellings as possible.
J. Hazardous Waste
An investigation of the project area was conducted to determine if
any hazards such as underground storage tanks, hazardous waste sites,
dumps, landfills, or other similar sites which may impact construction of
the project, cause delays, or create liabilities. As a result of this
study, this project was considered to have a low risk for hazardous
materials involvement.
K. Special Permits Required
No special permits will be required of the Division of Highways.
VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Input concerning the effects of the project on the environment was
requested from the appropriate Federal, State, and Local agencies in
preparing this Environmental Assessment. Listed below are the agencies
which were contacted.
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health,
*N. C. State Clearinghouse, Department of
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources,
History
N. C. Department of Human Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
and Natural Resources
Administration
Division of Archives and
32
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Geological Survey
Regional Council of Governments
*Town of Rutherford College
*Burke County Board of Commissioners
*Denotes agencies from which input was received
A Citizen's Informational Workshop was held on October 20, 1994 at
the Rutherford College Elementary School Media Center to obtain comments
and/or suggestions about the proposed project from the public.
Approximately 15 people attended to express their interest in the project.
Most of those attending the workshop expressed support for the proposed
project. However, the owner of Brinkley Lumber Company expressed concern
about access to this business upon construction of the proposed project.
Brinkley Lumber Company is located in the vicinity of the proposed grade
separation (See Figure 2).
CC/plr
APPENDIX

I
c
t
c
----2560
r°• 60 aou
12 -(4,l)
On 17AA .-- Intl
1910 8100 US 70
R - 2617
1993 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
OCTOBER 19, 1994
LEGEND
N
4
1
1- 40
AR- 1749
0000 = vo
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (°A)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
AM/PM = AM OR PM PEAK
DIRECTION OF D
(M) DUAL TRUCKS, TTST (°?)
12 -P' 60
DBV D
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: DHV & D IF NOT
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG
0
0
12,500 437 ? 4260 18,000 US 70
ro p'" 60 1660 x270
(4,1)
O }$
ti EfH
0
O
ao
N
SR 1740 1600 640)
960
?O H
0
6650)11 3550
550 1660
665 j Tt!1.
250 040
0
1- 40
Sn I-749
1040
R - 2617
2020 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
OCTOBER 19, 1994
LEGEND
0000 = vpd
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
AM/PM = AM OR PM PEAK
DIRECTION OF D
(5,1) DUAL TRUCKS, TTST (%)
12 (p_ 60
DRV D
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: DHV & D IF NOT
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG
TREW Al
CAL3QHC: LIVE SOURCE DIEPZR5XOM MODEL. - MARCH, 1990 VERSIOR
JOB: R-2617: SR 1001, Burke County RUR: BUILD, 5-LX IR-2000, 45-MPH
DATE: 11/16/1994 TIWt 1409:46.17
SITE i METDOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
vS • .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 WE CLAS - 6 (P) Am - 60. MINUZZS M13M - 400. M AND - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DZSCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LZNGTB ERG TYPE VPH EP H N V/c QUEUE
I X1 I1 X2 T2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VIM)
1. Pas Lane Link 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7
2. Near Law Link 0 804.7 .0 -804.7
RZCEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
BECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R14, 60-L CL, RES -11.0 .0 1.8
JOB: R-2617: SR 1001, Burke County
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with Sams maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEOR) REC1
MAX 3.2
DEGR. 4
1609. 360. AG 629. 14.0 .0 13.4
1609. 180. AG 629. 14.0 .0 13.4
RUN: BUILD, 5-LN YR-2000, 45-MPH

TABLE 112
CAL]QBC: LIRE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - 1ANZ, 1990 VERSION
JOE: R-2617t SR 1001, Burks County Runk BUILD, S-LN YR-2020, 43-MPH
DATE: 11/16/1994 TINS: 14140106.49
SITE c HIMYD MCRL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
LINE VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
VD - .0 CM/S E0 - 108.:x:
CLAS • 6 (t) ATIK - 60. MINUTES K= ¦ 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINE COORDINATES (M)
XS Yi X2 Y2
1. Par Lane Link I 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7
2. Near Latta Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R14, 60'L CL, RES -11.0 .0 1.8
JOB: R-2617: SR 1001, Burka County
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the ma:imus concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ARM RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX ].7
DEGR. 5
LENGTH am TYPE VPH EP H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VIM)
1609. 360. AG 1140. 10.6 .0 13.4
1609. 180. AG 1140. 10.6 .0 17.4

RUN: BUILD, S-LN YR-2020, 45-MPH
. i
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINT SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOBS R-2617: SR 1001, Burke County RUNs NOBLD, 2-LN YR-2000, 36-MPH
DATSs 11/18/1994 TIMEt 16:28944.42
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS . .0 CM/3 VD . .0 CM/S ED - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS 6 (!) ATIM - 60. MINUTES
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION I LINK COORDINATES (M)
X1 Y1 X2 Y2
K= . 400. M AMR - 1.9 PPM
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPB E! H W WC QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VZH)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 I 1609. 360. AG 629. 17.8 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 629. 17.8 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
AECEPICR X Y Z
1. R14, 73-L CL, REB -21.0 .0 1.8
JOB: R-2617: SR 1001, Burka 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 an maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
3.1
6
RUN: NOBLD, 2-LN YR-2000, 35-MPH

TADLE A4
CAL3QSC: LIRE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOE: R-2617: SR 1001, Burke County RUN: WELD, 2-LX YR-2020, 25-MPH
DATES 11/18/1994 TIIRt 16:29:23.14
SITE a METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
V8 - .0 CH/S
U - 1.0 M/S
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
CLAS - 6 (F) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIKE - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
I
LINE COORDIRRM (M)
X1 Y1 X2 Y2
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R14, 75-L CL, RES -21.0 .0 1.8
JOB: R-2617: SR 1001, Burke 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 4.6
DEGR. 6
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1609. 360. AG 1140. 22.5 .0 9.8
1609. 180. AG 1140. 22.5 .0 9.8
RUN: NOBLD, 2-LN YR-2020, 25-MPH
rIGURE, N1 - PROJECT LOCATION
SR 1001, From •I-40 to the
Intersection or US7064/70
Burke County
TIP4 R-2617 State Project # 8.2851201
L

, U& nu kN'
Vie: ,-.:.: n?. y > .' .ia^• un
r
S .''wx• a RUiMUMWcomma r »74!R° /\?"'„r
Mr . 1,108 ? ? urc
Yak WL ?.>•
09* It
28 % Elio PROJECT
UIAL
MAW,
'Nus

LUL
r
ML

}
TABLE Ni
HEARING: BOUNDS DCKLMWING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN SAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Parer lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E SO Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD

B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, winder air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE

10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Hook, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. H. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jana Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)

TABLE H2
NOISE AEAIMMOT CSITEAIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic arms, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
z 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting roams, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and ,
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFA) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
* 50 > 15
> SO > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3
AMIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Lea)
SITE
SA 1001, From I-40 to the intersection of U8-64/70
Burke County, Proj. 1 8.2891201, TIP i A-2617
LOCATION
NOISE
LEVEL
DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1 SR 1001; 0.2 mile south of Grassy Area 64
US 64/70 @ Alpine Street
Note: The numbered noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from the
center of the nearest lane of traffic. The lettered noise level sites
are for areas where traffic noise was not the predominant noise source.
TABLE 94
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1001, From I-40 to US 64/70 South of Rutherford College
Burke county, state Proj.t 8.2851201, TIP • R-2617
AMBIENT NEAREST
ASCePTOR INFORMATION NEAR EST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID 0 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft)
SR 1001, From I-40 to US 54/70
1 Business C SR 1001 90 L 60 SR 10 01 90 L
2 Business C " 105 R 59 " 105 R
3 Business C of 125 L 57 " 125 L
4 Business c " 90 R 60 " 90 R
5 Residence B " 140 R 56 " 265 R
6 Business C " 80 R 61 " 155 R
7 Business C " 120 R 58 " 130 R
8 Business C of 180 R 54 " 180 R
9 Residence B of 285 L 50 " 200 L
10 Residence B to 360 L 47 " 310 L
11 Business C It 280 L 50 " 250 L
12 Residence a of 130 L 57 " 90 L
13 Residence B It 120 L 58 " 90 L
14 Residence B of 75 L 61 " 60 L
15 Residence B of 155 L 56 " 155 L
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAamum
--------------
- - 68 + 8
- - 67 + 8
- - 66 + 9
- - 68 + 8
- - 58 + 2
- - 64 + 3
- - 65 + 7
- - 62 + 8
- - 61 + 11
- - 57 + 10
- - 59 + 9
- - • 68 " + 11
- - * 68 ' + 10
- - * 71 • + 10
- - 64 + 8
1/1
NOISE
LEVEL
,INCREASE
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48)- * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).

Description
1. SR 1001, 1-40 to 08-64/70
2MMx N5
FBMA NOISE ABAMMENT CRMMIA SUMMARY
SR 1001, From I-40 to US 6x/70 south of Rutherford College
Burke County, State Prcj.1 6.2851201, TIP 1 R-2517
Maximm Predicted Contour
Leq Hai" Levels Distances
50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA
70 56 60 56' 113'
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CPR Part 772
A B C D E
0 3 0 0 0
TOTALS
NOTES - 1. 501, 100-, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dah contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
0 3 0 0 0
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
SR 1001, From I-40 to US 64/70 South of Rutherford College
Burke County, State Proj.f 6.2651201, TIP t R-2617
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section C.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Critaria(2)
1. SR 1001, 1-40 to U3-64/70 0 2 8 5 0 0 0 3 3
TOTALS 0 2 6 5 0 0 0 3 3

AUG 1 6 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso DIVISIGN OF
C. HIGHWAYS /
Jima B. Hoo% k, Govemor
Betty RAY McGin. S=NUY
August 12, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department 4Hiric ortation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widening SR 1001 from 1-40 to US 64-70, Burke
County, R-2617, 8.2851201, STP-1001(8), 95-E-
4220-0002
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. However,
based upon information provided by the project engineer, we understand that
three structures over fifty years of age are located in the area of potential effect.
We recommend that an architectural historian for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation examine these structures and report the findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 Ew )ows Strw • R&igh. Naetb t:atdiaa 27601.W
?jlnP r'
TIP R ' 2? (_ Federal Aid # 5TQ - LCD I (g? County
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Pro'ect Descri A'r(ln,?`{
E 4A
On /I r (Q q Q J? , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation WCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
-- North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
_ A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
_ there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not a igi lc or the i atronaI egrster and no rtber evaluation o them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:'
Z-. 6 _ q,
NCDOT
w arc
tv ion Administrator, or other Federal Agency

if a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
?CE1 VF
? o
AUG 1 2 1994
DIVISION OF
%
"'mss
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Co
512 N: Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Mwood, Executive Dire=
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program r
DATE: August 9, 1994 ?-
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for improvements to Rutherford
College/Malcom Boulevard (SR 1001) from I-40 to US 64-
70, Burke County (TIP #R-2617).
This correspondence responds to a request by you for the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's (NCWRC)
preliminary comments regarding the subject project. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen a
0.5-mile section of SR 1001 to multi-lanes from I-40 to US 64-70.
The NCDOT also proposes to construct a grade separation over the
Southern Railway.
I conducted a site visit on 1 August 1994 to assess
fisheries and wildlife resources of the project area. Land use
is largely industrial and commercial, with wildlife habitat
limited to a disturbed pine/mixed hardwood tract near railroad
tracks. We are not aware of any wetlands or streams that would
be impacted by the project, nor does the project area likely
support any threatened or endangered species. Widening along
existing alignment will likely have only minimal impacts on
wildlife in the project area; however, we will provide additional
comments when the Environmental Assessment (EA) is available for
review.
The following information should be included in the EA that
will be prepared for this project:
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. The NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species Section
maintains databases for locations of fish and wildlife
' R-2617 Page 2 August 9, 1994
species. While there is no charge for the list, a service
charge for computer time is involved. Contacts are:
Mr. Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame & Endangered Species Section
Division of Wildlife Management
North Carolina Wildlife Resources commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
919/733-7291
Natural Heritage Program
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-7795
2) Description of waters and/or wetlands affected by the
project.
3) Project map identifying wetland areas. Identification of
wetlands may be accomplished through coordination with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). If the Corps is not
consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be
identified and criteria listed.
4) Description of project activities that will occur within
wetlands, such as fill or channel alteration. Acreages of
wetlands impacted by alternative project designs should be
listed. Project sponsors should indicate whether the Corps
has been contacted to determine the need for a 404 Permit
under the Clean Water Act. Contact is Mr. Steve Chapin at
704/271-4014.
5) Description of project site and non-wetland vegetative
communities.
6) The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
7) Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the
project or to mitigate for unavoidable habitat losses.
8) A list of document preparers which shows each individual's
professional background and qualifications.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this information to
you in the early planning stages of this project. If you have
any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at
704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
. Health and Natural Resources
Legislative Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry Lancaster,. Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee to
Project Review Coordinator
ED EHNR
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has completed its review.
Our regional office within the geographic area of the proposed project has identified permits that
may be required prior to project construction. For more information, the project applicant should
notify the respective regional office marked on the back of the attached permit form.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Afffrma Live Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% past-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, -and Natural Resources Reviewing Office:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Dale:
7T--vvv Z
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process o
Regional Office. Time t
11

C
C
C
C
C
r
C
C
C
C
C
r
L
C
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions. b sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply IN•A)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
IN,Ai
7 days
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well. (15 dayst
Application COPY must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct b operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H. NIA (90 (jays)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 Gays
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.082 190 daysi
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturoing activity An erosion d sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before be )nnin activity A fee of 30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accomoanv the Dian 00 davsi
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: 130 (Says)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days M/Al
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required, "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities N/A (NIA)
if permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv•
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces.
sary to verify Hazard Claasilication. A minimum lee of 5200.00 must ac•
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required uoon completion
canunuea on reverse
.. M=
1AMM
United States Department of the Interior _
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE T
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court co El Asheville, North Carolina 28806
August 15, 1994
s
AUG 18 1994
•w
Z,L DIVISION OF
G'C? HIGHWAYS N,
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager ?1RONt`
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Scoping for proposed widening of Rutherford College/Malcolm
Boulevard (SR 1001) from I-40 to U.S. 64-70, Burke County,
North Carolina. T.I.P. No. R-2617
In your letter of June 30, 1994 (received July 5, 1994), you requested
information regarding potential environmental impacts that could result
from the subject project for your use in the preparation of an
environmental assessment. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to information provided in your letter, this project will
involve the widening of existing Malcolm Boulevard from two-lanes to
multi-lanes for a distance of 0.4 mile just north of I-40 near Rutherford
College. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) biologist conducted
a site visit on August 2, 1994. The project area consists primarily of
residential and commercial development; wildlife and fisheries habitat is
limited. The Service has no major concerns at this time with the
proposed project.
However, we encourage evaluation of the following two issues in the
environmental assessment: (1) description of any wetlands and/or streams
that will be filled or impacted as a consequence of the proposed road
improvements; and (2) identification of impacts, either direct or
indirect, to any federally protected endangered and threatened species as
a result of the proposed road widening. We have included a list of
federally protected endangered and threatened species known from Burke
County that may occur within the area of influence of this proposed
action. The legal responsibilities of a Federal agency or their
designated non-Federal representative under Section 7 of the Act are on
file with the Federal Highway Administration. The enclosed page also
contains a list of candidate species that are currently under status
review by the Service which may occur in the project impact area.
Candidate species are not legally protected under the Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are
including these species in our response in order to give you advance
notification. The presence or absence of these species in the project
impact area should be addressed in any environmental document prepared
for this project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you continue to keep us informed as to the progress of this
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-94-098.
S i ray , /---)
Bri/a Vo l e (G
Fi¢1 Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-94-098
AUGUST 15, 1994
BURKE COUNTY
MAMMALS
Eastern woodrat (Neo om floridana magister) - Candidate
BIRDS
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) - Endangered
CLAMS
Brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) - Candidate
PLANTS
Spreading avens (Geum radiatum) - Endangered*
Small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) - Endangered
Roan Mountain bluet (He otis purourea var. montana) - Endangered
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora) - Threatened
Mountain golden heather ( ud oni montana) - Threatened
Heller's blazing star ( iatris helleri) - Threatened
A liverwort (Ceohaloziella obtusilobula) - Candidate*
Butternut (Juglans cinerea) - Candidate
Sweet pinesap (Monotroosis odorata) - Candidate*
A liverwort (Plagiochila caduciloba) - Candidate*
A liverwort (Plagiochila sullivantii var. soinigera) - Candidate*
A liverwort (Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii) - Candidate*
Rock skullcap (Scutellaria saxatilis) - Candidate
Oconee-bells (Shortia galacifolia) - Candidate
Short-styled oconee-bells (Shortia galacifolia var. brevistyla) -
Candidate
* Indicates no specimen from Burke County in at least 20 years.
-
E/
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. am logo
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 25402.1880
August 30, 1994
w FIM MOTO
Planning Division
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
SEP 0 1 1994
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
This is in response to your letter of June 30, 1994, requesting
our comments on "Rutherford College/Malcom Boulevard (SR 1001), From
I-40 to US 64-70, Burke County, State Project No. 8.2851201, Federal
Aid #STP-1001(8), TIP #R-2617" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 1994).
Our comments, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE) perspective,
involve impacts to CE projects, flood plains, and other environmental
aspects, primarily waters and wetlands. The proposed project would not
involve any CE-constructed navigation or flood control project.
The proposed project is sited in both Burke County and the jurisdictional
limits of the town of Valdese, both of which participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program. However, from a review of the June 1991 Burke County Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and the July 1986 town of Valdese FIRM, the roadway
does not lie within an identified flood-hazard area. This is confirmed by a
review of the pertinent United States Geological Survey topo map of the area.
Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed your letter and has the following
comments. Mr. Steve Chapin of our Asheville Field Office, Regulatory Branch,
recently inspected the proposed alignment for the proposed project. Within
the alignment, no waters of the United States were found to be present.
Therefore, no Department of the Army permit would be required. The nearest
waters are about 1,800 feet due east of the project at Smith Branch.
The alignment area is mostly in commercial development. There is some
upland woodland dominated by virginia pine. This woodland area does not
appear to hold any significant ecological value as it is fragmented and has
been frequently cutover.
-2-
If you have any questions related to Department of the Army permits,
please contact Mr. Chapin of our Asheville Field Office, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can
be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
VL?awrence W. aunders
Chief, P1 ng Division
RELOCATION REPORT
:t E.I.S. F7 CORRIDOR FIDESIGN

a 41995
Nox arollna Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2851201 COUNTY Barite Alternate I... Of ,i Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2617 F.A. PROJECT STP-158 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. Rutherford Coll Malcolm Boulevard SR 1001 From I-40 to US 64-70
........ .... .
.....I. ..... I f " C"i: I E
. ....
................

:: ................................
.............................

::.:.ESTIMATED: DISPLACEES ::::::::::::::::::::: i

.................. .. ..........

.................

:.....Ii.COME .... ....
.......:......................... . . . . .. . . . . . .. .......... ...............

.
..
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Businesses 0 1 1 0
..::.:: YALaJE OF DWZI.I.IIVCi:::::.::
.::. DS31)?YEI:I:IPif3:AVA
Ii:ABLIt::
::. .
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 O-nm 0 s ease 0 e-ms+ 0 so-ISO 0

:
:...::. ANSVAM ALL .' UZSU0NS ::::::::::::::::::::::::.
20-
29-41W
0
150-25e
0
20-41M
2
ISO-we 0
Yet No E xplain all "YES" answers. 4e70M 1 250-409 0 tt-atM 5 250-400 2
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-190M 0 4e0-6e9 0 7e1eeM Z 400400 0
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by lot up 0 too up 0 Joe ur 4 too ur 0
displacement? .
TOTAL 0 ::::::::13 ::::::::::..
Z
X 3. Will business services still be available after
.::................... kzmk ? iris and by. SWnbec .::::::::::::::.::::
: .
project?
`C 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Business services will not be disrupted due to the project.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4. Wiley Bros., Inc, sale of grave monuments, outdoor display
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? with 400 SF or orrice, one employee, no minorities.
X 6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs needed? 6. Thompson Realty (879-9343) Valdese, NC, Realtors Guide,
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? M. L. S. and newspaper.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families? S. As necessary in acordance with State law.
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available? 11. Isothermal Planning & Development Commission, PITS
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing (704/652-8098)
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 12. Thompson Realty (879-9343) Valdese, NC, Realtors Guide,
financial means? M. L. S. and newspaper.
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source). 14. Thompson Realty (879-9343) Valdese, NC, Realtors Guide,
15. Number months estimated to complete M. L. S. and newspaper.
RELOCATION? 6 Months
- A I ?" ?' ?Jv
I(H

• ???
Relocation Aaent Date Approved by Date
F-M1!J!ti I M
Original .% I Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, "Aw
Health and Natural Resources ??,
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N F?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretory
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 22, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
ti
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for Malcolm Boulevard (SR 1001)
Burke County
State Project DOT No. 8.2851201, TIP # R-2617
EHNR # 96-0339, DEM # 11115
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The document states that no waters including wetlands will be impacted.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of
a 401 Certification upon application if wetland or 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 DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Monica Swihart
Asheville COE
sr1001 bu.ea
FAXED
NUV 2 21995
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
! r»
SFATI
4r aw rd' ? ..l d_
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA `a
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GcweitNoit RO. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 Swit wky
June 30, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Rutherford College/Malcom Boulevard (SR 1001), from I-40
to US 64-70, Burke County, State Project No. 8.2851201,
Federal Aid #STP-1001(8), TIP #R-2617
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to Malcom Boulevard (SR 1001) in
Burke County. The project is included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina Trans-
portation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal
year 1996 and construction in fiscal year 1998.
The project proposes to widen Malcom Boulevard to multi-lanes from I-40
to US 64-70. The project also proposes to construct a grade separation over
the Southern Railway.
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 federally funded
Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency
respond by August 15, 1994 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact
Clarence Coleman, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at
[phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment
M 4L
. 1 *-.
?l ?y EI cnQen.
`'vV /, ons
Elnville Idge
6 F'a lls Calle4.
} 22
No-4,b 1 / \?,I
A1Sb1adMNPS 71/
;S?/ / ?Camv
1iTable R k rl nl. Edvr. •? s ror.,I j g
t
III k HII _
to
64
114?1 R K E essant C,rove 9 F'
1 so?rn rno?mo?? I'c..
Crn Ily
Spring,
1734 lL•
AO
1373
I
l? ? _ I1f4 14x1
tl ?
^, ?- 1317 ?
RUTHERFORD COLLEGE
POP 1,108
?J
137 I1:
119
- ? 1 n
to .le I o it
oJr? t4V
.37 St. %iTO 1_^ 1
17?t ?,G ' - 37 rd
?_ ,ournun '` I t
4 t
LIY ? ? 1?14. 1 °,?
as
'T"
.p 17 AQ 1 1139 ?o
1. x
u....u..a 1711\
.o 10 eon
IT}]
fAl 125 0Y J
? islp ,e $
30 _?a?? ?` 149! 17? _?
?o
ll1! 1734
711
LEI j 141,
IaJ] i
100!.
r A4

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Of
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
SR 1001 AT SOUTHERN RAILWAY
CONSTRUCT RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATIO
AT CROSSING 729 520C
BURKE COUNTY
R-2617
0 mile 1/2 FIG.1