19960793 Ver 1_Complete File_19960822

t
,? •',M aATE
?,fV A O
401 ISSUED
960793
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 19, 1996
RECEIVED
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers AUG 2,2 1996
Regulatory Field Office EWIRONMENf t SCIENCES
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road ?,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Forsyth County, Improvements to I-40 from SR 1101 to 0.15 mile east of
SR 1103, TIP No. I-0911B, State Project No. 8.1610401, Federal Aid
Project No. IR-40-3(60)18.
Attached for yo r nformati n are copies of the categorical exclusion report for the
subject project. The p j ct is bein processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a programmatic "Cate rid us
ion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not a ticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed
under a Nationwide Pe it in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued
November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that .401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to. MI&project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division
of Environmental Management, for their review.

I
.. -I
2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Michael Wood at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincere y,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mlt
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DWQ
Mr. William Rogers, P. E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. B. Waters, P. E., Division 9 Engineer
Mr. Jay McInnis, Project Planning Engineer
•A 4
I-40
From SR 1101 to 0.15 mile
east of SR 1103
Forsyth County
Federal-Aid Project IR-40-3(60)18
State Project 8.1610401
TIP Project Number I-911 B
M
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
APPROVED:
9-2- ?41- C?&4r '1/'
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
r Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
X4 / az (" & L.
D e Q cholas. Graf, P. E.
Di vi sio Administrator, FHWA
I-40
From SR 1101 to 0.15 mile
east of SR 1103
Forsyth County
Federal-Aid Project IR-40-3(60)18
State Project 8.1610401
TIP Project Number I-911 B
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
"// r_
..•+""'?••.
Ja s A. McInnis Jr.- F
Project Planning Engineer •`??,04L0 CARO(j
. Q. 9 ? s
SEAL "
11282
•? l
Robert P. Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Unit Head ????.?f??:f?
0*00#000, P.6 it
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS ............................ i
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................... 1
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................... 1
A. Roadway . ................... .................... 1
B. Functional Classification ............................ 2
C. Intersections ........................................ 2
D. Structures ....... :............ .................... 2
E. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis ................ 2
F. Accident Study ....................................... 3
G. School Bus Data ................................... 3
H. Other Highway Projects in the Area ................... 3
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ..................................... 4
A. Roadway ........................................... 4
B. Intersections ........................................ 4
C. Structures ........................................... 4
D. Anticipated Design Exceptions ........................ 4
E. Maintenance of Traffic ............................... 5
F. Utility Conflicts .................................... 5
IV. PROJECT BENEFITS .......................................... 5
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................... 5
A. Delay of Recommended Alternative ..................... 5
B. "No-Build" Alternative ............................... 5
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ..................................... 6
A. Natural Resources ..................................... 6
1. Biotic Resources ................................. 6
a. Terrestrial Communities ..................... 6
b. Aquatic Communities ......................... 7
C. Summary of Anticipated Effects .............. 7
2. Water Resources .................................. 8
a. Streams and Rivers .......................... 8
b. Water Quality ... ......... ................. 8
C. Summary of Anticipated Effects .............. 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
3. Jurisdictional Issues ............................ 9
a. Wetlands (Waters of the US) ................. 9
b. Anticipated Permit Requirements ............. 9
C. Mitigation . ................................ 10
4. Rare and Protected Species ....................... 10
a. Federally Protected Species ................. 10
b. Federal Candidate/State Protected
Species ................................. 11
B. Cultural Resources ................................... 11
1. Historic Architectural Resources ................ 11
2. Archaeological Resources ........................ 12
C. Section 4(f) Evaluation .............................. 12
D. Flood Hazard Evaluation 12
E. Relocation of Residents and Businesses ............... 12
F. Land Use and Planning ................................ 12
G. Prime and Important Farmland ......................... 13
H. Hazardous Materials Involvement ....................... 13
I. Traffic Noise Analysis ............................... 13
1. Introduction .................................... 13
2. Noise Abatement Criteria ........................ 14
3. Ambient Noise Levels ............................ 14
4. Analysis Results ................................ 14
5. Noise Abatement Alternatives .................... 14
6. Construction Noise .............................. 15
7. Summary ......................................... 15
J. Air Quality Analysis ................................. 15
1. Introduction .................................... 15
2. Background CO Concentration ..................... 16
3. Air Quality Analysis Results .................... 16
4. Construction Air Quality Effects ................ 16
5. Summary ......................................... 17
VII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................ 17
VIII. PERMITS AND APPROVALS ..................................... 17
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - EXISTING STRUCTURES 2
TABLE 2 - PLANT COMMUNITY EFFECTS, ACRES (HECTARES) 7
TABLE 3 - ONE-HOUR CO CONCENTRATION FOR CLOSEST RECEPTORS 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Geographic Location Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Improvements
Figure 3 - Proposed Typical Section
Figure 4 - Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 - Capacity Analysis
Figure 6 - Accident Rate Summary
Figure 7 - 100-Year Floodplain/Wetland Sites
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Comments Received
APPENDIX B - Additional Biological Information
APPENDIX C - Traffic Noise Analysis Procedure
APPENDIX D - Air Quality Analysis Procedure
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will implement all
practical measures to minimize and avoid impacts to the natural and human
environment.
NCDOT best management practices for protection of surface waters will
be followed during the construction of this project to prevent siltation
of nearby streams.
It is anticipated wetland crossings will require a Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit 23.
A noise wall and vegetative screen will be constructed south of I-40
between SR 1101 and SR 1103 in order to reduce noise impacts to the Old
Meadowbrook subdivision.
i
I-40
From SR 1101 to 0.15 mile
east of SR 1103
Forsyth County
Federal-Aid Project IR-40-3(60)18
State Project 8.1610401
TIP Project Number I-911 B
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject project involves pavement rehabilitation and widening of
I-40 to six lanes from SR 1101 (Harper Road) to 0.15 mile east of SR 1103
(Lewisville-Clemmons Road) in Forsyth County (approximately 1.3 miles).
See Figures 1 and 2 for project location.
Project I-911B is included in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1995 and
construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1997.
The estimated costs for the project are as.follows:
Proposed Roadway Improvements $3,850,000
Proposed Noise Wall 1,065,600
Total Construction Cost 4,915,600
Right of Way $ 194,000
Total Project Cost 5,109,600
The estimated cost included in the TIP is $6,960,000, including $ 860,000
for right of way and $6,100,000 for construction.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Roadway
The subject section of I-40 was constructed in 1959. The existing
cross-section consists of two 24-foot pavements separated by a variable
36-foot to 40-foot median. Inside shoulders are grassed (4-foot paved)
and vary between four and ten feet wide. Outside shoulders are grassed
(10-foot paved) and vary between ten and 15 feet wide.
The existing concrete pavement along I-40 within the project limits
is in fair to poor condition, with cracked slabs and uneven joints.
The existing horizontal alignment of the subject section of I-40 is
good. The existing vertical alignment is deficient in some locations. An
existing crest vertical curve located approximately 2,500 feet east of SR
1101 does not meet a 60 MPH design speed.
Existing right of way along I-40 within the project limits varies
between 260 and 290 feet. Full control of access exists along the subject
section of I-40.
The posted speed limit along I-40 within the project limits is
55 MPH.
2
B. Functional Classification
The subject section of I-40, is classified as a rural principal
arterial in the North Carolina Functional Classification System and is
designated as a principal arterial on the National Highway System.
C. Intersections
All crossing roadways are grade-separated from I-40. There are two
interchanges along the subject section of I-40 at SR 1101 and SR 1103 (see
Figure 2).
D. Structures
There are two bridge structures on I-40 within the project limits.
These are both overhead structures carrying secondary roads across I-40.
A summary of the condition of these existing structures is shown in
Table 1.
TABLE 1
EXISTING STRUCTURES
Clear
Bridge Carries/ Year S.R.@ Estimated Length Roadway Vertical
No. Crosses Built Life Width Clearance
50 SR 1101/ 1959 65.0 16 yrs. 262 ft. 28.0 16' 4"
I-40
104 SR 1103/ 1994 100.0 50 yrs. 226 ft. 76.0 17' 1"
I-40
@ - Sufficiency Rating
Besides the two bridge structures, there is one 7'x 6' concrete box
culvert located approximately 0.75 mile west of SR 1103.
E. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis
The 1993 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along I-40 within the
project limits ranged from 34,200 to 39,200 vehicles per day (vpd)(see
Figure 4). Truck traffic composed approximately 15% of the average daily
traffic. In the design year (2016), the ADT along the subject section of
I-40 is projected to range between 82,000 and 93,000 vpd.
3
Capacity analyses were performed for the subject section of I-40 for
the years 1993 and 2016 without the proposed improvements and for the
years 1996 and 2016 with the proposed improvements. Presently, I-40
within the project limits is operating at level of service D. Figure 5
presents the results of these capacity analyses.
As Figure 5 shows, I-40 will operate at a level of service F in the
year 2016, even with the proposed improvements. However, it is estimated
that with the proposed improvements I-40 will not reach capacity until
approximately the year 2008, eight years before the design year. Without
the proposed improvements, it is estimated that the subject section of
I-40 would reach capacity in the year 1997, 19 years before the design
year.
The proposed six lane roadway (see Section III-A) is consistent with
Project I-911C (see Section II-H), which is now under construction.
Performing the proposed widening to the outside (see Section II-A and
Figure 3) will allow additional lanes to be constructed partially in the
median in the future.
F. Accident Stud
An accident study was conducted for I-40 within the project limits
for the period from July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1993. During this time
period, there were 67 accidents on this segment of I-40. None of these
accidents were fatal.
The total accident rate for the subject section of I-40 during the
studied period was 73.76 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles
(ACC/100MVM). This greatly exceeds the statewide average accident rate
for similar routes of 48.3 ACC/100MVM over the same time period (see
Figure 6).
G. School Bus Data
School buses make one trip per day on I-40 within the project limits.
Fifty trips per day cross I-40 on SR 1103 and 10 trips per day cross I-40
on SR 1101.
H. Other Highway Projects in the Area
There are three other highway projects in the area of project I-9118.
Project I-911C proposes to rehabilitate and widen I-40 from 0.15 mile
west of SR 1103 to 0.5 mile west of SR 1122 (approximately 2.9 miles).
This project is currently under construction.
Project I-911A involves pavement and structure rehabilitation and
safety improvements to I-40 from 0.3 mile west of NC 801 in Davie County
to SR 1101 in Forsyth County (approximately 2.9 miles). This project is
scheduled for right of way acquisition in 1998 and construction after the
year 2001.
. Project I-2102 involves revisions to the interchange of SR 1101 with
I-40. Two ramps will be constructed in the northwest and southwest
quadrants of the interchange. Project I-2102 is scheduled for construction
in 2001.
4
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway
The subject project involves pavement rehabilitation and widening the
existing four-lane roadway to six lanes. The additional lanes will be
constructed to the outside. The proposed cross-section for I-40 consists
of six 12-foot lanes (three each direction) separated by a 36-foot grassed
median. Two lines of guardrail will be placed in the median for the entire
length of the project. Fourteen-foot inside shoulders (12-foot paved)
and 14-foot (12-foot paved) outside shoulders are proposed. See Figure 3
for the proposed typical section.
It is anticipated the majority of the proposed improvements can be
contained within the existing right of way. Small amounts of additional
right of way or easements may be required in order to contain required
drainage work and the recommended noise wall (see Section VI-I-5). It is
anticipated the project will not require the relocation of any residences
or businesses. Full control of access will be maintained along I-40.
The existing 55 MPH speed limit along the subject section of I-40
will be maintained. A 60 MPH design speed is proposed for the subject
project. Although a 70 MPH design speed is preferred for a rural
interstate facility, the existing vertical alignment of the roadway does
not meet a 70 MPH design speed (see Section II-A). Improvements will be
made to the existing vertical alignment in order to meet a 60 MPH design
speed. Improving the vertical alignment to a 70 MPH design speed would
require reconstructing the entire section of roadway. A 60 MPH design
speed is consistent with the proposed 55 MPH speed limit.
B. Intersections
No major changes are proposed to existing interchanges within the
project limits. Minor revisions to interchange ramps will be required in
order to tie the ramps into the proposed additional lanes.
C. Structures
No improvements are proposed for existing structures along the
subject section of I-40, with the exception of the 7' x 6' concrete box
culvert located west of SR 1103 (see Section II-D). This culvert will be
extended at both ends in order to accommodate the proposed widening.
Although the existing vertical clearance for bridge no. 50 (16' 4",
see Section II-C) is low, no paving will be performed under the bridge as
a part of this project, therefore no improvements are proposed for this
bridge at this time.
D. Anticipated Design Exceptions
It is anticipated no design exceptions will be required for this
project.
5
E. Maintenance of Traffic
Traffic will be maintained at all times during construction of this
project. Lane closures may be necessary during project construction, but
will not be permitted during periods of peak traffic volumes. All traffic
control devices used on this project will conform to the Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
F. Utility Conflicts
The overall degree of utility conflict of this project is expected to
be low. Utilities which will be impacted by the project will be relocated
prior to construction. During construction, care will be taken to prevent
damage to utilities along the project. The contractor will prepare a work
schedule which will minimize impacts on water and other utility service.
IV. PROJECT BENEFITS
The proposed project will increase safety and comfort while
decreasing travel time for users of the subject section of I-40. This
increased safety and decreased travel time will result in cost savings to
roadway users through reduced property damage and fuel consumption.
The proposed pavement rehabilitation will prevent the further
deterioration of the existing pavement and improve the ride quality of the
roadway, resulting in greater comfort for roadway users and reduced wear
and tear on vehicles.
As stated previously (see Section II-E), the subject section of I-40
will operate at level of service F in the design year (2016), even with
the proposed project. However, without the proposed widening, I-40 will
reach capacity by the year 1997. With the proposed widening, I-40 within
the project limits will not reach capacity until the year 2008, 11 years
later than if the project were not constructed.
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Delav of Recommended Alternative
Delay of the proposed project will delay the anticipated benefits of
the project. The subject section of I-40 is currently operating at level
of service D. Without the proposed improvements, the level of service
will continue to deteriorate to level of service F by the year 1997.
For this reason, delay of the recommended alternative is not recommended.
B. "No-Build" Alternative
Although the "no-build" alternative is the least expensive
alternative from a construction cost standpoint and avoids the negative
effects of the proposed project, the "no-build" alternative does not
6
provide the anticipated benefits of the project. Because of the safety
and level of service benefits of the proposed project, the no-build
alternative is rejected.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Natural Resources
During February 1994, the project area was surveyed by NCDOT
biologists in order to assess natural resources in the area which might be
affected by proposed project construction.
1. Biotic Resources
The following is a description of plant and animal communities
found in the project area and a discussion of the anticipated effects
of the project on these communities. Only common names of organisms
are given in the main body of this report. Appendix B contains a
list of common and scientific names for the organisms discussed.
a. Terrestrial Communities
The diversity of plant community types found in the area
provides a variety of opportunities for wildlife. Mixed
pine-hardwood and bottomland hardwood forests provide cover,
while shrub-scrub and mixed herbaceous areas provide foraging
opportunities.
Gray squirrels, white-footed mice, woodchucks, raccoons and
striped skunks are some of the common animals found within the
study area.
MIXED PINE-HARDWOOD
Mixed pine-hardwood forest areas are the result of past
disturbances such as fire or selective cutting. Virginia pine,
loblolly pine, sweet gum, red maple, and tulip tree make up the
canopy of these areas. Sour wood, winged elm, dogwood, red
cedar, witch hazel and black cherry are common subcanopy and
shrub species. Herbaceous and vine species include ragweed,
downy rattlesnake plantain, elephant's foot, Japanese
honeysuckle, and trumpet creeper.
SHRUB-SCRUB
Shrub-scrub areas mainly exist within the median and along
the shoulders of the subject section of I-40. Blackberry, common
sumac, tree of heaven, winged elm, sourwood, red cedar, and
black cherry are common plant species found in this area.
7
MIXED HERBACEOUS
A large number of herbaceous species are found on roadside
areas left unmowed and cut slopes in the project area. These
species include goldenrod, beggar tick, mullein, maypops,
thoroughwort, foxtail grass, blackberry, broomsedge,
honeysuckle, and trumpet vine.
BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD FOREST
The subject section of I-40 crosses small areas of
bottomland hardwood forest surrounding tributaries of the Yadkin
River and Johnson Creek.
Characteristic canopy species of these areas include box
elder, sweet gum, river birch, sycamore, green ash, and tulip
tree. Black willow, red maple and sweet gum were sub-canopy
species noted. Typical herbaceous species include beggar tick,
cardinal flower, arthraxon, poison ivy, and jewel weed.
b. Aquatic Communities
The proposed project crosses three streams, all of which
are tributaries of Johnson Creek, which is a tributary of the
Yadkin River. The Yadkin River is crossed by I-40 west of the
project limits.
The most common non-game fish species found in the Yadkin
River and its tributaries are carp, channel catfish, white
suckers, snail bullheads, flat bullheads, and brown bullheads.
Redbreast sunfish and largemouth bass are common gamefish.
Benthos common to the Yadkin River include dragonfly
larvae, common mayfly species and caddisfly larvae.
C. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Upland and wetland communities along the subject section of
I-40 are highly fragmented and disturbed by past highway
construction. The proposed construction will eliminate narrow
strips of shrub-scrub, mixed herbaceous and maintained habitats
within the median.
Table 2 presents plant community effects of proposed
project construction.
Table 2
Plant Community Effects, acres (hectares)
MIXED SHRUB MIXED BOTTOMLAND
PINE SCRUB HERBACEOUS HARDWOOD
14.8 (6.0) 1.9 (0.8) 3.7 (1.5) 0.7 (0.3)
8
Widening of the highway to the outside will result in
direct loss of plant and animal species from clearing
operations, destruction of foraging and protective habitat, soil
compaction, and soil erosion. Filling and sedimentation of
wetlands may alter drainage or hydrologic continuity.
The wider highway will present a greater obstacle to
migration for animals. Small forest animals such as gray
squirrels and white-footed mice are reluctant to cross wide road
surfaces. This alters their migration pattern and creates a
barrier to gene flow between populations on either side of the
highway. However, medium size mammals such as woodchucks,
raccoons and striped skunks will cross wide road surfaces.
While not affecting the gene pool, vehicular deaths are likely
to increase.
Construction operations near streams could cause direct
loss of benthic organisms and an increase in silt load. The
removal of benthic organisms reduces the potential food supply
for fish, which may affect fish populations.
Siltation of streams decreases the depth of light
penetration, clogs the filtration apparatus of filter-feeding
benthos and the gills of fish, buries benthic organisms,
adversely effects preferred benthic substrate, and spoils
downstream spawning beds for fish.
NCDOT best management practices for protection of surface
waters will be followed during the construction of this project
to prevent siltation of nearby streams.
2. Water Resources
a. Streams and Rivers
The three Johnson Creek tributaries crossed by the project
are all approximately three to five feet wide. At the time of
field investigation, the water in these streams was less than
six inches deep.
b. Water Quality
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters of
North Carolina by the Division Of Environmental Management
(DEM). A "best usage" classification of WS-IV has been assigned
to the Yadkin River and Johnson Creek. Streams tributary to
these waterbodies are not named in the schedule of stream
classifications, but carry the same classification as that
assigned to the receiving stream segment.
WS-IV indicates waters protected as water supplies. These
waters are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds; Local programs to control nonpoint source and
stormwater discharge of pollution are required. These waters
are suitable for all class C uses.
9
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
addresses long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring
sites by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates.
These organisms are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality. No site specific data is available for water bodies
crossed by this project. In general, water quality in this
section of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin is Good/Fair.
Neither High Quality Water, Outstanding Resource Waters,
nor waters classified as WS-I or WS-II are located in or within
one mile (1.4 km) downstream of the study area. No National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits have been issued
for the project area. .
C. Summarv of Anticipated Effects
Minimal effects are anticipated to water resources in the
study area. Potential effects include increased sedimentation
from construction, increased concentration of toxic compounds
from highway runoff and/or toxic spills, and alterations of
water level due to interruptions or additions of surficial
and/or groundwater flow. See the "Summary of Project
Commitments" for a list of the steps which will be taken to
minimize the effects of this project on water quality.
3. Jurisdictional Issues
a. Wetlands !Waters of the U.S.
Two jurisdictional wetland sites were identified in the
project area using methods in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (1987). Each site is less than 0.01 acre
(0.004 hectare) in size. These sites are associated with
unnamed tributaries of Johnson Creek (see Figure 7). These
wetlands were identified in the project corridor on the basis of
low soil chroma values, hydrophytic vegetation, and the presence
of hydrology or hydrological indicators, such as stained and
matted vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree
bases, and surface roots.
b. Anticipated Permit Requirements
The subject project is classified as a Categorical
Exclusion. Provisions of Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(A) 23
are likely to apply. The final decision on the applicable
permit will be made by the Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the N.C. Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources will likely be
required. This certificate is issued for any activity requiring
a federal permit which may result in a discharge into waters.
10
C. Mitigation
Anticipated effects of the project on "Waters of the US"
are likely to be authorized under a Nationwide Permit.
Generally, no mitigation is required for actions authorized
under a Nationwide permit, according to the Memorandum of
Agreement between the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental
Protection Agency (1989). The final decision regarding
mitigation will be made by the Corps of Engineers.
4. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federallv-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended.
As of May 12, 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) lists two federally protected species for Forsyth
County. The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and the
small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) are both
listed as endangered.
Piocoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
In North Carolina, moderate populations of the red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) are found in the sandhills and southern coastal
plain. The few found in the piedmont and northern coastal plain
are believed to be relics of former populations.
RCW's use open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine Pinus palustris), for foraging and
nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50%
pine and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate
habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that
are at least 60 years old and are contiguous with other stands
at least 30 years old. Nesting trees can be identified by a
large incrustation of running sap surrounding the tree.
Biological conclusion: No effect. Mixed pine/hardwood
areas in the project area are fragmented and too young to be
considered suitable nesting and/or foraging habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker.
Cardamine micranthera (small-anthered bittercress) E
Small-anthered bittercress is a very rare herb found only
in Patrick County, Virginia and Stokes and Forsyth Counties,
North Carolina. This plant is found in seepages, moist woods,
11
and on streambanks. North Carolina populations are presently
confined to Little Peter's Creek, Peter's Creek, Elk Creek, and
another unnamed tributary to the Dan River in Stokes County.
The Forsyth County population was destroyed when the site was
converted to a pasture in the late 1960's.
This plant can be found on gravelly sand bars and in the
moist soil of rock crevices. It occurs in soils of the Rion,
Pacolet, and Wateree series, where slopes are 25 to 60 percent.
Areas that are fully or partially shaded by shrubs and trees are
preferred.
Biological conclusion No effect. Although suitable habitat
is present in t oject area at stream crossings, surveys were
conducted May 10, 1993 and no plants were found.
b. Federal Candidate/State Protected Species
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected under
the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions until formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Currently, the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) is
listed as a federal candidate (C2) species for Forsyth County.
C2 species are defined as organisms for which there is some
evidence of vulnerability, but data is not sufficient to warrant
a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or
Proposed Threatened at this time.
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted
protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979,
administered and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission and the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture. One species, the bog turtle (Clemmys
muhlenbergii), has a state status of threatened (T).
Federal candidate and state protected species and their
suitable habitat were not surveyed for. A review of the NC
Natural Heritage Program data base showed no records of rare or
protected species in the project area.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Historic Architectural Resources
The proposed project is subject to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, as amended. An NCDOT staff architectural
Historian surveyed the area of potential effect (APE) of the project
and found no structures over fifty years old. There are no buildings
in the APE eligible for or listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
concurred with this finding in a letter dated July 22, 1994 (see
Appendix A).
12
2. Archaeological Resources
The proposed project is subject to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, as amended and Section 4(f) of the
Transportation Act, as amended. An archaeological survey of the area
of potential effect of projects I-911 A and B was conducted. Only
the results of the survey relating to the subject project (I-911 B)
are presented in this document.
A pedestrian survey of the area of potential effect for I-911 B
was conducted to locate any significant archaeological remains which
might be impacted by the proposed project. No evidence of
prehistoric culture was recovered during this walkover survey.
Based upon the field and documentary research conducted for this
study there appear to be no historic sites within the area of
potential effect and no further archaeological work is recommended.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with this
finding in a letter dated November 12, 1993 (see Appendix A). Since
there are no sites either listed in or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places in the area of potential effect of the
proposed project, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
C. Section 4(f) Evaluation
The proposed project will not require the use of any property
protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966,
as amended.
D. Flood Hazard Evaluation
It is anticipated the proposed project will not have a detrimental
effect on floodplains in the project area. Figure 7 depicts the limits of
the 100-year flood plain in the project area.
E. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
The proposed project will not result in the relocation of any
residences or businesses.
F. Land Use and Planning
The project is located within the planning and zoning jurisdiction of
the Village of Clemmons. The Village adopted its
Clemmons Area Development Guide in 1989 and enforces a zoning ordinance
and subdivision regulations.
Land on the north side of I-40 between SR 1101 and SR 1103 is
sparsely developed, with scattered residential uses along SR 1101. The
land use plan contained within the Village's Development Guide designates
the area immediately adjacent to I-40 for office development. The
13
remaining land, including the area just north of the I-40/SR 1101
interchange, is designated for residential development. A small area just
north of the I-40/SR 1103 interchange is designated for commercial
development.
Land on the south side of I-40 between the two interchanges has been
developed with low density residential subdivisions, although some
undeveloped areas remain. The land use plan calls for the undeveloped
sections to support office or medical park development. Land use along
SR 1103 is best characterized as extensive strip commercial development,
including shopping centers, fast food restaurants, gas stations, and other
retail businesses.
The proposed improvements to I-40 are compatible with the Clemmons
Area Development Guide.
G. Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the impact of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils. Soils in areas which have been subject to or planned for urban
development are exempt from the requirements of the Act. The proposed
improvements to I-40 will occur in an area where urban development has
occurred and additional development is planned. Therefore, no further
consideration of potential farmland impacts is required.
H. Hazardous Materials Involvement
The subject project will be constructed
of way. It is anticipated the project will
storage tanks or hazardous waste facilities.
I. Traffic Noise Analysis
1. Introduction
mostly within existing right
not effect any underground
A traffic noise analysis was performed to determine the effect
of TIP projects I-911 A and B on noise levels in the area of the two
projects. Appendix C contains a description of the procedures used
to perform this analysis. The results presented in this document are
for TIP project I-911 B only.
This investigation included an inventory of existing noise
sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise
levels in the study area. These ambient noise levels were compared
with the predicted future noise levels to determine if traffic noise
impacts will result from the proposed project. If traffic noise
impacts are predicted, alternative noise abatement measures for
reducing or eliminating noise impacts must be considered (see Section
VI-I-5). An analysis was performed considering the "no build"
alternative as well.
14
Preliminary design plans were used for the analysis. The "worst
case" topographical and traffic volume conditions were assumed.
2. Noise Abatement Criteria
A land use is considered to be impacted by traffic noise when
exposed to noise levels approaching (within 1 dBA) or exceeding the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise abatement criteria (NAC)
and/or predicted to sustain a substantial increase in noise levels.
A substantial increase is defined as an increase in noise levels of
either 10 dBA or 15 dBA, depending on existing noise levels (see
Table N2, Appendix C).
3. Ambient Noise Levels
The existing Leq noise level along I-40 measured at 50 feet from
the roadway ranged from 75 to 76 dBA. Ambient noise measurement
sites and measured exterior Leq noise levels are presented in Figure
N2 and Table N3 of Appendix C.
4. Analysis Results
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in table N4 (see Appendix C). Twenty one residences are
predicted to be impacted by the project according to Title 23 CFR
Part 772 (see Table N5, Appendix Q. These receptors are expected to
be impacted due to noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC. No
receptors are predicted to experience a substantial increase in noise
levels.
Predicted exterior noise level increases for receptors with the
project range from +1 to +7 dBA (see Table N6, Appendix C).
Predicted noise level increases for the "no build" alternative also
range from +1 to +7 dBA.
5. Noise Abatement Alternatives
Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts
of the subject project were considered. Noise abatement alternatives
investigated for the project include: highway alignment changes,
traffic system management measures, and construction of noise
barriers.
Cost and environmental considerations make highway alignment
changes an impractical noise abatement measure for this project.
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed,
volume and time of operations are not considered appropriate noise
abatement measures for this project due to the adverse effect they
would have on the capacity and level-of-service of I-40.
Construction of a noise barrier was found to be a reasonable and
feasible measure for reducing the noise impacts of the project for an
area along the south side of I-40 between SR 1101 and SR 1103. A
subdivision (Old Meadowbrook) was developed in this area in the late
15
1950's at about the same time I-40 was constructed. An optimized
concrete noise wall approximately 4,500 feet long and ranging in
height from 12 to 20 feet would reduce noise levels by 3 to 7 dBA for
45 residences at a total cost of $1,065,600. Due to the time of
development of the subdivision and I-40 and the close proximity of
the subdivision to the highway, this noise mitigation measure is
recommended. In order to optimize cost and benefits, the noise
barrier is not recommended for all adjacent receptors in the
subdivision. A vegetative screen is recommended from east of the
noise wall to near SR 1103 for receptors not protected by the noise
wall.
6. 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. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of
construction noise, these impacts are not expected to be substantial.
The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and
man-made structures should be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
7. Summary
Noise abatement measures were considered for all receptors
impacted by traffic noise in the design year (2016) of the proposed
project. A noise barrier and a vegetative screen is recommended
along the south side of I-40-between SR 1101 and SR 1103.
J. Air Quality Analysis
1. Introduction
Although automobiles can be sources of other pollutants, they
are considered the major source of carbon monoxide (CO) in the
project area. For this reason, most of the air quality analysis
performed for this project related, to anticipated CO levels in the
project area caused by motor vehicle traffic. For a discussion of
other air pollutants and additional discussion of the CO analysis,
see Appendix D.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine 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 for each of the sensitive receptors along the project.
Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the
completion year (1996), five years after completion (2001), and the
Design Year (2016) using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission
Factors" and the MOBILESA mobile source emissions computer model.
16
2. Background CO Concentrations
The background CO concentrations for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM),
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.
3. Air Quality Analysis Results
The highest predicted CO concentrations for the project area
were at the interchange of I-40 with SR 1103. The predicted 1-hour
CO concentrations at this interchange for the "build'' alternative for
the years 1996, 2001, and 2016 are shown in Table 3 below.
TABLE 3
ONE-HOUR CO CONCENTRATION FOR CLOSEST RECEPTORS
1-Hour CO Concentration
(ppm)
Receptor/Year 1996 2001 2016
REC 68 (NW Corner) 3.2 3.2 3.3
REC 60 (SW Corner) 3.3 3.0 3.7
REC 61 (SE Corner) 4.4 4.4 5.2
REC 66 (NE Corner) 3.6 3.3 3.9
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards NAAQS (maximum permitted for 1-hour
averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates
no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case
1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the
8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard.
4. Construction Air Quality Effects
% During construction of the proposed project, any burning will be
performed in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and
regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to
insure burning is performed at the greatest distance practical from
dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a
hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant
surveillance. 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.
17
5. Summary
The project is located within the air quality jurisdiction of
the Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department. Forsyth County
has been designated as a moderate non-attainment area for carbon
monoxide and ozone. The attainment dates are December 31, 1995 for
carbon monoxide and November'15, 1996 for ozone. The current State
Implementation Plan does not contain any transportation control
measures for Forsyth County. The Forsyth Urbanized Area Thoroughfare
Plan and Transportation Improvement Program have been determined to
be in conformance with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the
Interim Conformity Guidance dated June 7, 1991.
VII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Residents of Old Meadowbrook, a neighborhood located south of I-40
between SR 1101 and SR 1103, have written numerous letters asking that a
noise wall be constructed along I-40. As discussed in Section VI-I, a
noise wall and a vegetative screen are recommended to reduce noise impacts
to this neighborhood.
Citizen's comments and concerns have been taken into consideration
during the planning stage of this project.
A public hearing will be held for this project prior to the start of
right of way acquisition.
VIII. PERMITS AND APPROVALS
It is anticipated a Nationwide 23 permit will be required for this
project. A 401 water quality certification will likely be required also.
JAM/plr
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
c
I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTIVIENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
. BRANCH
1-40
FROM SR 1101 TO 0.15 MI.
EAST OF SR 1103
FORSYTH COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT I - 911 B

FIG. 1
/ /
/
/ /
/ /

oil
9
I-911 B TYPICAL SECTION
4 1 1 t t t
36'-0' 36' MEDIAN
b. A 36-0'
THRU LANES THRU LANES
VARIABLE 14'-0' 12-0' I 12'-0' 12-0' 14'-0' 8'-0' 114'-0' 12-0' 12-0' 12-0' 14'-0'
12-0' 12-0' 12-0'
GUAR
RAIL
WEST-BOUND LANE 1.40
EAST-BOUND LANE 1-40
LEGEND
EXISTING PAVEMENT
PROPOSED WIDENING
PROPOSED PAVED SHOULDER
19-0' 14'-0'
FIGURE 3
FORSYTH COUNTY
TIP PROJECT 1-911 B
40
44
342 25
398
820
TO
STATESVILLE
25
27
58 59
64
132
SR 1101
ESTIMATED 1993/1996/2016
ADT IN HUNDREDS
1-40, FROM SR 1101
TO EAST OF SR 1103
372
886
TTST% DUAL% DHV% DIR%
1-40 15 5 10 60
SR 1101 2 4 10 60
SR 1103 2 3 10 60
160
166
B2
60
4DL 50
67 , ?89

60
50 50
AQ- 89
67 244
218
416
SR 1103
392
4w
1-40 930
- -?
TO
WINSTON-SALEM
FIGURE 4
Cl)
J
Q
Z
Q

U
Q
U
W
Z
J
Z
a
w W W W W
Z Z Z Z Z
g g g 4? g

o 0
T T r N N
I
f I
Q CO ?SOI W
LO
w
cr
0

O
c9
O
T
mT
CD
0
IT
O
T
T
VJ
0
ch
O
T
I1N
>om
'I.J^.
VJ
i?
T
T
T
v+
Cl)
Ww
? w
Q
? m
z Z
WO
O =
UU)
Ucr
Q o
0

(Ts
L-
0
Q
cz
cn

CU
W
D
C)
LL
O O?/? O O O
co (D qt N
saUY 910iyan uoi11iw 00 L aad sluap!aad
f Q I A !1? _) - '..? y. I i J? Hrgh Sch _ ?? \eV0
` ? O •`? __ _ ? • /?,? - ? 822 ?? t •?• ? ., _
- \ ?\?•. A is < Tan ?:'?
West FbTS\?•
HiB '`SC1f ?'"1
'. ??? ?--? :? '?••,--.- ' °` \ - ?? \?'- ?/l ? /.(? ??,1,?? ? ??'. ice- ` '?i ,'\ \_: :?`\`
_ "• ,80,Ji i.°!or _\ ,: 'I? i ?"?. +? ti t??// ?%$ `\? (/^f Iv-l4uJ ,. i -'r
,. ? 11 t`,\ 1 I ? _ r c .. m w / \ ;,? ,./?o - - •-- ? 7/ ? ` ?` i ?> > .. ? rn ? ,??f /il r
\ . ! • fCapeMlil a? .,? ,aueLARD - ? .I 1 \ ?_ r i t y ,??. ?1.?, ?'Cr x;(928 i J\Cc v' . 1 ..
1786 /
?r r^ 828 ? 1 ,I - ` ?\ J., • ? .? -? l Z7, dul 0,11
END
t(~ - -??- /!\/- - // ...= ; •. JI `? - Q • PROJECT -
JIB l- - 1 1\ ?/ - r 4 II
7 46,
700 -eR1 i a i '\, :? ?-? ?',j \-• .-??? ?? ? .<1 0... 40 _ ,. ?/ --'?,. 11
UTrion,Ht eeh
7i I
/ /1??-?i. i° (r'r ` ? _ rI!) 11 •.^ '1 ,,`?! i T; +?i',? (,, ; ;, ..?---- \\- \_-: ?? r _ ??.-IY ?'' ?? ? ?" cz
1\ `^•-•??//.',-1 J? ' -.J ?/ \ ( ? 1 t ?C. c? / l ? ? • `'?-_-?'.? w22?+? ? . ? !_? ? :\? ? ?? G?• ? I ?\?-_-• ? ` ?lJ
\ 1 \ Il I r?, ?1 ? ate. i/ ?? v^`.-- 3 I . rR' / j ?i
a?s%- ,? i??lr\.. I1 \\?I1?.11. ri ? _?' .;1)\?` ?, ? I ?? ) aE -? ?? ? ri :?' ?'?
?J??y !/rv?i`?(?;,??'? 1 ?:? e 1 ?k:e d i; -; 'i ,,I ,? ?? ?( •;` 1`? -1.? , ? o
BEGIN ???nr((' ?1 % Y .T,\' ? -

J y
768
LEGEND
100 - YEAR FLOODPLAIN
l
WETLAND SITES
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT 0.
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
1-40
FROM SR 1101 TO 0.15 Mi.
EAST OF SR 1103
FORSYTH COUNTY
T.1. P. PROJECT I - 911 B
0
CLEMMONS QUAD • feet 2000

?,,. +SYATF o?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 22, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Improvements to 1-40 from SR 1 102 to 0.15 mile
east of SR 1103, Forsyth County, 1-911 B,
8.1610401, IR-40-3(60)18, 1-911B, ER 94-9092
Dear Mr. Graf:
G E 1
1
JUL- 2 7 1994 :
DIVISICN OF Qr?
HIGHWAYS
ivisiod History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1994, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the historic architectural resources survey report prepared by
Ed Davis, architectural historian for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. Based upon the information provided to us, we concur with the
Federal Highway Administration's determination that no historic properties are
located in the area of potential effect for the project. In terms of historic
architectural resources, we have no further comment on 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.
Sincerely,
1 > ?
/Z.
Davl Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw?
cc: "H. F. Vick
B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L Tyy ? SwF o
1993
North Carolina Department.of Cultural Resources ??, H"?ts??N of
1GHwAYS
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of d
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Pn N
November 12, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: 1-40 from east of SR 1 103 to west of SR 1122, 1-
911, A, B, & C, Forsyth County, ER 94-7716
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of October 20, 1993, transmitting the archaeological
survey report concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no archaeological sites were located within the
project area. Mr. Glover has recommended that no further archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this
recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological
resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
-Sincerely,
r
David Brook v
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
109 Fast 7nne4 Stmt • Raleioh Nnrih rn nlina 774111.74m
APPENDIX B
ADDITIONAL BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION
The following is a listing of the common names and scientific names
for the species listed in the main body of this report.
Animal Species
Terrestrial Species
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)
raccoon (Procyon lotor)
striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis)
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopis)
woodchuck (Marmota monax monax)
Aquatic Species
brown bullhead (I. nebulosus)
caddisfly larvae Hydropsyche and Cheumatopsyche spp.
carp (Cyprinus carpio)
channel catfish (Ictalurus catus)
cranefly larvae (Corydalls cornutus)
dragonfly larvae (Boyeria vinosa) and (Argia modestum)
flat bullhead (I. platycephalus)
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)
Redbrest sunfish (Lepomis auritus)
snail bullhead_(Ictalurus brunneus)
white sucker (Catostomus commersoni)
Plant Species
arthraxon (Arthraxon hispidus)
beggar tick (Eidens bipinnata)
blackberry (Rubus sp.)
black cherry (Prunus nerotina)
black willow (Salix nigra)
box elder (Acer ni ra)
broomsedge (Andropogon spp.)
cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis)
common sumac (Rhus lg abra)
dogwood (Cornus florida)
downy rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera repens)
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
elephant's foot (Elephantopus sp.)
foxtail grass (Setaria lauca)
goldenrod (Solidago spp.)
green ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
jewel weed (Impatiens pallida)
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
maypop (Passiflora incarnata)
mullein (Verbascum thapsus)
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
river birch (Betula ni ra)
sour wood (Oxydendron arborem)
sweet gum (Liquidambar straciflua)
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia)
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana)
red maple (Acer rubrum)
thoroughwort (Eupatorium album)
tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima)
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans)
tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipfera)
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana)
winged elm (ulmus alaca)
witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana)
APPENDIX C
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. Highway noise, or
traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust,
drivetrain 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 a common reference level, usually the
decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted
scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle
noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency
range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound
levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as
dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA.
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 daily. 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
background noise and the intruding noise, and (3) the type of activity
occurring where the noise is heard.
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
In order to determine whether or not highway noise levels are
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 Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
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.
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 roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
current traffic noise prediction model to calculate existing noise levels
for comparison with noise levels actually measured. Differences in dBA
levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes,
and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles
and single vehicular speed.
PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated procedure.
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars traveling at different speeds
through a continually changing highway configuration and surrounding
terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and
simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number
and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.),
receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
Only 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.
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. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed
to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria
and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The basic
approach was to select receptor locations such as 25, 50, 100, 200, 400,
800, and 1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to
both sides of the roadway). The locations of these receptors were
determined by 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. This table shows the ambient noise levels, predicted
noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each receptor
near the project.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are
predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5.
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. With the proper information on noise,
local authorities can prevent further development of activities and land
uses which are incompatible with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent
highway.
Table N6 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the
identified receptors in each roadway section. When real-life noises are
heard, it is possible to barely detect 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.
TABLE N1
COMPARISON OF TYPICAL SOUNDS
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

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

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

90

D I
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
Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

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

10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harfard
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.).
FIGURE N1 - PROJECT AREA
I-40, FROM WEST OF NC 801 TO WEST OF SR 1103
DAVIE-FORSYTH COUNTIES
TIP 1'r I-911AB, State Project AV 8.1610401.
r
fAp
C Capemiom I * ?1
last ::•% t
Atwood >>,
1317 1100 \ 1 ?. ;']
It7;
D
1.8 1117 ieot q.• .. .. tLt 1 \
1317 SECTION A h :•{.= f
JA 3.2
END
J J I A37 BEGIN
' END ? ?•
" >- 11 ti's BEGIN i r' ?_•
I ? 5 C•EMMC--
801
>: 1?l / C V POP.
7,401< SECTION B
I t 31 J ,? I ?;;. n
FS ?'^"/?? 'l Hili:dale -`?^• /I ? I r 1
eddy
'° I t u v I A 51 7991 Cf"k
It60 1373 1617'
3AJ _2 CIS u+ Clemmorts
S 1367 RGaiand 7 14 1d60 ..^,'rZ Station k
:331 1 1so: S
1 ? 1771 A M1
3 Q
1101 tpS r 1991
? 1169 ? , t 1611 L1 ? 610 1676 \ J f. 1000 ? ?`. / '
1 w 9? 3157 ld;A
1A loll, .? l ti 1 /I
J \ ? t ' .
\i b 1\
b 1497
(16 5 ?- 1611 •-a M e} n
FIGURE N2 - NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES
I-40', FROM WEST OF NC 801- TO WEST OF SR 1103
DAVIE-FORSYTH COUNTIES
TIP ' I-911AB, State Project ? 8.1610401.
` Noise Measurement Sites
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
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 r
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
I-40, from West of NC 801 to West of SR 1103
Davie-Forsyth Counties
TIP AI-911AB State Project # 8.1610401

NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1. I-40, .38 Mile East of NC 801 Grassy 75
2. I-40, .17 Mile West of SR 1103 Grassy . 76
NOTE:
THESE AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS WERE MEASURED AT 50 FEET
FROM THE CENTER OF THE NEAREST LANE OF TRAFFIC. THESE
MEASURED NOISE LEVELS WERE COMPARED WITH COMPUTED
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS OF THE COMPUTER MODEL.
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-40, FROM WEST OF NC 801 TO SR 1103
DAVIE-FORSYTH COUNTIES
TIP # I-911AB STATE PROJECT # 8.1610401
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
Section A - Begin Project to NC 801
1 Residence B I-40 380 R 60 I-40 380 R - - * 66 + 6
2 Business C " 480 R 57 " 480 R - - 63 + 6
Section A - NC 801 to SR 1101
3 Business C I-40 180 R 68 I-40 180 R - - * 75 + 7
4 Residence B " 190 R 67 190 R - - * 74 + 7
5 Residence B 390 L 60 " 390 L - - * 66 + 6
5A Residence B " 215 R 66 " 215 R - - * 73 + 7
5B Residence B " 215 R 66 " 215 R - - * 73 +. 7
5C Residence B 215 R 66 " 215 R - - * 73 + 7
5D Residence B 215 R 66 " 215 R - - * 73 + 7
5E Residence B 215 R 66 " 215 R - - * 73 + 7
6 Residence B 270 L 64 " 270 L - - * 71 + 7
6A Residence B " 200 R 67 200 R - - * 74 + 7
6B Residence B " 200 R 67 " 200 R - - * 74 + 7
6C Residence B 220 R 66 220 R - - * 73 + 7
6D Residence B 220 R 66 220 R - - * 73 + 7
6E Residence B " 200 R 67 " 200 R - - * 74 + 7
6F Residence B 190 R 67 190 R - - * 74 + 7
6G Residence B 340 R 61 340 R - - * 68 + 7
6H Residence B 340 R 61 340 R - - * 68 + 7
61 Residence B " 340 R 61 340 R - - * 68 + 7
6J Residence B " 320 R 62 " 320 R - - * 69 + 7
6R Residence B " 310 R 62 310 R - - * 69 + 7
6L Residence B 490 R 57 " 490 R - - 64 + 7
6M Residence B 530 R 56 " 530 R - - 62 + 6
6N Residence B " 470 R 57 " 470 R - - 64 + 7
60 Residence B " 430 R 58 " 430 R - - 65 + 7
6P Residence B " 430 R 58 " 430 R - - 65 + 7
7 Residence B 210 L 66 " 210 L - - * 73 + 7
7A Residence B " 410 L 59 " 410 L - - * 66 + 7
7B Residence B " 500 L 56 " 500 L - - 63 + 7
7C Residence B 520 L 56 " 520 L - - 63 + 7
7D Residence B " 680 L 52 " 680 L - - 59 + 7
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).
1/6
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-40, FROM WEST OF NC 801 TO SR 1103
DAVIE-FORSYTH COUNTIES
TIP # I-911AB STATE PROJECT # 8.1610401
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
Section A - NC 801 to SR 1101
8 Residence B I-40 800 L 50 I-40 800 L - - 57 + 7
9 Residence B " 1260 L 45 1260 L - - 52 + 7
10 Residence B " 1060 L 47 " 1060 L - - 54 + 7
11 Residence B " 910 L 49 " 910 L - - 55 + 6
12 Residence B " 750 L 51 750- L - - 58 + 7
13 Residence B 650 L 53 650 L - - 60 + 7
14 Residence B " 500 L 56 " 500 L - - 63 + 7
Sec tion B - SR 1101 to SR 1103
18 Residence B I-40 390 L 61 I-40 390 L - - 65 + 4
19 Residence B " 550 L 56 550 L - - 61 + 5
20 Residence B 610 L 55 " 610 L - - 60 + 5
21 Residence B 670 L 54 " 670 L - - 58 + 4
22 Residence B 690 L 53 690 L - - 58 + 5
23 Residence B 750 R 52 " 750 R - - 57 + 5
23A Residence B 880 R 50 880 R - - 55 + 5
24 Residence B " 600 R 55 " 600 R - - 60 + 5
24A Residence B 750 R 52 " 750 R - - 59 + 7
25 Residence B " 500 R 58 500 R - - 62 + 4
25A Residence B 450 R 59 450 R - - 64 + 5
25B Residence B 650 R 54 " 650 R - - 60 + 6
26 Residence B " 400 R 60 400 R - - 65 + 5
26A Residence B 600 R 55 " 600 R - - 61 + 6
27 Residence B " 370 R 61 " 370 R - - 65 + 4
27A Residence B " 870 R 50 " 870 R - - 55 + 5
28 Residence B " 320 R 63 " 320 R - - * 66 + 3
28A Residence B " 790 R 51 " 790 R - - 56 + 5
29 Residence B " 270 R 65 " 270 R - - * 67 + 2
29A Residence B " 710 R 53 " 710 R - - 57 + 4
30 Residence B " 250 R 66 " 250 R - - * 68 + 2
30A Residence B " 590 R 55 590 R - - 60 + 5
30B Residence B 450 R 59 450 R - - 64 + 5
31 Residence B " 220 R 67 " 220 R - - * 68 + 1
31A Residence B " 600 R 55 " 600 R - - 60 + 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribut ion.
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 77 2).
2/6

TABLE N4 3/6
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-40, FROM WEST OF NC 801 TO SR 1103
DAVIE-FORSYTH COUNTIES
TIP # I-911AB STATE PROJECT # 8.1610401
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
1 ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
Section B - SR 1101 to SR 1103
31B Residence B I-40 790 R 51 I-40 790 R - - 56 + 5
31C Residence B 900 R 50 900 R - - 54 + 4
31D Residence B 990 R 49 990 R - - 53 + 4
32 Residence B " 220 R 67 " 220 R - - * 69 + 2
32A Residence B " 670 R 54 670' R - - 58 + 4
32B Residence B 1010 R 49 " 1010 R - - 53 + 4
33 Residence B 240 R 66 240 R - - * 68 + 2
34 Residence B 240 R 66 " 240 R - - * 68 + 2
34A Residence B 450 R 59 450 R - - 63 + 4
34B Residence B " 1030 R 48 1030 R - - 53 + 5
35 Residence B 260 R 65 260 R - - * 67 + 2
35A Residence B " 440 R 59 " 440 R - - 63 + 4
36 Residence B " 240 R 66 " 240 R - - * 68 + 2
36A Residence B 700 R 53 700 R - - 58 + 5
36B Residence B 980 R 49 980 R - - 54 + 5
36C Residence B " 1120 R 48 " 1120 R - - 52 + 4
37 Residence B " 230 R 67 " 230 R - - * 68 + 1
37A Residence B " 470 R 58 " 470 R - - 62 + 4
37B Residence B 600 R 55 600 R - - 60 + 5
37C Residence B " 740 R 52 " 740 R - - 57 + 5
37D Residence B " 880 R 50 " 880 R - - 55 + 5
37E Residence B " 980 R 49 980 R - - 54 + 5 .
38 Residence B " 240 R 66 " 240 R - - * 68 + 2
38A Residence B " 460 R 59 460 R - - 63 + 4
39 Residence B " 240 R 66 240 R - - * 68 + 2
40 Residence B " 240 R 66 " 240 R - - * 68 + 2
40A Residence B 430 R 60 " 430 R - - 63 + 3
40B Residence B " 550 R 56 " 550 R - - 61 + 5
40C Residence B " 680 R 53 " 680 R - - 58 + 5
40D Residence B 790 R 51 790 R - - 56 + 5
40E Residence B " 920 R 50 " 920 R - - 54 + 4
41 Residence B " 240 R 66 240 R - - It 67 + 1
41A Residence B " 470 R 58 470 R - - 59 + 1
41B Residence B " 650 R 54 " 650 R - - 59 + 5
41C Residence B " 780 R 51 " 780 R - - 56 + 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or pro posed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's no ise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise lev els. -Y-=> Noise level from othe r contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interi or (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-40, FROM WEST OF NC 801 TO SR 1103
DAVIE-FORSYTH COUNTIES
TIP # I-911AB STATE PROTECT # 8.1610401
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
Section B - SR 1101 to SR 1103
41D Residence B I-40 930 R 50 I-40 930 R -
42 Residence B " 230 R 67 230 R -
42A Residence B " 470 R 58 " 470 R -
43 Residence B " 230 R 67 " 230 R -
43A Residence B " 470 R 58 " 470 R -
43B Residence B 670 R 54 " 670 R -
44 Residence B " 230 R 67 " 230 R -
44A Residence B " 470 R 58 " 470 R -
45 Residence B " 230 R 67 " 230 R -
46 Residence B 230 R 67 " 230 R -
46A Residence B " 450 R 59 450 R -
46B Residence B " 640 R 54 " 640 R -
46C Residence B 780 R 51 780 R -
47 Residence B 250 R 66 250 R -
47A Residence B 450 R 59 " 450 R -
47B Residence B " 640 R 54 " 640 R -
47C Residence B 780 R 51 780 R -
48 Residence B " 220 R 60 " 220 R -
48A Residence B " 430 R 60 430 R -
48B Residence B " 560 R 56 " 560 R -
48C Residence B " 730 R 52 " 730 R -
48D Residence B " 850 R 50 " 850 R -
48E Residence B 1000 R 49 " 1000 R -
49 Residence B " 240 R 58 " 240 R -
49A Residence B " 450 R 59 450 R -
49B Residence B 630 R 54 " 630 R -
49C Residence B " 750 R 52 " 750 R -
49D Residence B " 930 R 50 930 R -
49E Residence B " 1150 R 47 " 1150 R -
50 Residence B " 240 R 62 " 240 R -
50A Residence B " 240 R 59 " 240 R -
50B Residence B " 450 R 59 " 450 R -
50C Residence B ' 470 R 58 " 470 R -
50D Residence B " 630 R 54 " 630 R -
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
- 54 + 4
- * 69 + 2
- 62 + 4
- * 69 + 2
- 63 + 5
- 58 + 4
- * 69 + 2
- 63 + 5
- * 69 + 2
- * 68 + 1
- 63 + 4
- 59 + 5
- 56 + 5
- * 68 + 2
- 63 + 4
- 59 + 5
- 56 + 5
- 62 + 2
- 62 + 2
- 61 + 5
- 57 + 5
- 55 + 5
- 53 + 4
- 60 + 2
- 60 + 1
- 59 + 5
- 57 + 5
- 54 + 4
- 52 + 5
- 65 + 3
- 61 + 2
- 60 + 1
- 60 + 2
- 59 + 5
4/6

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)..
TABLE N4 5/6
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-40, FROM WEST OF NC 801 TO SR 1103
DAVIE-FORSYTH COUNTIES
TIP 9 I-911AB STATE PROJECT 8.1610401
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID 4 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
Section B - SR 1 101 to SR 1103
50E Residence B I-40 860 R 50 I-40 860 R - - 55 + 5
50F Residence B " 880 R 50 " 880 R - - 55 + 5
50G Residence .B 790 R 51 790 R - - 56 + 5
50H Residence B 630 R 54 630 R - - 59 + 5
501 Residence B " 470 R 58 470 R - - 62 + 4
50J Residence B " 470 R 58 " 470 R - - 62 + 4
50K Residence B 600 R 55 " 600 R - - 60 + 5
50L Residence B " 690 R 53 " 690 R - - 58 + 5
50M Residence B 810 R 51 810 R - - 56 + 5
50N Residence B 350 R 62 " 350 R - - • 67 + 5
500 Residence B 500 R 58 500 R - - 62 + 4
50? Residence B 580 R 55 " 580 R - - 60 + 5
50Q Residence B " 660 R 54 " 660 R - - 58 + 4
50R Residence B " 750 R 52 " 750 R - - 57 + 5
50S Residence B 850 R 50 850 R - - 55 + 5
5(YT Residence B 950 R 49 950 R - - 54 + 5
50U Residence B " 550 R 56 " 550 R - - 61 + 5
50V Residence B " 600 R 55 " 600 R - - 60 + 5
50W Residence B 750 R 52 750 R - - 57 + 5
50X Residence B 830 R 51 " 830 R - - 55 + 4
50Y Residence B " 920 R 50 " 920 R - - 54 + 4
50Z Residence B 1010 R 49 " 1010 R - - 53 + 4
51 Business C " 650 R 54 " 650 R - - 59 + 5
51A Residence B " 1100 R 48 " 1100 R - - 52 + 4
51B Residence B " 870 R 50 " 870 R - - 55 + 5
51C Residence B " 950 R 49 " 950 R - - 54 + 5
511) Residence B 1050 R 48 1050 R - - 53 + 5
51E Residence B 1150 R 47 " 1150 R - - 52 + 5
51F Residence B " 1240 R 47 " 1240 R - - 51 + 4
52 Business C 880 R 50 " 880 R - - 55 + 5
53 Business C 1320 R 46 " 1320 R - - 51 + 5
54 Business C 1000 R. 49 " 1000 R - - 53 + 4
55 Business C " 790 R 51 " 790 R - - 56 + 5
56 Business C " 730 R 52 730 R - - 57 + 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noi se 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). x -> Traffic noise impact ( per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4
Leg TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
I-40, FROM WEST OF NC 801 TO SR 1103
DAVIE-FORSYTH COUNTIES
TIP # I-911AB STATE PROJECT # 8.1610401
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
Section B - SR 1101 to SR 1103
57 Business C I-40 790 R 51 I-40 790 R -
58 Business C " 470 R 58 " 470 R -
59 Business C " 510 R 57 " 510. ..R -
60 Business C " 370 R 61 " 370' R -
61 Business C " 420 R 60 " 420 R -
62 Business C 450 R 59 450 R -
63 Business C 600 R 55 " 600 R -
64 Business C 740 R 52 740 R -
65 Business C " 450 R 59 " 450 R -
66 Business C " 400 L 60 " 400 L -
67 Business C 420 L 60 420 L -
68 Business C 670 L 54 670 L -
69 Business C 650 L 54 650 L -
70 Business C " 330 L 63 330 L -
71 Residence B 550 L 56 550 L -
OISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
- 56 + 5
- 63 + 5
- 62 + 5
- 66 + 5
- 65 + 5
- 64 + 5
- 60 + 5
- 57 + 5
- 64 + 5
- 65 + 5
- 65 + 5
- 58 + 4
- 59 + 5
- 67 + 4
- 61 + 5
6/6
r

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).
TABLE N5
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Description
1. Section A, Beginning to NC 801
2. Section A, NC 801 to SR 1101
3. Section B, SR 1101 to SR 1103
I-40, West of NC 801 to SR 1103
Davie-Forsyth Counties
TIP # I-911" State Project # 8.1610401
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA
81 77 72
82 78 72
80 76 71
243 371'
255 388'
231' 354'
TOTAL
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
0 1 0 0 0
0 21 1 0 0
0 21 0 0 0
0 43 1 0 0
NOTES - 1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2.-72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
I-40, West of NC 801 to SR 1103
Davie-Forsyth Counties
TIP # I-911AB State Project # 8.1610401
Substantial
Receptor Exterior Noise Level Increases Noise Level
Increases
Section <=0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 >= 25 >= 15 dBA
1. Section A, Begin to NC 801 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. Section A, NC 801 to 0 0 0 3 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1101
3. Section B, SR 1101 to 0 27 37 78 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1103
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- --
----------
TOTAL -----
0 -----
25 -----
37 -----
83 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
APPENDIX D
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
The effect on air quality of highway improvements range from
intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving ambient air
conditions. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide
(NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO ), and
lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automogiles are
considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this
reason, most of this analysis concerns expected carbon monoxide levels in
the vicinity of the project due to motor vehicle traffic.
CO Analysis
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).
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. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission
factors were calculated for the project completion year and the design
year using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILESA mobile source emissions computer model.
As stated in the body of this document, no violations of air quality
standards for CO are expected to result from this project.
Other Pollutants
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars react with
sunlight in the atmosphere to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. 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 react with sunlight 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.
Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease
in the future due to the continued installation and maintenance of r
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 these improvements in automobile emissions.
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.
Regular gasoline contains tetraethyl lead, which is emitted when this
type of gasoline is burned. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the
sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful
after December 31, 1995. Many oil companies no longer sell leaded
gasoline. Therefore, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed
project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.