19990038 Ver 1_Complete File_19990113

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
4 ©0f
AV ipt I ?L_?:_
1130
.. `:
dim mlzk kA%W u1i. W_
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
February 3, 1999
Alamance County
WQC 401 Project # 990038
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Bill Gilmore
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions for the purpose of widening NC 54, as you
described in your application dated January 13, 1999. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3103. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit
Number 14 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater,
Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or
CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of
this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for
this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC
2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 276 1 1-7347. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
• This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Howard, Jr. P.E.
990038.Itr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd, Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
e'
I JA
? N 13 1999
,HTERETUIJDS GROUP"
STATE o1' NORTH CAROLINA IIALITYSECTIL,p4
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. nox 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 11, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: NATIONWIDE PERMIT 14 APPLICATION TO WIDEN NC 54 IN
ALAMANCE COUNTY. TIP R-2538.
Attached is the application packet for the subject project. NCDOT proposes to
widen existing NC 54 to a multi-lane undivided facility. The total project distance is 3.14
miles, running from I-40 in Graham to NC 119. The analysis of alternatives and the
environmental impacts are discussed in an Environmental Assessment and Finding Of No
Significant Impact signed, January 5, 1996 and October 31, 1996, respectively, by the
Federal Highway Administration.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Jurisdictional Areas: The project will not impact any wetlands. Impacts to
jurisdictional surface waters will occur at three sites and total 176 linear feet. The
streams are itemized in Table 1 as well as the attached summary sheet. There is one on-
site relocation at site number 2. The relocation will attempt to duplicate the functions of
the existing streams. The proposed stream bank reforestation plan is attached. Since
there are no wetland impacts and each stream impact is less than 150 feet, no mitigation
is proposed for this project.

IAISLt, i. t(-l?su 6urtace water impacts
Site Water Body Channel Channel Channel
Impact Replaced Net Loss
(linear feet) (linear feet) (linear feet)
I UT to Haw River 95 95
2 UT to Haw River 144 86 58
3 UT to Back Creek 23 23
TOTALS 262 86 176
Threatened And Endangered Species. As of May 14, 1998, no species were listed
for Alamance County.
Cultural Resources. There are no known archaeological sites nor structures within
the area of potential effect that are eligible for the National Register. The State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred with these findings and recommended that no
further investigations be conducted.
It is requested that these activities will be permitted under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 14. By copy of this letter, we are also requesting a 401 General Water
Quality Certification from the NC Division of Water Quality. If you have any questions
or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael Wood at [phone].
Sincerely,
v C? t'j" A't' ? L)
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Planning &: Environmental Branch
WDG/mgw
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. John Heffner, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechlcr, NMFS
Mr. Toni Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Randy Wise, P.E., Road Side Environmental
Mr. J. W. Watkins, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Clarence Coleman, P.E., Planning & Environmental

DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 14
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Planning & Environmental
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 25201
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT
FROM MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore , P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Alamance NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Graham
1
N
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Widening of NC 54 from I40-85 to NC 119
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Haw River
RIVER BASIN: Cape Fear
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
No
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK: _
NWP 33 for construction of the bridges over Haw River and
Back Creek.
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.0
2

10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0.0 EXCAVATION: 0.0
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: 262 FT AFTER: 176 FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): Variable FT
WIDTH AFTER: Variable FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: Variable FT AFTER: Variable FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: X PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Widening of existing roadway. Heavy duty trucks, dozer,
crane, and other various mechanical equipment necessary for
construction of road.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Public Transportation
Q
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
Project crosses jurisdictional waters of the United States.
Minimization efforts are outlined in environmental documents and
Attached cover letter.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: see EA (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: See EA
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO H (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [XJ NO [ J
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X) NO [ )
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].

4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Urban
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
iavit? v GJ • .'?ivtr u-
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
i ? l99
DATE
? - N.. ,y2i 111 •.. ?..
f
CIO- I
Bulingiqn
SS 1 f ?ha n
(ALAf.1AN'
If
I
lrl/ 1. /1; •J
1 J PROJEC t
-1„ LIMITS llll
_??'-• Ile, wl
4,1
w I'9'• /` y fill
?•6 o.... o-::1.
r!a `\ 4
fill
.? `.,
till .'
_... _.. ..» ???-r-1z_,\,,'--- ?/. fit) fl)
Uji
D
Ilv tf•.l r- 1'? 1° till
1111
lul
,. ce r
IUI ,i., . At ;,;; • . .,, ; „ ,; / 111, '
fcf nn J,e,e, - ?
rit" jilt Jill ln1
, S till
n . nil r 1jil
fill
PnOJECT '
I,If 1 LIMITS
fill !!fr 111, IU F,
r,.l .a `- it till '
Alit
NORTH CAROLINA DrPAR I nIrNT c
THANSPOR'1'ATION
DIVISION Or 111011 WAYS
PLANNING AND WVIRO)t' MENI'Al,
Ur2ANCII
NC 54
FTIOM 1- 40 185 AT GTIAIIAM TO NC 119
ALAMANCE COUN rY
11 - 25]0
0 "tile 112 r1G. '
}

C. RI-2
? 'il'PIs 1 STRGUIIBANK ItEFORESTSHON SIULL BL PUNTED 0.9m TO 1.521n ON CEN'1'EI1, IIAINDOM
SPACING, AVEIUGING 1.22m ON CENTER, APPRON'11L1TELY 6726 PL1N'I'S PER [IECI'.11ti?.
? 'Il1'B 2 STRI'v1,1IBANK Rla'ORBSTATION SIIALL BE PL1N1'L''D I.Sm TO 3.0m ON CENTER, RANDOM
SPACING, AVE-1UGING 2.4m ON CENTER, ,U'PRO\IIUTELY 1680 PLLNTS PER IIECI'ARIs.
L) NOTE: 'l YPEl 1 AND TYPE 2 STREAMBANK REFORES'T'ATION SHALL DE
PAID FOR AS "STRFIVNIIIANK REFORE'ST'ATION"
ST REfWBANK REFORE STATION TYPICAL
11TE 11
I TYPE I
2.4 \ItT.
STRL'.NIBANK REFOIti:S'I'A'I'lON
piLXj'URE, Mr. SIZE, AND FURNISII SHAM coNro %l TO THE 1-*OLLOR7NGt
Tl'1'1? I
500.o SALIX NIGRA IILICK WILLOW 300mm - 460mm Il(t
50% CORN'US A,1I0MUM SILKY DOGWOOD 300mm - 460mm BIt
'Il1'E 2
25% LIQUIDAi11BAR S'Il'IUCIFLUA SWELT'GUAI 300mm - 460mm BR
25°.o I'LVI'ANUS OCCIDENI'ALIS Sl'CAAIORE, 300mm - 460mm lilt
250% PRUNUS SEROT'INA BLACK CIIE:RRY 300mm - 460mm Bit
25% IILTULI NIGH RIVER BIRCH 300nun - 460tnm BR
? SEE I'L%N SIIEE I'S FOR AREAS TO BE PL1NI'L'D
DETAIL SHEET
N.C.D.O.T.• ROADSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
STREAMBANK REFORESTATION
tnttt;.:ti?tttttt
tnrttttttrtttttl'^•ittttttitttil?tr
tntvsr ?,r..?.t t t t t

VICINITY MAP
i 5 Res. Union 4' $6 Caldwell
ello 10 Ridge ;j
Altamaha , 62 8 49 I \ -for 12 4 51
Ossipee \ Cedar
D 81 Gle Burlington Grove 5 Schley. N
NS olle aven _ \Gre n Level 6 o
Mebane
sonvl 0 Eno Ri.
10 eto 8 Eflan ';04
v+ % v boro
Sedalia? ? 11 q -2 ` a R
hitset 4
6 Atamanc Graham; 1? O R A 2 ' 8ennel 119
}, I S
anil ? S so le Place
l? nee a
t1or-0. l - 1 3
?9ofllegrovnr 54
Virden 8 1 A LA M A E1? ' 17 apel ill 13
2 Klmesv le 18 apaha rrhoro
PROJECT
I l an 1 NC DEPARTMENT Or TRANSPORTATION
Eli hi tney Uniu DIVISION OF 111GI(WAYS
I 49 Snow Camp ALAMANCE COUNTY
fl
Libert --
8.1471101 (R.2538)
Scale of Miles
0 5 10 20 30 NC 54 FROM SR 2106, EAST OF 1.85/40
TO NC 119 IN GRAI IAM
0 10 20 30 40 48
Scale of Kilometers SHEET I Or 3 APRIL, 1999
1-85

BEGIN
-YI- PROJECT

-Y2- -Y3-
-Y4 -
SITE 2
SITE I YS-
-YG-? Y7-
N
HAW RIVER
tic
TOWN `s4 ?\
BRANCH
CREEK
EAST
/ BACK
-YB- •
Y9-
?f CREEK

-Y10-
-YII-
-Y12- -Y13-
-Y15-
-Y14-
-Y16-

SITE 3
END
-Y17
\
-Y 18
PROJECT
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF IIIGIIWAYS
ALANTANCE COUNTY
8.1471101 (R-2538)
NC 54 FROM SR 2106, EAST Or 1-85140
TO NC 119 IN GR AI IAM
SHEET? OF 3 APRIL, 1999
4
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO
: REF. NO. O R ROOM, B LDG.
1
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
P
C?? ?? c-I AY`- j'n/

U l
sn l,?s .IAR 01!0A
:9
J
I1
.': T1Al'..DS GROUP
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES Q. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. No S TOLSON
GOVERNOR SEC
i. '
March 12, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer,

SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR A NATIONWIDE PERMIT 33. TIP R-2538,
ALAMANCE COUNTY.
On January 11, 1999, the North Carolina Department of Transportation submitted
an application for a Nationwide Permit No. 23 for the widening of NC 54 to a multi-lane
undivided facility. The total project distance is 3.14 miles, extending from 1-40 in
Graham to NC 119. It has subsequently been determined that temporary causeways will
be required for bridge construction over the Haw River and East Back Creek. Detailed
plans and a PCN form are attached.

The Haw River Bridge will require two platforms. The estimated total till in
surface waters is 0.025 acres. The platforms will be installed and in use simultaneously.
Both platforms will consist of washed Class II rip rap placed over reinforced fabric and
have 1.5:1 slopes. The total estimated volume of the platforms is 20,800 cubic feet. It is
anticipated that the platforms for the Haw River Bridge will be in place for 17 months.
The East Back Creek bridge will also require two platforms, where only one
platform will be in place at a time. The estimated total fill for both platforms in surface
waters is 0.017 acres. Both platforms will consist of washed Class II rip rap placed over
reinforced fabric and have 1.5:1 slopes. The total estimated volume of the platforms is
21,000 cubic feet. It is estimated that the total time for both platforms to be in place is
seven months.

Upon completion of the bridge construction the rip rap will then be removed from
the surface waters to the extent practicable without disturbing the creek bottom. It is
expected some residual will remain.
Causeway construction will not impact federally protected species. As of January
15, 1999 the US Fish and Wildlife Service does not list any federally protected species
for Alamance County.
It is anticipated that the above mentioned activities will be authorized under
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering) and
NCDOT is requesting the issuance of the permit. By copy of this letter, it is also
requested that a General Water Quality Certification #3114 be issued by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality. If you have any questions or need any additional
information, please contact Mr. Bruce Ellis at [phone] extension 306.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, PE, Branch Manager
Planning Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. R. Dupree, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
DWQ ID
990038 CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT 4: 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 25201
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT
FROM MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore , P.E., Branch Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Alamance NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Graham
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Widening of NC 54 from I40-85 to NC 119
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Haw River and East Back Creek
RIVER BASIN: Cape Fear
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
No
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFOR14ATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): An application for a Nationwide Permit number 14 was
submitted on 11 January 1999
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.0
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0.0
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
EXCAVATION: 0.0
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): Variable FT
WIDTH AFTER: Variable FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE:
Variable FT AFTER: Variable FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Placement of temporary causeways for bridges over the Haw River
and East Back Creek
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
1 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Widening of existing roadway. Heavy duty trucks, dozer,
crane, and other various mechanical equipment necessary for
construction of road and bridges
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Public Transportation
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
Project crosses jurisdictional waters of the United States.
Minimization efforts are outlined in environmental documents and
Attached cover letter.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: see EA (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICEr,
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: See EA
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
1
YES [X] NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
VICINITY MAP
l
rden®

NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGIiWAYS
ALAMANCE COUNTY
8.1471101 (R-2538)
NC 54 FROM SR 2106, EAST OF 1-85/40
TO NC 119 IN GRAHAM
SHEET I OF 10 APRIL, 1998
Scale of Miles
0 5 10 20 3
0 10 20 30 40 4
Scale of Kilometers
t
1/ 1-85

BEGIN
?!U
-Y1 PROJECT
\
-Y2- -y3-
Y4 -
??- SITE 2
SITE I -Y5
-Y6-? Y7-

HAW RIVER
tiC
TOWN
BRANCH
CREEK S I T E H
EAST
-YB- BACK
_yG- CREEK
S I-rc 5 i
-Y10-
-YII-
-Y12- -Y13-
-Y15-
-Y14-
-Y16-

SITE 3
END
-Y17
PROJECT
-Y 18 -
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ALAMANCE COUNTY
8.1471101 (R-2538)
NC 54 FROM SR 2106, EAST OF 1-85140
TO NC 119 IN GRAHAM
SHEET 2 OF 10 APRIL, 1998
L
_ N N r
? Ii !
?v ( 1
? ? lil I I_ I I / i ;
+ ? i
fel
Li ? -
I
>l
W ? Q
7
IL
,, I o
3
u Y
? J
?: y 1
x
Ir ? !il
Q i
O
_I
i
I

Y ? r
V J Q

?)
1 -3
41

F U ® z
EF
j F o c u

L-U
N

cn
0.

z

s
r,
!C

W r a Y
i Q u
J ( 0
n ?

3 ! , ?J

w
_

>I I , I
a
kit
pC Up d
? aU
f/ ? F c
C ly ?'
r? i L
7
u b
M
y 1
u ?. f w T
c ?
t z
G:a
.a
0. ?
Q ?- v]
? y
q2-
I ?
i
i u O
4
z

Cl)
E- ` y 9 ti
`

a z 9 c ?

E-' q U ? O
z ac Cqz
\ c+ 9 N 4
I m ?, -? O Ucr¢?Z ?
? z
Ca G G EF-
u U v
? ti Gr
ilj ' t)Oi E' d
E
o??J 7" z
I 4
cloo)
I
W / p
a
?j I
I ?

a ._

0

? z
I U 9
( N
E- L
: cv
- . C
I I C ; u x cUn
a
?
I
?-
N o
I
o 0

I Ln
P A W fe, 1/6 K .&C, 64-c Cl? S TS 32 4 SG S - L- n c v
.D:ET.-?-IL O c-'. -US1 W.Al'
fk?
143.8 0.3..,
300 .., .. A, CC
- ROCK EMBANKMENT
N.'w.5. EL= OnC?VO ??C O`CCJ RE,JFORCiJ4
-C-:? CEO C
/-STREAM Ec:
III\\IWAA , \\I /,\\II//A I I\\\I VANV/,,?
t NOT TO SCALE
VOLUME AND 7-0a S OF
CLASS II RIP RAP BELOW W.S.
ROCK EMBANKMENT' 5'qv m3
L EF 1-
j;_,, L 0 ,,, 3
Ll To To JS
Z) cr N T
550 'n 3
-I/_ T(o0 ToJ L
Si c +
N. U. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIC1HWAYS
ALAS tAN('E ('(DUN Y
PROJECT: 8.1,'71101 ( R-2:i38 )
\(' ,i-' I'-ROM SR 2L+')h,
H AST OF 1-3") -'f)
TO 111) (;RAHA?t
S H 1': I' 5- 0 F 1 0
- I (ET "I
}
1J
F
=' x
? I
d v
-2 fi
Zj too
<
LL L
CL
Z
<
W
0
0.

t

O
+
\
J ?

u

0
0.?
u
-.. W
W
3 ?
3 ?
oc
IN
'7 O
1h
V ?
G
?J
J
o
i
4 ? I
<
?? S O
o ? .9
O
O
?:_A
C C
J?j t?l p Q
I W =?
F- ?„ :r U
lu
C
oz v
? 0 z
? u
?p0 a
It LN
W?
Z W 4 ?
O cO u
2 co
?. 7 ?d .?.
?7
d? ? L
a ?

z i
0

tv-

Ct ? q U 9
Q 1? .. z x = ? Z
z o

? z
.,,
O
t
Q
u
°
O e
cv °
0.
1
8
CC)
O

C :J
C
N O
O G
S
? r1V I .....y ,? __M,.. _ - . .. rc? %-f ?Ji H J o T - 6. - Jc t V

. ,n t LEy

1\ \A I
/ 300 M..t A 4 L
ROCK EMBANKMENT
REM GORG.l rr GwQK,C
.\\ I/X\A 1\\\\,J
NOT TO SCALE

?TArj
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES Q. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
March 12, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
608 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmever
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer,
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR A NATIONWIDE PERMIT 33, TIP R-2538.
ALANIANCE COUNTY.
On January 11, 1999, the North Carolina Department of Transportation submitted
an application for a Nationwide Permit No. 23 for the widening of NC 54 to a multi-lane
undivided facility. The total project distance is 3.14 miles, extending from I-40 in
Graham to NC 119. It has subsequently been determined that temporary causeways will
be required for bridge construction over the Haw River and East Back Creek. Detailed
plans and a PCN form are attached.
l
The Haw River Bridge will require two platforms. The estimated total fill in
surface waters is 0.025 acres. The platforms will be installed and in use simultaneously.
Both platforms will consist of washed Class II rip rap placed over reinforced fabric and
have 1.5:1 slopes. The total estimated volume of the platforms is 20,800 cubic feet. It is
anticipated that the platforms for the Haw River Bridge will be in place for 17 months.
The East Back Creek bridge will also require two platforms, where only one
platform will be in place at a time. The estimated total fill for both platforms in surface
waters is 0.017 acres. Both platforms will consist of washed Class II rip rap placed over
reinforced fabric and have 1.5:1 slopes. The total estimated volume of the platforms is
21,000 cubic feet. It is estimated that the total time for both platforms to be in place is
seven months.

Upon completion of the bridge construction the rip rap will then be removed from
the surface waters to the extent practicable without disturbing the creek bottom. It is
expected some residual will remain.
Causeway construction will not impact federally protected species. As of January
15, 1999 the US Fish and Wildlife Service does not list any federally protected species
for Alamance County.
It is anticipated that the above mentioned activities will be authorized under
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering) and
NCDOT is requesting the issuance of the permit. By copy of this letter, it is also
requested that a General Water Quality Certification 93114 be issued by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality. If you have any questions or need any additional
information, please contact Mr. Bruce Ellis at [phone] extension 306.
Sincerely,

William D. Gilmore, PE, Branch Manager
Planning Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. R. Dupree, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
I
DWQ ID: 990038
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT 4: 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 25201
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT
FROM MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore , P.E., Branch Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Alamance NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Graham
I
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Widening of NC 54 from I40-85 to NC 119
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Haw River and East Back Creek
RIVER BASIN: Cane Fear
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
No
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): An application for a Nationwide Permit number 14 was
submitted on 11 January 1999
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
t
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.0

2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0.0 EXCAVATION: 0.0
FLOODING: OTHER:
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): Variable FT
WIDTH AFTER: Variable FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: Variable FT AFTER: Variable FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Placement of temporary causeways for bridges over the Haw River
and East Back Creek
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Widening of existing roadway. Heavy duty trucks, dozer,
crane, and other various mechanical equipment necessary for
construction of road and bridges
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Public Transportation
r
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
Project crosses jurisdictional waters of the United States.
Minimization efforts are outlined in environmental documents and
Attached cover letter.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: see EA (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: See EA
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?

YES [X] NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
r
l
VICINITY MAP
rden.'
Scale of Miles
0 S 10 20
?-
H-N
0 10 20 30
Scale of Kilometers
L

NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ALAMANCECOUNTY
8.1471101 (R-2538)
30 NC 54 FROM SR 2106, EAST OF 1-85/40
TO NC 119 IN GRAHAM
48
SHEET I OF 10 APRIL, 1998
1-85
BEGIN
-YI- PROJECT
-Y2- 1-Y3-
- Y4 -
SITE 2
SITE I YS
-Y6-? Y7-
N
HAW RIVER
tiC
TOWN S57
BRANCH
CREEK SITE `i
EAST
-YB- BACK
-Y9 - CREEK
% ?- S Ire 5
-Y10-
-YII--
-Y12- -Y13-
-Y15-
-Y14-
-Y16-
SITE 3
END
PROJECT -Y17 -Y 18
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ALAMANCE COUNTY
8.1471101 (R-2538)
NC 54 FROM SR 2106, EAST OF 1-85/40
TO NC 119 IN GRAHAM
v
SHEET 2 OF 10 APRIL, 1998

N „
1
Li
V
a,
M ?

V J Q

G..

'
z C

E- q U .. o z
z °° C o c.
o u E - 9

o ? ? C z a z

z

q
I 3? ?- I ? ,
?
f]y ?
,

y I I i<

J U
W ? O
0 ? ? ? J I I "?? •
I?
1 ? -
L
L
o
3
u Y
? J
ti Y 1
x ?<
?I
? .I
O
O i
? ? If

I
I ? 1 -
i
(?
3 ?1

k?

I Fn
I

IF
a
\?y lic U O s
f ? ? F C
fem. 1 Z ?
e ? ? z
J
n 1
I
u r?
N
u O}
f ?
o LLl
y
I W .?
I
Ln
g
.. I
'L
? J
1G
W
Q
T?
1D
W
C

z
0
Er
o
?
z
c
c-i

0
+
M
M ,14

o

?
G;
z
o
>
w

c
@

F
U
q

U

z
.r

?.?.l

z
o
4

7
U a C. cF-.
z z

0
J
L-
r„ N
G G
? U
F d
V L?
F

co
1v M
3? ? o
I 1
4
I
I ? a
1
Q
Q

O
?
U r
z
N

- +
E-
j
?
u
C
x
Q
E
N o
O O
Ln

14 4,A/ ,e,?E K .Qel 64F (!? ISrA 3.2 4 5e,. 2T_ - L - re v
I
Or c r.1L?s? ?ti -1?`
r , 6k v/. I
3 . -i f
C CI -
41
K?E.JFO RCI J?- Grr:2?e
•? ^i i r _ ^ STREAM EEG
1?//\\A I/X\A'? \\I f/ \I I\/\I I \?? I '?%\ \r,\
.I WAA 1//AA 1//\\\\, I %\\\I I//,\\I 1%\\\I 1//\\\Xl
s NOT TO SCALE ?
VOLUME AND 1-0 ?S OF
It CLASS II RIP RAP BELOW W.S.
ROCK EMBANKMENT' 5--qo m3
StTG q-
?• ?F T R'?4.. H T N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION Or HI(3H«'A)-S
33 0 •? 3 ALAI IAN(.L ('0L'NTY
PROJECT: (l.l-'i ll!)I ( R-2»(1 )
+SO ToJS -I- 5-too 'to .1 c N( i- 1 ROM SR. 2106,
TO (' lll> IN tilt.\13.\?1
01., lo
.70 o A. r3 G
-ROCK EMBANKMENT
M
I S_
}
W
x
? I
h ? ? N
? V I
a?
d
W
O
L
<
1 ?
c2 4

j

c1r

u

a
d?
W ?
2
J
3 bt
3 ?
oc
I y ?I
it ? II
?I + I
II II.
II II

I
i {

II II
\ I I in
I,u II
IZ II
II II
it 0 II
3. I I I I
o
y
G
?J
J ?
r
? I
ti o
is
? I
(? GT
a ? .t-
OG ? L }
FN
z
0

q ;.
r
z x
r^,,,
:1
'?

C"
z

z
„?
?
v
C
?
4,
® ..r
w
c

E- q U : 9 z -

c
.
?
z y

? q J
0
u
1 ? Q D
lu *7
O 7
0. v
< O t7 ll ? ?,
W ?
?- a w
W
V)
1
< 0
A
T
O
C 0.,
O

u?
4

QD
O
4
W
0
0.
t
8
CC)
K)
0
co
4-
Ln ?n \-It
4
7
J

U?
n
J

G

c
\j
N O
O G

z
o
q ? Z ^1
x •?
C
a

z

t?'_A,S1-000- ? (-:e46 K dk'i d,?-c Cj Sfs 38 4 Z4..2iT_ - L - kE?

.DETAIL OF

14f, 00
0.3 .,
1+3.70
N.W.S. EL=
J I \\ 1\\\
I'\,\\I I \,\\
30o m.» A Q C_
OZ ROCK EMBANKMENT
I'I Lo IC C'.I" G.Q R.C
STREAM EEO
AI !\\\ 0X\A? I \\\ 1/2A \\\\1 i//AA 1\\\I I
&I I?/,\\ I\;??
NOT TO SCALE
VOLUME AND TotJs OF
CLASS II RIP RAP BELOW W.S.
ROCK EMBANKMENTN C,OO m3
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION Or HIGHS A' 'S
a2.4a •n \LA IAN('E ('OI'NTY
3 3?5 m 3
PROJECT, 8..L-'711().l ( R-` 538 )
'-} Lovo ro.ls N(' S,' FROM SR 2NO,
B.\5I (A. 1-133 =1)
of, to
m. E5- 91v_%
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 15, 1997
MEMORANDUM
s
o
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn 1
From: Eric Galamb C)
Subject: FONSI for NC 54 Widening
Alamance County
State Project DOT No. 8.1471101, TIP # R-2538
EHNR # 97-0377, DWQ # 11450
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ is
responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which
impact waters of the state including wetlands. The subject project states that wetlands will not be
impacted but does not quantify the impacts to waters. The following comments are based on the
review of the document:
A) DOT may be required to provide stream mitigation if significant stream loss or
degradation occurs.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of a FONSI by DWQ would not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed
to Eric Galamb or Cyndi Bell in DWQ's Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Raleigh COE
Angela Smith, P&E
Michelle Suverl:rubbe
nc54alam.fon
FAXEL)
JAN 1 5 1997
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Telephone [phone]
FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunily Atfinnative Action Employer 501/ recycled/10% post consumer paper
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWQ - Water Quality Section
ZEA
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Env. Sciences Branch
* Wetlands
? John Dorney
Eric Galamb (DOT)
? Greg Price (airports, coE)
? Steve Kroeger (utilities)
13
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
? Trish MacPherson
? Kathy Herring (forest/ORwixQw)
Technical Support Branch
? Coleen Sullins, P&E
? Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
? Carolyn McCaskill, P&E, State
? Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
? Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
? Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
13
Operations Branch
? Dianne Wilburn, Facility Assessment
? Tom Poe, Pretreatment
? Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Toxicology
? Larry Ausley
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
Planning Branch ? Asheville ?Mooresville ? Washington
? ? Fayetteville ? Raleigh ? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
L/5 4
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 Junsdiction, level of expertise or permit authority.
Please check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if
any, by the date indicated.
Tliank 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:?c Cmemo.doc
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number. County:
01 -n -2,-] ? ?)Llv
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone
? Asheville
? Fayetteville
? Mooresville
? Raleigh
? Washington
? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Date:
? Project located in 7th floor library
l q S-r'
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
I .
Regional Office Area In-House Review
?AII RIO Areas ?Soil and Water ?Marine Fisheries
? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
? Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
?Groundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources
? Radiation Protection
? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster.
? Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Oth
s > 1 Environmental Management
er
mcnica Swihart
PWS
Date: In-House ReviewerlAgency:
Resoonse (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
?Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthorily(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

NC 54
From SR 2106 (Whittemore Loop)
To NC 119
Alamance County
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-54(1)
State Project No. 8.1471101
T.I.P. Project No. R-2538
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(c)
APPROVED:
46to896 a
DD . Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date Nic o . Graf, E.
FaADivision Administrator, FHWA
NC 54
From SR 2106 (Whittemore Loop)
To NC 119
Alamance County
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-54(1)
State Project No. 8.1471101
T.I.P. Project No. R-2538
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch by:
Angela°H. Smith
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone, CPM .o`Z?
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head .?`???.• FE$Si?••. 9"
SEAL
s ?
6944
??,.FiyC(NEli! ; oC-J
Richar B. Davis, P. E.
P ?.
Assistant Manager, Planning and Environmeitt?jwiic'0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. TYPE OF ACTION ............................................................................. I
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................. I
III. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ............................................. 2
A. COMMITMENTS PENDING ................................................. 2
B. RESOLVED COMMITMENTS FROM EA ............................ 2
IV. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................ 2
V. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT........ 3
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT ................................................................................... 3
VII. CONWENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.......... 5
VIII. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT ................................................................................... 6
IX. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................... 6
FIGURES
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Section of Hearing Map
CORRESPONDENCE
NC 54
From SR 2106 (Whittemore Loop)
To NC 119
Alamance County
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-54(1)
State Project No. 8.1471101
T.I.P. Project No. R-2538
I. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation have determined that this project will not have any significant impact on
the human or natural environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment
(EA) which has been independently evaluated by the Federal Highway Administration and
determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of
the proposed project with the inclusion of appropriate responses to their comments (see
appendix for letters containing comments which are addressed in Section V. of this
document). The EA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. The FHWA takes full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the EA.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The NCDOT, Division of Highways, proposes to improve and extend a 5.3-
kilometer (3.3-mile) section of NC 54 from SR 2106 (Whittemore Loop), just east of
I-40/85 to NC 119 in Alamance County (see Figure 1 for project location). The existing
2-lane shoulder section will be widened to a 5-lane, 19.2-meter (64-foot), curb and gutter
section which will allow for two lanes in each direction with a center left turn lane. The
proposed widening will be accomplished symmetrically about the centerline to minimize
right of way damages. All widening is anticipated to be completed within the existing 36
meters (120 feet) of right of way (the section between I-40/85 and SR 2109 has 30 meters
(100 feet) of reserved right of way) with the exception of a short section in the vicinity of
the Haw River and Back Creek which will be widened to the west. Temporary
construction easements may be necessary at some locations in addition to the proposed
right of way.
One additional business is anticipated to be relocated due to the proposed
realignment of SR 2108 (Sunset Drive) with SR 2183 (Ivey Street). See Figure 2 for a
detail from the hearing map.
The subject project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement
Program (T.I.P.) with the current total cost estimated at $ 9,745,000. This estimate
includes $ 445,000 for right of way, and $ 9,300,000 for construction. The project is
scheduled for right of way acquisition in federal fiscal year 1998 (FFY 1998) and
construction in FFY 1999.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
A. COMMITMENTS PENDING
Best Management Practices will be applied to this project to minimize
impacts.
2. The Geotechnical Unit will conduct a thorough survey for contaminated
soil prior to right of way acquisition if property is acquired on any of the
five sites identified as possibly hazardous. It is not anticipated that any of
the sites will be needed to construct the project.
NCDOT will coordinate with Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) prior to right of way acquisition to ensure that the project will be
in compliance with applicable floodplain and floodway regulations.
4. NCDOT will study the feasibility of an alternate alignment at the proposed
realignment of SR 2183 with SR 2108 to avoid impacting a business as
discussed in Section VIII. See Figure 2 for a detail of the area.
B. RESOLVED COMMITMENTS FROM THE EA
No changes to the Alexander Wilson School access driveways were
requested by school officials.
IV. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project will have a positive overall impact on travel between
Burlington and Chapel Hill. The proposed widening and extension improvements will
increase capacity and reduce the potential for the types of accidents occurring along the
project (rear-end collisions, turning movement accidents, and angle collisions). The
proposed project will improve the overall safety and convenience to motorists.
This new section provides an important connection between Burlington and
Chapel Hill and is designated as a major thoroughfare on the Burlington and Vicinity
Thoroughfare Plan.
V. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Copies of the Environmental Assessment were sent to the federal, state, regional,
and local agencies listed below. An asterisk (*) denotes those agencies responding with
written comments. Substantive comments are discussed in the following section and
copies of the correspondence are included in the appendix of this document.
*N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Alamance County Schools
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Region G Planning Agency
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
Alamance County Commissioners
City of Graham
Mayor of Graham
The EA was also made available to the public for review and comment.
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment:
"The EA provides an adequate discussion of anticipated impacts to fish and
wildlife resources in the project area. Due to the disturbed nature of the project
area and the decision to widen an existing roadway, we feel that impacts to natural
resources will be minimal. We concur with the EA for this project and anticipate
our concurrence with the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). NCDOT
should continue efforts to minimize impacts and should employ NCDOT Best
Management Practices to protect off-site resources."
Response:
NCDOT uses "Best Management Practices" as standard procedure in all
highway projects.
N C Department of Administration-State Clearinghouse
Division of Environmental Mann a ment
Comment:
"DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges
in order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly over
water."
Response:
Deck drains (referred to as weep holes in the above comment) are required
for bridge deck drainage to avoid hydroplaning and hence provide safety for the
motoring public. Feasibility of eliminating deck drains directly over water will be
studied during the final design phase of the project and if safety requirements
allow, it will be incorporated into the final design.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Comment:
"We wish to commend you for the somewhat extensive discussion on flood
plains contained in the EA. In particular, we endorse the planned coordination
between the N. C. Department of Transportation Hydraulics Design Unit and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and local authorities for compliance with
applicable flood plain and floodway regulations. However, we would suggest that
additional information be provided to substantiate the statement on page 25 of the
EA that the modified crossing of East Back Creek would not have a significant
adverse effect on the flood plain. The reasoning for the insignificant effect on the
Haw River flood plain from that crossing is well documented."
Response:
The crossing at East Back Creek consists of a reinforced concrete deck on
concrete girders, supported by reinforced concrete post and beam piers on
concrete spread footings with spill-through approaches. Based on field review and
a preliminary hydraulics analysis, the existing bridge was found to be hydraulically
adequate and is anticipated to be retained and widened. All widening is anticipated
to be accomplished on the south side to provide the best horizontal alignment by
widening to the inside of a relatively sharp curve on the east approach. This site is
in a designated flood hazard zone and is included in the detailed flood study for
Alamance County. The floodplain in this area is rural and wooded, and the
proposed bridge widening will not result in a decrease in the waterway opening;
therefore, it will not have any significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain
and floodway, nor on the associated flood hazard.
Comment:
"Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material into waters and/or wetlands in conjunction
with this project, including the disposal of construction debris. Under our
mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should first be avoided or minimized. We
will then consider compensation or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final
plans are completed, including the extent and location of any work within waters
of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the
opportunity to review these plans for a project-specific determination of
Department of the Army permit requirements. It is probable, if the impacts from
the proposed project are minor, that the work could be authorized under one or
more nationwide or regional general permits."
Response:
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will have the opportunity to review
and comment on the final plans to make their determination of Department of the
Army permit requirements.
VII. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING
An informal public hearing was held on May 23, 1996 at the Alexander Wilson
Elementary School, Approximately 30 persons were in attendance. Comments received
at and following the hearing are summarized below:
The meeting attendees were interested in how the project would affect their
properties. Several residents expressed concern over how the project construction would
affect the slope in front of their properties. When NC 54 was widened in the early 1970's,
a steep slope was left along the southwestern side of NC 54 just north of the Haw River.
The residents requested that DOT reduce the slope when the project is constructed. Since
construction of this project will not require the purchase of right of way or easements
through this area, no changes to the slope are proposed. However, some slope work may
be necessary when the driveways are reestablished. The residents were told to contact the
Resident Engineer when the construction date approached.
6
One resident requested that the signal proposed in the EA at SR 2123 (Cherry
Lane) be moved to SR 2135 (Jim Minor Road) due to traffic from a local produce stand
located at the corner of SR 2135. Signalization is still recommended at SR 2123 (Cherry
Lane), as discussed in Section VIII.
The Alexander Wilson School revised their bus access when the signal at NC 54
and NC 119 was installed (in September, 1995) so that buses enter and leave the school
on NC 119. The proposed addition of a center turn lane on NC 119 will facilitate access
to the school.
VIII. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
No substantial revisions to the Environmental Assessment have been made and
there have been no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope. No major
revisions are anticipated.
Additional studies were conducted concerning the need for traffic signals at
SR 2123 (Cherry Lane) and at SR 2135 (Jim Minor Road). It is recommended to
signalize SR 2123 (Cherry Lane) as originally stated in the EA. SR 2135 (Jim Minor
Road) will be evaluated following construction of the project by the Area Traffic Engineer
to determine if signalization is warranted.
One additional business is anticipated to be relocated due to the proposed
realignment of SR 2183 (Ivey Street) with SR 2108 (Sunset Drive). See Figure 2 for a
detail from the hearing map. The property owner requested that the roadway be relocated
to the west of existing SR 2183 and impact a home (which he also owns, shown as House
A on Figure 2) instead of the current plan which will take his business. The property
owner is willing to donate right of way for this purpose. NCDOT will study the feasibility
of an alternate alignment in this area and make a decision in the final design.
IX. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based on a study of the proposed project, documented in the Environmental
Assessment, and on comments received from government agencies and the public, the
Division of Highways and the Federal Highway Administration have concluded the project
action will not have a significant impact upon the human and natural environment.
Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement or further environmental analysis will not
be required.
AHS/plr
b
FIGURES
J
• yy • ?•?_.? .o+ , u I Ira xr. .or2
? •,.c ::::. .:fir. ., :. ? ", o ?, rw ?" ? ir, .a.
IC9
` 1211 0 -j Sa4UHO of ?- - 1
., I Hor R?.•. I I
C-k
]I
'16 23.
1217 .0
? ?h ` w` .. 1 J FI
I r
,r,. e 1' f l
dp .r 11 LLI1 1' ® J
w. q.r.- Y. .L n•r•- :1 _~ ?:. .u .'Y.,.. .. .• .f JI ru -rfA\
GRAHAM m1 f -? i
?01. AA74 .e7IUI
rJr \ i IUl S
i PROJECT - ,u t
' Ir LIMITS ?,„,> 1I2?' uY
77U 77II
11or
a • p uu IM, A 1r u
Ilu
s 'rJ i ` At
.: ? ?, ? ,p •? 1..L1 ? M
? 2,101.
,III r /
1
uu
? IIat2 J
`\ J
' ? J 7
d ti o r2 ny \ r. `??. 2122
\ Iya
Sy
€. . e '
/r ?` ?`• LJA Ir jU? ? L'W 1 Io p Lilt
+ • 1 1172
nu { , o ,• 1112 "r M IS11
0 am . o. OJ r I
?a r` ` I11 ?I a I
.10 ?f ?L1 • L Ir..
oy o. 9 d .'. 7 /
_ '71L ? ? L'• • _ 17
Py.
?1J. .. U.1/-??$ ty "+?\ I o. r1o o ST9e ,?' J r2 I: ?. Al.
.;.1 I1? `7 o Y . ?_a2-? iL'J?. rr2 IIL ]7!! v,
UV 111. . R>r n>Z 2112 R IT,pz , ; v
Vv r!? , ?. 11.
iiti J 11). ~
lilt ? 1;1
r 21..U ?? ?,. 21L Irp .i I
i rq q, - RUf
Jy
I y 1rlZ TIN a, ,
1 \ 4 I. /.
J
i p '?••-? ' ? PROJECT
LI3IITS
lug
1u u VICINITY MAP
• a
17i -`vj V
SCALE: 1' 0 0.5 mile FIGURE 1•

LEGEND y

( BUILDINGS
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
® ALL EASEMENTS
EXISTING ROADWAY
EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE RESURFACED
PROPOSED ROADWAY
PROPOSED STRUCTURES, ISLAND, CURB
AND GUTTER
EXISTING STRUCTURES, ISLAND, CURB
AND GUTTER TO BE RETAINED
EXISTING STRUCTURES, ISLAND, CURB
AND GUTTER TO BE REMOVED
O LAXES, RIVER, STREAMS AND PONDS
M
?
}
? N
? Clc
l
F
- ?,+
.
I
.
Xlp
'ms
?
s r
m?
?
,°s rxi `
I•
. r ®?F m o
r rn f
Ora, ?:
rK 1.
m: •
+House ,a
trees ,.. •: ,?
.1
wy II
ai .. 11
O ,
JACOUELIt1E w.
ANp IAUES E.
KEI ALL
e N

N
N ?

o?
'• ?o. a I
_ m
m?
C vN.,• `
a
tell r A
eJ eloc to LL iness s 4
adz y ^% 'rr
r ?=
•iA
I1 1' * C' Aooocz
Esting roadway
?ti?
Propose -
aR 1?
?M t x 1?
25 : .. 11
n = /? 11
Ra ? 11
11
11
11
11 ? .
N
1?
11
11
1
1•
11
11
• 11
N
1
11
r
g

ocl

s„
^?C
L
A
Yp?n
s
nL?? ?'?? ?y4
O
1 ^(?
Zap
TTT LLLJJJ ? _?
n
x
r
?I y
N
?t
r^ 4
=fi

N r .
1? 0
>A?
Proposed Realignment of
SR 2183 and SR 2108
z FIGURE 2
ILA
CORRESPONDENCE
FMZ06

MAILED TO
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
115 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
nr??17j,
t 1.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT 3 L FEB 719%
'
L
N-C. uEPT• OF TRANSPORTATION
;nH:T AE3G
P;'%.'23RA.N BRANCH
T&..;4SPGR T ATICK 3LDG. /IN T =R-OFFICE
FRCP" I i ._... -
MS. JEANEtTE FURNEY
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.IOJ--CT DESCRIPTION
.:1`!. ASSESS. - PROPOSED. IMPROVEMENTS TC '1C 541 F. C,, .i /_' C6
('oH:TTc:".CRC LCCP) TO NC 119 TIP #R-2532
TYPE - ENV. ASSESS.
;iE N.C• STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW- THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APP:.:CATION NUMBER 9oE42200504. PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
IPJ1t.IRI_S CR CORRESPGNDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE.
REVIEA OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE CCMPLETEO CN OR BEFORE C3/02/96•
SH'OULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone]•
y
V qqb
Lu
d U a` ?N
p`? QcS
JNING

'
i
j ? !t 1

F'",Z 0 8 ..
03-05-96
MAILED TO:

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS MM .. 6 m
N.C. oEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
WHIT WEBB
PROGRAM DEV. BRANCH
TRANSPORTATION BLDG./INTER-OFC
PROJECT OESCRTPTInN:
c
FROM: PROGRAM OEVELO'; F.T UNI
MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
DIRECTOR
N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
ENIV. ASSESS. - pRCPOSPO IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 549 FROM SR 2106
(WHITTEMORE LOOP) TO NC 119; TIP KR.-2539
SAI NO 96EI-2200504 PROGRAM TITLE - ENV. ASSESS.
THE A90VE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUSMITTEO TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
l1G ?
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SU94TTTED: ( ) MO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVEC
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVC- ANY QUESTIONSI PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. REGION G
0

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee V
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 96-0504 EA NC 54, Whittemore Loop to NC 119, Alamance County
DATE: February 29, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed
the proposed information. The attached comments are for your consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
RECEIVED
MAR 1 1yw,)
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer .50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer peper
?6I North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
i12 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGcc
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox. Highway ProjectP?ar
ator ?e
Habitat Conservation Progm e?.?tJJ ?}/
DATE: February 28, 1996 /
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Tmnsportation (NCDOT) Environmental Assessment
(EA) for NC 54, from SR 2106 (Whittemore Loop) to NC 119, Alamance County, North
Carolina. TIP No. R-2538, SCH Project No. 96.0504.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject EA and
are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to assess project
impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments arc provided in accordance with certain provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stet. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDO'1' proposes to symmetrically widen NC 54 to a five-Ianc curb and Sutter facility from SR
2106 to NC 119. The project length is approximately 3.3 miles. Wetland and waters impncts are
associated with culvert extensions and bridge replacements and will likely be covered under nationwide
"404" permits.
The FA provides an adequate discussion of anticipated impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
project area. Due to the disturbed nature of the project arcs and the decision to widen an existing
roadway, wt: fret dial tinpu,.6 lv tidturAl reAenim 1 will bo minimal,
We will concur with the EA for this project and anticipate our concurrence with the Finding of No
Signidieant Impact (FONSI). NCDOT should continue efforts to minimize impacts and should employ
NCDOT Best Management Practices to protect off-site resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. If we can be of any further assistance please
call me at [phone].
cc: U.S. Fish and Wild lifr Service, Ralcigh
!i
.r
State-of North-Carolina
t Department:ofEnvironment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan 8, Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Febriuary 28, 1996
MEMORANDUM I?
ITo: Melba McGee
Through: John Dor e
From: Eric Galam-
Subject: EA for Improvements to NC 54
a Alamance County
State Project DOT No. S., 471101, TIP #
EHNR # 96-0504, DEM :;;j 11179
R-2538
The Division of
issuance of the
Section 401
The subject document has been reviewsd by this office..
Environmental Management (DEM) is responsible for the
Water Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters. of the state including
wetlands. The document states that wetlands will not be impacted but does not
quantify impacts to waters. OEM hasp the following comments based on the review of
the document:
A) OEM requests. that weep holes riot be installed in. the replacement bridges in
order to prevent: sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible,1 weep holes should not be installed directly
over water. ! I
DOT is reminded. that endorsement of 4n EA by OEM would not preclude the denial of
a 401 Certification upon application if (,Wetland and water impacts have-not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
,(
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Envirorirpental Sciences. Branch.
I'
nc54.ea !
cc: Monica Swihart
i
!
i
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 olophono 919-733-7015 FAX [phone]
An Equd oppWtz* Atflrmativo Action Employor i rocydod/ 10% post-conaxnor paper
!
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Reviewing Office:
Project Number: - Due D Ie:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS -
? ? O sa 1 ? 9G
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtai ed 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 ortnif Process
Regional Office. N
C

F7
LSe
C
?
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-Trine :j.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS tstalutoryume

rmit to construct d operate wastewater treatment Application g0 days before begin construction or award of ?. ,..
facitines, sewer system extensions. b sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application : .
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 daysl
NPDES • permit to drscnarge into surface water and/or
l Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days "
rtnr
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'AI =< _•
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES -
• permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Pre-application lecnnical conference usually necessary 30 days
IN.Ai
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be reserved and permit issuetl 7 days
• prior to the installation of a weil. 05 days)
Application Copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
etlge and Fill Permit owner On-site inspection. Pre•acoliCalion conference usual Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of 190 days)
Administration and Feceral Dredge and Fin Permit.
Permit to construc: L operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities anclot Emission Sources as per 1SA NCAC 21H.06 I
NIA (90 days)

open burning associated with sublet, prooosal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demos nor renovations of structures containing
a aids material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
CAC 2D.0525 whrcY requires notification and removal NiA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820 90
(
days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion b sedimentallo
control plan will be required it one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 says '
davs before bemnnino activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or oar must accomoanv the clan f30 Cavsi
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to trio felerrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
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 it permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -it more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections INCA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned.—

Oil Refining Facilities
NIA 90.120 days
(NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Salety Permit inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNA approv
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 400 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verity Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac•
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion
L
•x '.? ,Z} Continued on reverse
Noma- Process
• Time
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
(statutory lime
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5.000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days pnor to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure d proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application (150 daysi
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany apolication (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. otease notify.
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687, Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subcnaoter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if ••orpnan- underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Slormwater Rulesl is required. 45 days
(N!A)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment auinomyl.

r
_.?i ^_.^-.: --'T?:'.`) A1=IT:E3 _?I`i.UL'•IG CL_E =.oT:'iG C: :.:_..? N L.
17 ._?r?11A'r_r.nl .._`-- - - s __- ,7_•?-rtt T_t.? Tc:r r_c
^+Lt?Fa?l? ? Or ='J v: ? . j OR :I-RE
}
-R7 z OF TC` A.1. LAND Zk D T: A N"""S STO';.urriAT_? PERMIT PRIOR
Iw-...:.v..-..:....
REGIONAL OFFICES

Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville. NC 28301
(704) 25146208 [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
_ [phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
REPLY TO
-? ATTENTION OF
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
March 15, 1996
ection
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
50*
?eivFo
Iz-
NIAR ? C 1996
r
2 DIVISIG"" OF
v
This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1996, requesting our comments on
the " Federal Environmental Assessment for R-2538, NC 54, from SR 2106
(Whittemore Loop) to NC 119, Alamance County, Federal Aid Project STP-54(1), State
Project 8.1471101" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199602000).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Sh ford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
-2-
Copy Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Ms. Stephanie Briggs
Supervisor, Permits Section
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
March 15, 1996
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for R-2538, NC 54, from SR 2106 (Whittemore Loop) to
NC 119, Alamance County, Federal Aid Project STP-54(1), State Project 8.1471101"
(Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199602000)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC Mr. Bobby L Willis Special Studies and Flood Plain Services
Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in Alamance County and within the jurisdictional limits of the
City of Graham, both of which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Crossings
of three detail study streams, Haw River, East Back Creek, and Town Branch are involved with
this project, as noted on pages 24 and 25 of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and as
shown on Figures 6A and 6B. From a review of Panel 3 of the September 1992 City of
Graham Flood Insurance Rate Map, the Haw River crossing is now totally within the city's
jurisdictional limits.
We wish to commend you for the somewhat extensive discussion on flood plains contained
in the EA. In particular, we endorse the planned coordination between the N.C. Department of
Transportation Hydraulics Design Unit and the Federal Emergency Management Agency and
local authorities for compliance with applicable flood plain and floodway regulations. However,
we would suggest that additional information be provided to substantiate the statement on
page 25 of the EA that the modified crossing of East Back Creek would not have a significant
adverse effect on the flood plain. The reasoning for the insignificant effect on the Haw River
flood plain from that crossing is well documented.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Eric Alsmeyer Raleigh Field Office, Regulatory
Branch, at [phone], Extension 23
Review of the project indicates that the proposed work may involve the
discharge of excavated or fill material into waters of the United States.
Affected water bodies include Haw River, and East Back Creek, below
headwaters, and Town Branch Creek and unnamed tributaries, above headwaters.
Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge
of excavated or fill material into waters and/or wetlands in conjunction with
this project, including the disposal of construction debris. Under our
mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should first be avoided or minimized.
We will then consider compensation or mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
When final plans are completed, including the extent and location of any work
within waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would
appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for a project-specific ,
determination of Department of the Army permit requirements. It is probable,
if the impacts from the proposed project are minor, that the work could be
authorized under one or more nationwide or regional general permits.
Questions or comments pertaining to permits may be directed to Mr. Alsmeyer.,

,,. 51A1?,s` 1-i S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. IR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 9, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Linwood Stone, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
ATTENTION: Angela Smith, Project Manager
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Janet L. Shipley, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resource Technical Report for
Widening of NC 54, from SR 2106 to NC
119; Alamance County; T.I.P. R-253S;
State Project No. 8.147/1101; F.A.
Project No. STP - 54(1)
The following Natural Resources Technical Report
has been prepared following a field survey conducted by
Environmental Unit Staff on August 25, 1994. No sensitive
resources will be impacted by the proposed action. If you
have questions or need additional information, please give me
a call.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D
N1. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File: R-2538

Natural Resource Technical epor:
for the Proposed Widening of NC 54
from SR 2106 to NC 119
Alamance County
TIP No. R-253S
State Project No. S.1471101
Federal Aid No. STP - 54(1)
NATURAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT
R-2538
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
JANET L. SHIPLEY
September 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...............................1
1.2 Purpose ...........................................1
1.3 Study Area ........................................1
1.4 Methodology .......................................1
2.0 Biotic Resources .....................................2
2.1. Plant Communities ...............................2
2.2 Wildlife ........................................3
2.3 Biotic Resource Impacts .........................5
3.0 -Physical Resources ...................................6
3.1 Soils and Topography .............................6
3.2 Water Resources ..................................6
3.2.1 Water Resource Impacts .....................8
4.0 Special Topics ........................................8
4.1 Jurisidictional Waters of the United States ...... 8
4.1.1 Permits ....................................8
4.1.2 Mitigation .................................9
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .......................9
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species .............. .9
4.2.2 Federal Candidate/State Protected Species..9
5.0 References ...........................................10
APPENDIX A - Natural Resource Agency Comments
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
prepared to assist in the preparation of a federally funded
Environmental Assessment (EA).
1.1 -Project Description
The proposed action is the symmetrical widening of the
existing two-lanes of NC 54 from SR 2106 to NC 119. The
proposed cross section is a five-lane curb-and-gutter
facility within a maximum proposed right-of-way of 30.0 m
(100.0 ft). Project length is 5.3 km (3.3 miles).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to describe the
natural--systems-found within the project area and to document
probable impacts to these systems.
1.3 Study Area
Subject project lies in a rural setting outside of
Graham in Alamance County (fig.l). Located within the
Piedmont Physiographic Province, the project area is
characterized by level terrain.
1.4 Methodolo
An ecological survey was conducted August 25, 1994 to
identify vegetative communities and wildlife species
contained within the project area. Vegetative communities
and wildlife were inventoried and mapped during on-site
surveys. Wetlands were identified, using methods in the
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987).
In-house preparatory work was completed prior to a field
visit. The Alamance County Soil Survey, USGS Burlington and
Mebane quadrangle maps, and the hydric soils list for
Alamance County were studied to identify potential wetland
sites. The Environmental Sensitivity Base Map for Alamance
County.was utilized to determine if any sensitive resources
are present in the project area. N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) files
were reviewed to determine if any protected or rare flora or
fauna occurs in the project area.
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Distribution and composition of biotic resources
throughout the project area reflect topographic positioning,
hydrologic influences, and past and present land use
practices. Maintained systems comprise the majority of the
R R.ds o
1
IUmM? 62 10 19
I r r
n ": Budinep i
let . ?.?
l J
C
R f' I
?7 1 l t It
;'" Cr?hi 1?
rALAMA
sms ° sos
9 _-- Sno+r C o - ]]
Sr. ' ° IIl! ` Q .
1 * un u
!tu
? C: flat )?
to ; p7
? ,p J14a I' \ ?0 71u
7111 uu
" a 111) a8 at 1111 I , \ ? .
i21! 117 JI o I .\
?? ?? ? ? ? •,? « 2171. ? ? s 1? o / \ '• _ vv .
2112 p7 uo o ---rll?! //' .) d7. IZiII '+ • ,
aJd i y •r -??. .y 1:17. / / Illi . jai .
_ o
V tas
o 'r) ?o? R jZ4l. o u '
. Ill! . 1771 a
? Lam. .. 'J _111 ?? `' ? 71!rl 7? ,
PROJECT '
1112 111.! .ltu - LIMITS ..
f I Jt
Jim 0
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 54
FROM 11- 40185 ATGRAHAM TO NC 119
ALAMANCE COUNTY
R - 2538
0 mile 1/2 FIG. 1
Project area i-hi ie for rstec area s are smai 1 . Due to the
overall uniformity of the project area. terrestrial wildlife
is addressed separately. rather than in the context of biotic
communities. Wildlife observed during field investigations
are denoted by (*) in the text. Common and scientific names
are provided for each species listed. In subsequent
references to the same organism, only the common name is
given.
3.1 Plant Communities
The project area is rural, consisting primarily of
agricultural fields. and private residences. Small,
fra°mented forests are interspersed among maintained areas.
Three plant communities were identified in the project area:
Maintained, Hardwood Forest. and Mesic Hardwood Forest.
Natural community profile descriptions, where applicable,
have been adopted and modified from the NCNHP classification
scheme (Schafale and «eaklev 1990).
Maintained Communities
Residential neighborhoods, agricultural fields. and
roadside shoulders constitute maintained communities in the
project area. In this community man's structures or
activities preclude natural plant succession.
;Maintained shoulder slopes. and lawns support fescue
(Festuca sp.) as the dominant vegetative component,
complemented with landscape ornamentals. Redbud (Cercis
canadensis), dogwood (Corpus florida), pecan (Carva
illinoensis), red cedar (Juniperus vir.giniana), loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), and various oak trees (Ouercus spp.) are
common. Mowing is frequently associated with this community.
Agricultural fields are interspersed in this suburban
area. This community contains only those lands currently
managed for agriculture, including fields under cultivation
and fields temporarily fallow. Corn is prevalent in the
project area. Routine management practices associated with
farming, cause this community to retain only isolated
remnants of its native character, providing little of its
initial value as wildlife habitat. Remnants of native
vegetation and various invading weedy species occur within
the agricultural fields and along field edges. Common plants
include tall golden-rod (Solidago canadenensis var. scabra),
dog-fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), cranesbill (Geranium
carolinianum), black nightshade (Solanum americanum) and
foxtail grass (Setaria sp.)
Hardwood Forest
Upland sites are typically dominated by an oak-hickory
canopy, consisting of white oak (Ouercus alba), southern red

oar: (Ouercus faIcata), and mockernut hickory (('arycl
tomentosa). Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), sc_ub pine (P.
virginiana) and red cedar often occur as subcanopy
components. Understory composition is an amalgamation of
trees and shrubs such as sourwood (O?;vdendron arboreum).'
dogwood, privet (Lieustrum sinense), beauty berry (Callicarpa
americana) and sapling growth of canopy species. The
herbaceous layer is sparse or totally lacking, but
groundcovers such as Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and
muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia) are typical.
Mesic Forest
Mesic woodlands are prevalent along creek channels,
narrow floodplain fringes, and lower slopes throughout the
landscape. This system is subjected to infrequent flooding
and prevailing mesic conditions due to topographic
positioning.- The canopy/subcanopy is dominated by sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), willow oak (Quercus Phellos),
slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), and ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana). Shrub development consists of blueberry
(Vaccinium sp.), strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus) and
privet (Ligustrum sp.). Ground cover densities may vary, and
are characterized by Christmas ferns (Polvstichum
acrostichoides), and an invasive grass (Microstegium
vimineum).
1) 1)
- Wildlife
The rural nature of the project area, combined with a
mix of plant community patterns, provide a variety of
opportunities for various forms of wildlife. Forested tracts
have all the necessary components (food, water, protective
coverage) to support a number of small and large mammals and
birds.
The Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon
(Procyon lotor) are similar in life habits. Both are
opportunistic omnivores that wander widely in search of food.
The raccoon patrols a home range, which may include a variety
of habitats, while the opossum is nomadic. They prefer dry,
sheltered dens under logs and in hollow trees, brush
thickets, and burrows. Both occur primarily in association
with wetlands.
The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) prefers
areas of mixed age-stands of forest, interspersed with
agricultural lands. It is primarily a crepuscular herbivore,
feeding on herbs, mast, and agricultural crops. Deer sign
and sightings were common in all habitats.
The rat" fox (Lrocyon cino reoarccnteus) and red fox
(Vulpes vulpes) are both chiefly nocturnal and omnivorous.
The eastern cottontail rabbit (Svlvilacus floridanus) is an
important food source as are small rodents, birds, eggs,
insects and fruits. The gray fox prefers brushy woodlands.
while the red fox is more commonly associated with open
agricultural fields interspersed with woodlands.
Avifaunal diversity is high. Riparian habitat provides
refuge for many neotropical migrants and permanent residents.
Black-and-white warblers (biniotilta varia) commonly nest in
mesic hardwoods in the Piedmont. Other migrants likely to
inhabit the study area are the *wood thrush (Hylocichla
mustelina), American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), and
yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica). Observed were
the *b?lue jay (Cvanocitta cristata), *northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), *mourning dove (Zenaida asiatica)
and *pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). Predatory
birds such as the red-tailed hawk (Buteo Jamaicensis), and
barred owl (Stria varia are common and utilize riparian
areas for nesting.
Fallen, decaying trees, and stumps provide numerous
refuge sites as well as basking and foraging areas for a
broad range of reptiles and amphibians. Amphibians, in
particular, are highly water dependent for completion of
larval stages in their life cycle. Some species are totally
aquatic. A few of the reptiles and amphibians likely to be
found in the project area are the northern cricket frog
(Acris crepitans), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris
triseriata), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), pickerel frog (R.
palustris), three-lined salamander (Eurvicea guttolineata),
northern dusky salamander (Desmo.gnathus fuscus), painted
turtle (Chrysemys pieta), snapping turtle (Chelvdra
serpentina), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
Information obtained from Shari Bryant (Fisheries
Biologist, NC Wildlife Resources Commission), fish species
that are common to the study area, are carp (Cvprinus
carpio), channel catfish (Ictalurus catus), white suckers
(Catostomus commersoni), snail bullheads (Ictalurus
brunneus), flat bullheads (I. platyicephalus), and a few brown
bullheads (I. nebulosus). Redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) are
common game fish.
Mesic forest and streams in the area. also provide
breeding opportunities for many amphibians. Amphibians, in
particular, are highly water-dependent for completion of
larval stages in their life cycle. The northern cricket frog
(Acris crepitans), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), upland
chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), marbled salamander
(Ambvstoma opacum), and the three-lined salamander (Eurvicea
guttolineata) are likely to occur in mesic forests and reside
in burrows under ions. stones and leaf litter in swamps and
along streams.
Maintained communities support mainly opportunistic
species, those animals adapted to urban environments. *Gray
squirrels, house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), *Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), blue jay, and northern
cardinal are very common in this community, and may be seen
foraging along roadsides and in lawns, as well as the common
house mouse (Mus musculus).
2.3 Biotic Community Impacts
Loss of habitat is likely to reduce the number of
animals which rely on communities present for shelter and
foraging habitat. Loss of habitat can cause a disruption of
both short-term migrations and seasonal long term migrations
of animal populations, depending on individual species
requirements for food, water, and cover. Animal migration
may also be interrupted due to vehicular noise, and roadkills
will decrease numbers of individuals of certain species.
The loss and degradation of wildlife habitat,
particularly for aquatic species, are serious impacts that
will result from dredging, filling, culvert placement
operations, slope stabilization and land clearing. These
construction activities result in the direct loss of benthic
organisms and an increase in silt load in wetland/aquatic
environments. Mobile aquatic organisms are better able to
avoid impacts, than those species that are filter feeders
and/or relatively immobile. However, the removal of benthic
organisms reduces the potential food supply for vertebrate
and aquatic organisms.
Siltation has many adverse impacts on aquatic organisms;
decreases the depth of light penetration inhibiting plant and
algal growth, which is a food source; clogs the filtration
apparatus of filter-feeding benthos and the gills of fish;
buries benthic organisms on the bottom, cutting them off from
a food source; adversely modifies preferred benthic
substrate; and spoils downstream spawning beds for fish.
The majority of crossings are intermittent streams. Planning
construction during dry stream times would minimize any
potential impacts these systems.
Table 1 summarizes potential losses from proposed
project construction. Calculations are based on right-of-way
limits of 30.1 m (100.0 ft).
0
Table 1. ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Hectares (Acres)
:Maintained Community S.0 (20.0)
Hardwood Forest 3.2 (S.O)
Mesic Forest O.S (2.0)
12.0 (30.0)
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
?yater resources and soils within the project vicinity
are described in the following sections.
3.1 Topography and Soils
Subject project lies within the Piedmont Soil Region and
specifically within the Mixed Felsic and %lafic System. Many
of the mixed felsic and mafic areas are moderately to
strongly dissected. Topography in the project area is
moderatelv dissected.
A Cecil-Appling soil association covers the majority of
the project area. Most of the acreage is on broad ridges and
gentle slopes and is cultivated. These soils are well
drained and developed from a residuum of granite, gneiss, and
coarse-grained schist.
Worsham soils are hydric, and are confined to channels
of intermittent tributaries (approximately 1 m (2-4 ft) in
width) and low wet depressional areas. These soils are
poorly drained, and strongly acid. Parent material is
colluvium and local alluvium mixed with the residuum of the
underlying granite, gneiss, schist, slate, and other rock.
3.2 Water Resources
Subject project intercepts the Haw River and four
tributaries within the project area. The Haw River is the
largest, and originates in the upper Piedmont of North
Carolina. Lying within the Cape Fear River Basin, it flows
southeasterly until it joins the Deep River. At bridge
crossing, it measures approximately 40.7 m (133 ft) across.
Depth and substrate were not discernible at time of field
visit, though boulders are evident. Water velocity was
moderate at time of field visit. Banks of the river support
a narrow riparian fringe, bordered by pasture areas on both
sides.
Back Creel: and Town Branch Creek are.characterized as
well-drained, perennial stream bottoms. Both are
approximately 3.0 to 4.6 m (10.0 to 15.0 ft) in width. and
water was less than 0.2 m (0.5 ft) in depth at time of field
investigation. A mixture of boulder and rock make up the
substrate. Mesic hardwood species occupy stream banks.
The unnamed tributaries are characterized as well-
drained, small stream bottoms located in ravines on acidic
soils. All are approximately 0.9 to 1.5 m (3 to 5 ft) in
width, and water was less than 0.2 m (0.5 ft) in depth at
time of field investigation. A mixture of sand and clay make
up the substrate. Mesic hardwood species and pines occur on
these steep sites.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters
of North Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM). Any stream which is not named in the schedule of
stream classifications carries the same classification as
that assigned to the stream segment to which it is tributary.
A summary of "best usage" water classifications for
water resource components likely to receive impacts are
listed in Table 2 below. A summary of the "best usage" for
which the waters in each class must be protected, follows.
Table 2. "Best Usage" Classifications of Water Resources
WATER RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
Town Branch Creek C NSW
Haw River C NSW
Two unnamed tributaries to Haw River C NSW
Back Creek C NSW
Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
The supplemental classification "NSW" indicates waters
needing additional nutrient management (particularly
fertilizer run-off) due to their being subject to
eutrophication.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
(NC-DEHNR, Division of Environmental Management) addresses
long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites
by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates.
These organisms are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality. Data from biological sampling of the Haw River at
NC 54 from 8/83 through 8/89 gives a fair bioclassification.
c?
No Outstandins Resource Waters. nor caters classi`ivr, as
WS-I or WS-II are located in the study.area. or within 1.b 'Kin
(one mile) downstream. No National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permits have been issued for the project
area.
3.2.1 Water Resource Impacts
Surface water impacts are anticipated for all stream
crossings present. Culverts and/or pipes will be extended,
reducing the linear feet of natural stream channel. Impacts
from bridge replacement of the Haw River and extension of the
Back Creek bridge will cause increased sedimentation from
construction and/or erosion, increased concentration of toxic
compounds from highway runoff and/or toxic spills, scouring
of stream beds due to the channelization of streams,
alterations of water levels due to interruptions or additions
to surficial and/or groundwater flow, changes in light
incidence due to the removal of vegetative cover.
Recommendations
-Schedule instream activities during
(summer, fall).
-Non-point sediment sources should be
made to control sediment runoff.
-Strict adherence to Best Management
implemented during the construction
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Jurisdictional Waters of the LS
low flow periods
identified and efforts
Practices should be
phase of the project.
Surface waters and associated wetlands fall under the
broad category of."Waters of the United States" as defined in
33 CFR 328.3. The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) takes
jurisdiction over the. discharge of dredged or fill material
into these waters of the U.S. as authorized by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. No jurisdictional wetlands were
identified in the project area.
4.1.1 Permits
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will be required
from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into "Waters of the United States". Based upon site location
and estimated acreage involved, it is anticipated that
impacts to intermittent streams will be authorized by
Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26)). This permit
generally authorizes discharges of dredge or fill material in
wetlands located above the headwaters (flow less than 1.5
cubic m (5 cubic ft) per second) of non-tidal rivers, streams
and their lakes and impoundments including adjacent wetlands.
U
It is anticipated that widening over the Ha« l:iver. Sack
Creel. and Town Branch Creek will be authorized by Nationwide
Permit [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14)]. This permit authorizes fills
for roads crossing waters of the United States provided that
the width of fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the
actual crossing; that the fill placed in waters of the United
States is limited to a filled area of no more than 0.1 ha
(0.3 ac), and no more than a total of 61.0 linear m (200
linear ft) of the fill for the roadway can occur in special
aquatic sites, including wetlands.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered
through the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources will be required. This certificate is
issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into
waters for which a federal permit is required.
4.1.2 Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is generally not required where
Nationwide permits or General permits are authorized,
according to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. Final
discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
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 July 8, 1994, the FWS reports
no federally protected species for Alamance County.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate/State Protected Species
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata), a Candidate 2 (C2)
is currently listed by the FWS for Alamance County. A
Candidate 2 species is not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and not subject to any of it's
provisions until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered.
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted
protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the NC
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered
and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and the NC Department of Agriculture. Sweet
pinesap is a state Candidate species and is not legally
protected. A review of the NHP data base shows no known
occurrences of rare or protected species in the project area.
l?
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 19S3. Checklist of North
American Birds. (6th ed.) Allen Press. Inc., Lawrence,
Kansas. S77 pp.
Ehrlich, P.E., D.S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 19SS. The Birders
Handbook. A Field Guide to the Natural HIstorv of North
American Birds. Simon and Schuster, N.Y., N.Y. 785 pp.
Depoe, C.E., J.B. Funderburg, and T.L. Quay. 1961. The
reptiles and amphibians of North Carolina: a preliminary
check-list and bibliography. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.
77:125-136
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, "Technical Report Y-87--1, US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Godfrey, R.K., J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants
of Southeastern United States, Dicotvledons. The University
of Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.
Lee, D.S., Funderburg, J.B. Jr., and M.K. Clark. 1952. A
Distributional Survey of North American Mammals. North
Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. N.C.
70 pp.
Nlartof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 264-pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resourses Commission. 1974. North
Carolina mammalian species with keys to the orders and
families. N.C. Wildl. Resour. Comm.,Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DER. 1992. Classifications and water quality
standards assigned to the waters of the Cape Fear River
basin. Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, N.C.
34pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.F. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 pp.
Scott, S.L. (ed.). 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North
America. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
464 pp.
i .
Smith. F.R., J.B. Funderburg and T.L. Quay. 1960. A
checklist of North Carolina mammals. N.C. Wildl. Resour.
Comm., Raleigh.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North Carolina. North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. 87pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 255 pp.
A ?y?n,LY
,-
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 19, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mrr Vick:
TAKE°
PRIDE IN
AMERICA
.tea ca
v ca
0_ /7P
APR?S
Z?C DIVISIC!q p,:
\?ecHIGHWAq . U,j
This responds to your letter of March 29, 1994 requesting
information on evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposal by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) to widen NC 54 from I-40/85 to NC 119 near Graham, Alamance
County, North Carolina (TIP Project R-2538). The comments of the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 6617667e) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by NCDOT calls for the widening of NC 54 along
its present path from the existing 2-lanes to a 5-lane curb and
gutter facility. The bridge at Back creek will be retained and
widened and the bridge over the Haw River will be replaced. We
estimate that the total length of the project is approximately 3.5
miles.
The Servicc has e;_amined the pnogosed corridor on both the
topographic map and the National Wetlands Inventory map (Burlington
and Mebane quadrangles). Based on this review the project area
does not appear to have any major wetlands in the direct project
path. The major waterways to be crossed are the Haw River and Back
Creek. There appear to -be 'some minor streams and/or drainage
ditches near the corridor. We would like to emphasize that it is
the responsibility of_NCDOT to determine the amount. of wetlands to
be impacted by this project and to obtain any necessary permits
from the. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. If this project results in
wetland impacts, we will. recommend avoidance and minimization.
Should unavoidable impacts remain after the above actions, a
compensatory mitigation plan will be required.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed species which
occur in Alamance County. At the present time no endangered
species are known to occur in the county. Therefore, an endangered
species survey along the proposed corridor will not be required.
However, we recommend that NCDOT survey for the single candidate
species, the sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata), since this
species could become officially listed as threatened or endangered
in the future. If new species are listed for Alamance County, a
new survey may be required. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program should be contacted for information on species under state
protection.
The environmental review of uplands should include a brief
description of the habitats or forest cover types which will be
affected by the project. This should include a general evaluation
of the wildlife resources using these areas.
The wetlands part of the environmental review should include:
1.Ir a description of the wetland types which will be
impacted. This should follow the wetland
classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory.
2. the acreage of each wetland type to be impacted.
Wetland acreages should be determined in accordance
with the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional wetlands.
3. the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
The environmental review should evaluate various alignments and
construction techniques. This section should demonstrate the
amount of impacts on uplands and wetlands for each alignment and/or
construction technique. For a road widening such as this project,
symmetrical versus asymmetrical designs should be evaluated. The
service is particularly concerned about potential impacts on stream
and river ecosystems and associated wetlands within the project
corridor. Special care should be exercised in the design and
construction of all stream crossing structures. This section of
the review should conclude with a statement of the selected
alignment and general construction techniques. The discussion
should indicate that the selected procedures are the least damaging
to fish and wildlife resources -or the reasons for selecting the
proposed alternative.
If the necessary funding.and permits for this project are obtained,
we recommend-that the project contract specifications require the
following measures during construction in or near wetland areas:
1. When project construction is initiated, complete all
work quickly to minimize the period of environmental
disturbance;
2. Minimize the disturbance or destruction of vegetation;
3. During and after construction, maintain existing
elevations and natural flow regimes in both flowing and
standing water areas;
4. If construction of the existing roadway reduced or
completely blocked natural water flow patterns in
nearby wetlands, restore these patterns during the
present construction; and,
5. Follow all applicable best management practices to
avoid increased sedimentation in adjacent wetlands and
waterways.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
Please continue to - advise us of the progress of this project,
including your official determination of the impacts of all
project-related construction. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard
Hall, the biologist reviewing this project, at [phone].
Sincerely yours,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Field Supervisor
enclosure
a
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
l s P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
W REPLY REFER TO May 20, 1994
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:
MAY 2 4 1M
1
-% DIVISION OF 1
HIGHWAYS P
This is in response to your letter of March 29, 1994,
requesting our comments on "NC 54, from I-40/85 to NC 119, Graham,
Alamance County, Federal-Aid Project No. STP-54(1), State Project
No. 8.1471101, TIP Project R-2538" (Regulatory. Branch Action I.D.
No. 199402142).
Our comments involve impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(CE) projects, flood plains, and other environmental aspects,
primarily waters and wetlands. The roadway does not cross any
CE-constructed flood control or navigation projects.
The proposed project is sited in Alamance County and a portion
of the planning jurisdiction of the city of Graham, both of which
participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. From a review
of the September 1992 Graham Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the
roadway completely crosses Town Branch and Haw River, within the
city's planning jurisdiction, both of which are detailed study
streams with 100-year flood elevations determined and floodways
defined. East Back Creek, also a detailed study, forms the boundary
between the city's jurisdiction and that of Alamance County. East
Back Creek is also identified on the December 1981 Alamance County
FIRM and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps. We suggest that you
coordinate with the city of Graham and Alamance County for compli-
ance with their flood plain ordinances and any possible changes to
their flood insurance maps and reports.
Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed your letter and has provided
the following comments. An inspection of the project alignment
was conducted at the request of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation regarding the expansion of the currently serviceable

1
.iR_ S~ Y!7 ~ ;?
1
x - I

two-lane facility, N.C. Highway.54?.;to a five-lane curb and gutter_._:_
facility. During the site-inspection,- it was determined that
addition to the crossings associated with the Haw River and Back
Creek, there are three small.unnamed tributaries that will also be
impacted by the proposed project.
Any discharge of excavated or fill material into waters or
wetlands associated with the crossings of the Haw River and Back
Creek will require that a Department of the Army permit be obtained
-prior to construction. Fill material discharged into,the small
unnamed tributaries noted along the construction corridor may be
eligible for Nationwide Permit Nos. 14, 18, or 26. If there are any
questions related to permits, please contact Mrs. Jean B. Manuele,
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, at [phone], Extension 24.
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.
Sin rel ,
Lawrenc W. aunders
Chief, P n ng Division

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ©o r
Division of Environmental Management'
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ® F= jr-U
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 28, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dor
From: Eric Galambf/'
Subject: EA for Improvements to NC 54
Alamance County
State Project DOT No. 8.1471101, TIP # R-2538
EHNR # 96-0504, DEM # 11179
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401
Water Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The document states that wetlands will not be impacted but does not
quantify impacts to waters. DEM has the following comments based on the review of
the document:
A) DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of
a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
nc54.ea
cc: Monica Swihart
FNXED
FEB 2 9 1996
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1 096 post-consumer paper
Department of Environment,.Heallh, and Natural Rusourc
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs II ?{
Project Review Form I I b
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
Cl (o- OS??o 7i "? T a cn
FEB
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area in-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
Air ?Coastal management ?Water Planning
El Fayetteville
Water
? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection

hi
W
t
El ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources El David Foster
on
as
ng
?Coastal Management Consultant
Parks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others Environmental Management
RUinston•Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: in-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed _
? No Comment
?Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? 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
vs 10.
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
- 7
NC 54
From SR 2106 (Whittemore Loop)
To NC 119
Alamance County
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-54(1)
State Project No. 8.1471101
R-2538

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
l'?p '
bate H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
G C? ?? ??,. .? :cam
115-
Date Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 54
From SR 2106 (Whittemore Loop)
To NC 119
Alamance County
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-54(l )
State Project No. 8.1471101
R-2538
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
January, 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
0g, ?. t .?
An eYa H. Smith
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
.•H CARP
SEAL 9<
6944
Richard B. Davis, P. E., Assistant Managers
Environmental Branch ? ti •..•...
Planning and ,'•,;?/yG1 NEED;
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
This document calls for the following environmental commitments:
A. Best Management Practices will be applied to this project to minimize impacts.
B. The Geotechnical Unit will conduct a thorough survey for contaminated soil prior
to right of way acquisition if property is to be acquired on any of the five sites
identified as possibly hazardous.
C. NCDOT will coordinate with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
prior to right of way acquisition to ensure that the project will be in compliance
with applicable floodplain and floodway regulations.
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), Division of Highways, proposes improvements to a 5.31 kilometer (3.3
mile) section of NC 54 from SR 2106 (Whittemore Loop) to NC 119 in Alamance
County. The recommended improvements include widening the existing 2-lane,
6.6 meter (22 feet) section to a 5-lane, 19.2 meter (64 feet), curb and gutter
section. This section will consist of 2 lanes in each direction with a continuous
center left turn lane.
This project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with the total cost estimated at $8,900,000. This estimate includes
$700,000 for right of way and $8,200,000 for construction. The current estimated
cost for the recommended improvement is $9,743,000, which includes $9,300,000
for construction and $443,000 for right of way acquisition. The project is
scheduled in the TIP for right of way acquisition in federal fiscal year (FFY) 1997
and construction in FFY 1999.
2. Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a positive impact
on travel along NC 54 by reducing the potential for rear-end, turning movement,
and angle-type collisions. The proposed improvements are in conformance with
the Burlington and Vicinity Thoroughfare Plan and will be a step towards its
implementation.
The proposed project will have some negative impacts. These impacts
include the displacement of one (1) business. The Division of Highways offers
relocation assistance to help minimize the effects of these displacements.
Construction of the project will also result in a total of 68 receptors experiencing
noise levels that exceed the standard noise abatement criteria. The predicted noise
increase is expected to range from +5 dBA to +7 dBA. No noise abatement
measures are proposed (see Section IV.D.4. for findings of the noise study).
Construction will result in some delay and inconvenience to motorists, but this will
be short-term in nature. The potential increase in urbanization resulting from
construction of the proposed project can be managed through the implementation
of land use controls and zoning regulations.
3. Alternatives - Due to the nature of the project, the widening of an existing
segment of roadway, no alternative corridors were studied. The recommended
symmetric widening best uses the existing right of way, and minimizes impacts to
the project area.
The "do-nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected. NC 54 is
an important connector between Burlington and Chapel Hill. The proposed cross
section will provide a safer environment to accommodate the current and projected
traffic volumes.
4. Coordination - Federal, State, regional, and local agencies were consulted
during the preparation of this environmental assessment. In addition to agency
responses, local residents offered verbal and written comments at a citizens
informational workshop, and provided additional written comments following the
workshop.
5. Actions Required by Other Agencies - Based on the information currently
available, it will be necessary to apply to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for
the following permits: a permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States"; impacts to intermittent streams may be authorized
by Nationwide Permit [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26)]; and widening over the Haw River,
Back Creek, and Town Branch Creek may be authorized by Nationwide Permit
[33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14)].
Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for any activity
which may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is required and must
be obtained through the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) Water
Quality Section.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................1
A. General Description ...................................................................1
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements ...................... ......................1
1. Project Length ............................................. ......................1
2. Cross Section ............................................. ......................1
3. Right of Way Width ..................................... ......................2
4. Access Control ............................................ ......................2
5. Structures ............................................. ......................2
6. Design Speed and Speed Zones ..........................................2
7. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control .......................3
8. Parking ...................................................................3
9. Sidewalks ............................................. ......................3
10. Utilities ...................................................................3
11. Bicycle Provisions ....................................... .......................4
12. Greenways ............................................ .......................4
13. Cost Estimate ............................................ .......................4
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................... .......................5
A. Existing Roadway Inventory ................................... .......................5
1. Cross Section ............................................ .......................5
2. Right of Way ............................................ .......................5
3. Type of Roadside Development .................. .......................5
4. Access Control ........................................... .......................5
5. Structures ............................................ .......................5
6. Speed Zones ............................................ .......................6
7. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control ............................6
8. Sidewalks ............................................ .......................6
9. Utilities ........................................... ........................6
10. Greenways ........................................... ........................7
11. Geodetic Markers ...................................... ........................7
12. School Buses ........................................... ........................7
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan .... ........................7
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity ................................ ........................7
1. Signalized Intersections .............................. ........................8
2. Unsignalized Intersections .......................... ........................8
a .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
III.
IV.
PAGE
D. Accident History ...................................... .............................9
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ... .............................9
A. Other Alternatives Considered .......................... .............................9
ENV IRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................. .............................9
A. Social Environment ...................................... .............................9
1. Neighborhood Characteristics ............... .............................9
2. Public and Private Facilities ................... ...........................10
3. Cultural Resources ................................ ...........................10
a. Architectural Resources ........................................10
b. Archaeological Resources .....................................10
4. Relocation Impacts .......................................................11
B. Economic Environment ................................... ............................13
C. Land Use ................................... ............................13
1. Scope and Status of Planning ............... ............................13
2. Existing Land Use ................................ ............................13
3. Future Land Use .................................. ............................14
4. Farmland ..................................... ............................14
D. Natural Environment ..................................... ............................14
1. Ecological Resources ........................... ............................15
a. Plant Communities ................... ............................15
b. Wildlife Communities ...........................................16
2. Protected Species ................................. ............................19
a. Federally Protected Species ..... .............................19
b. State Protected Species ........... .............................19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
3. Physical Resources ...........................................................19
a. Geology and Topography .....................................19
b. Soils .................................................................19
C. Contaminated Properties ......................................20
d. Water Resources ..................................................22
e. Floodplain Involvement ........................................24
f. Wetlands ..............................................................25
4. Air Quality and Traffic Noise ...........................................25
a. Air Quality ...........................................................25
b. Traffic Noise ........................................................29
E. Construction Impacts .................................................................35
F. Permits .................................................................36
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................37
A. Government Response ...........:.....................................................37
B. Public Response .................................................................37
FIGURES
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Aerial photograph
Figure 3: Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 4: Traffic Volumes, 1994, 1998 and 2018
Figure 5A: NC 54 and SR 2106 Intersection Geometrics
Figure 5B: NC 54 and NC 119 Intersection Geometrics
Figure 6A: Flood Insurance Rate Map for Back Creek
Figure 6B: Flood Boundary Map for Haw River and East Back Creek
Figure 7A: Noise Table and Noise Measurement sites on project
Figure 7B: Noise Abatement Criteria
Figure 7C: Ambient Noise Levels
Figure 71): Leq Traffic Noise Exposures
Figure 7E: FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary and Traffic Noise Level
Increase Summary
APPENDIX
NC 54
From SR 2106 (Whittemore Loop)
To NC 119
Alamance County
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-54(1)
State Project No. 8.1471101
R-2538
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) , Division of
Highways, proposes improvements to a 5.31-kilometer (3.3-mile) section of NC 54 from
SR 2106 (Whittemore Loop), just east of I40/85 to NC 119. It is proposed to widen the
existing 2-lane roadway to a 5-lane curb and gutter facility.
The proposed widening will be accomplished symmetrically about the centerline to
minimize right of way damages. All widening is anticipated to be completed within the
existing 36 meters (120 feet) of right of way (the section between I40/85 and SR 2109
has 30 meters (100 feet) of reserved right of way)` with the exception of a short section in
the vicinity of the Haw River and Back Creek which will be widened to the west.
Temporary construction easements may be necessary at some locations in addition to the
proposed right of way.
The subject project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with the total cost estimated at $8,900,000. This estimate includes
$700,000 for right of way and $8,200,000 for construction. The current estimated cost
for the recommended improvement is $9,743,000, which includes $9,300,000 for
construction and $443,000 for right of way acquisition. The project is scheduled in the
TIP for right of way acquisition in federal fiscal year (FFY) 1997 and construction in FFY
1999.
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements
Project Length
The project's total length is 5.31 kilometers (3.3 miles).
2. Cross Section
it is recommended to widen the existing 2-lane, 6.6-meter (22-foot) section
of NC 54 to a 5-lane, 19.2-meter (64-foot) curb and gutter section.
Right of Way Width
The proposed widening will be accomplished symmetrically about the
centerline within the existing right of way. The existing right of way between
NC 119 and SR 2109 is 36 meters (120 feet) and 30 meters (100 feet) between
SR 2109 and I-40/85. Temporary construction easements may be necessary at
some locations in addition to the proposed right of way.
4, Access Control
No control of access is present on the proposed project and none is
recommended.
5. Structures
Town Branch Creek is located approximately 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile)
southeast of I40/85, see Figure 2. The existing three-barrel culvert is anticipated
to be retained and extended. The existing culvert has minimum cover, therefore it
is recommended that the roadway grade be raised approximately 0.3 meter (1 foot)
to accommodate the proposed culvert extension.
The bridge at Haw River is anticipated to be replaced with a new structure
at an elevation approximately 1.2 meters (4 feet) higher than the existing bridge..
The proposed structure is 112 meters (370 feet) in length and will have a clear
roadway width of 19.2 meters (64 feet). The new bridge is recommended to be
constructed in stages to maintain traffic. A minimum 0.3% gradient is
recommended for proper deck drainage.
The bridge at East Back Creek is anticipated to be retained and widened to
accommodate the proposed 5-lane section. Widening to the south side will
provide the best horizontal alignment by straightening the existing curve. See
Section 11. A. 5. for the existing bridge and culvert dimensions.
The structural integrity and hydraulic adequacy of all structures anticipated
to be retained and widened will be assessed in detail during the final design stage.
6. Design Speed and Speed Zones
The proposed project will have a design speed of 80 km/h (50 mph) and is
anticipated to have a posted speed limit of 70 km/h (45 mph) throughout the
project except through Southmont where the posted limit is expected to remain 50
km/h (35 mph).

7. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections are stop-sign controlled with the exception of the
intersections of NC 54 with SR 2106/ SR 2217 and NC 119/SR 2159 which are
signalized and will be upgraded as a part of this project.
Two additional intersections are recommended to be signalized as a part of
this project: SR 2183/SR 2108 and the intersection at SR 2123. Although the
intersection at SR 2156 has significant traffic volumes, it does not meet peak hour
warrants according to the Area Traffic Engineer.
Parkin
Parking is presently not permitted and will not be provided for or permitted
along the project.
9. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are located along the project and none are recommended.
10. Utilities
Utility involvement along the project is heavy. Water and sewer lines are
located predominantly within the city of Graham town limits and a 24 inch outfall
line is located along the Haw River that could affect the placement of the new
structure support. Bell South and MCI both have fiber optic cables along the
south side of NC 54 that will be impacted by the proposed widening. Local
distribution for the Bell South cable is aerial and will also need to be relocated.
Swepsonville Sanitary District has a sewer line along the south side of
NC 54, approximately 2000 feet north of NC 119 that ties into a sewer line along
NC 119 serving the Honda facility.
Orange-Alamance Water System has an 8 inch water line along the north
side of NC 54 from the Haw River to NC 119, in addition to a 12 inch line along
the south side of NC 119. The company requested that their lines not be under
pavement due to the increased cost of maintenance.
Public Service Company has transmission and distribution lines crossing
NC 54 south of SR 2123, south of SR 2135 and parallel to NC 54 on the west
side from north of SR 2264 to beyond NC 119. They are proposing a major
transmission line along the existing City of Graham sewer easement at the Haw

River (north side of the river). This company would like to coordinate the
installation of the new transmission line with the proposed widening. The impact
to Public Service Company has the potential to be substantial and therefore should
be coordinated in the final design stage of the project.
A gas main is proposed to be installed below the proposed new bridge at
Haw River in addition to the existing sewer line. The bridge bents should be
placed so that there will not be a conflict with the utilities.
11. Bicycle Provisions
No bicycle accommodations will be included as a part of this project.
According to the NCDOT Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, this
section of NC 54 does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request and it is not a
designated bicycle route. Additionally, several low volume roadways parallel to
NC 54 have recently been designated as mapped and signed bicycle routes.
12. Greenwavs
The Southeast Area Plan indicates that a greenway along the Haw River is
planned, which will follow the sewer outfall line along the river. The greenway
design has not been formally developed to date and no requests for special
accommodations have been requested.
13. Cost Estimate
The proposed project is expected to cost as follows:
Construction $9,300,000
Right of Way $ 443,000
Total Cost $9,743,000
The construction cost estimate includes 15% for engineering and
contingencies. The right of way cost estimate includes the costs of acquisition,
utilities, and relocations.
5
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Existing Roadway lnventory
1. Cross Section
The existing roadway consists of a 2-lane, 7.2-meter (24-foot) shoulder
section (width of the shoulder is 3.6 meters (12 feet) with 1.2 meters (4 feet)
paved). Left turn lanes are provided at all major intersections and along short
sections of NC 54 from 1-40/85 to SR 2106 and from SR 2136 to NC 119.
2. Right of Way
The existing right of way from I40/85 to SR 2109 is approximately 30
meters (100 feet), and from SR 2109 to NC 119 it is 36 meters (120 feet).
3. Tyne of Roadside Development
Roadside development consists mainly of residential with some commercial
development interspersed.
4. Access Control
Currently no control of access exists along NC 54.
5. Structures
The existing structure at Town Branch Creek is a three-barrel culvert with
two 2.4 meter by 2.1 meter (8 feet by 7 feet) barrels, and one 2.7 meter by 2.4
meter (9 feet by 8 feet) barrel with the larger barrel on the east side. Based on field
review and from preliminary hydraulic analysis, this culvert appears to be
hydraulically adequate.
Bridge Number 11 carries NC 54 over the Haw River. This structure was
constructed in 1928 and has a sufficiency rating of 72.9 out of 100 and remaining
life of 13 years. The bridge was widened in 1973 which accounts for the high
sufficiency rating. The bridge consists of reinforced concrete deck girders on
reinforced concrete post and web piers with full-height vertical concrete
abutments. The bridge is 96.2 meters (315.8 feet) in length, and has a clear
roadway width of 13.2 meters (44 feet). Based on field review and preliminary
hydraulic analysis, this bridge was found to be hydraulically inadequate.
Bridge Number 34 over East Back Creek, was constructed in 1973 and has
a high sufficiency rating of 97.3 and a remaining life of 29 years. The bridge
consists of reinforced concrete deck on concrete girders, supported by reinforced
concrete post and beam piers on concrete spread footings with spill-through
approaches. The bridge is 52.4 meters (172 feet) in length, and has a clear roadway
width of 13.2 meters (44 feet). Based on field review and preliminary hydraulic
analysis, the existing structure was found to be hydraulically adequate. In addition,
a bridge scour assessment was performed on the structure, and it was determined
to be at low risk for scour problems.
6. Speed Zones
The posted speed throughout most of the project is 70 km/h (45 mph).
The posted speed through Southmont is 50 km/h (35 mph).
7. IntersectinyRoads and Types of Control
All intersections are stop-sign controlled with the exception of SR 2106/
SR 2217 and NC 119/SR 2159 which are signalized.
8. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are currently located along NC 54.
9. Utilities
Utility involvement along the project is heavy. Water and sewer lines are
located predominantly within the City of Graham town limits and a 24 inch outfall
line is located along the Haw River. Bell South and MCI both have fiber optic
cables along the south side of NC 54. Local distribution for the Bell South cable is
aerial.
Swepsonville Sanitary District has a sewer line along the south side of
NC 54, approximately 2000 feet north of NC 119 that ties into a sewer line along
NC 119 serving the Honda facility.
Orange-Alamance Water System has an 8 inch water line along the north
side of NC 54 from the Haw River to NC 119, in addition to a 12 inch line along
the south side of NC 119.
Public Service Company has transmission and distribution lines crossing
NC 54 south of SR 2123, south of SR 2135 and parallel to NC 54 on the west
side from north of SR 2264 to beyond NC 119.
10. Greenways
The Southeast Area Plan indicates that a greenway along the Haw River is
planned, which will follow the sewer outfall line along the river. The greenway
design has not been formally developed to date and no land purchases in the
vicinity of the subject project crossing have been made.
11. Geodetic Markers
This project will not impact any geodetic survey markers.
12. School Buses
The proposed widening is expected to have a positive effect on the
Alamance County school system by improving traffic flow through this section to
area schools. Approximately 16 buses use this section of NC 54 daily (32 trips per
day).
The Alexander Wilson School officials expressed concern in their letter
dated April 25, 1994 (included in the Appendix) with the safety of their buses
making a left turn on the proposed 5-lane highway. They requested that their bus
parking lot which is currently located off NC 54 be relocated to NC 119 to
facilitate bus traffic into and out of campus. A two phase signal was recently
installed at this intersection (September, 1995) by the division. Since that time, the
school has relocated their bus traffic to NC 11.9. Representatives from NCDOT
Planning and Environmental Branch and Roadway Design Branch will meet with
school officials to discuss improved driveway access points at the public hearing.
Any changes will be included in the final environmental document.
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan
NC 54 is classified as a minor arterial in the statewide classification system, and is
a part of the Federal-Aid System [STP-54 (1)]. The route provides an important
connection between Burlington and Chapel Hill and is designated as a major thoroughfare
on the Burlington and Vicinity Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure 3 for a copy of the
Thoroughfare Plan).
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
The estimated 1998 and 2018 volumes and major turning movements are shown in
Figure 4. The 1998 traffic on NC 54 ranges from 16,600 vehicles per day (vpd) near the
I40/85 interchange to 10,600 vpd near NC 119. The 2018 traffic ranges from 36,400 vpd
to 23,200, respectively (see Figure 4 for traffic volumes).
The traffic carrying ability of a roadway is described by levels of service (LOS)
which range from A through F. Level of service A, the highest level of service, is
characterized by very low delay in which most vehicles do not stop at all. Typically,
drivers are unrestricted and turns are freely made. In level of service B, traffic operation is
stable but more vehicles are stopping and causing higher levels of delay. Level of service
C is characterized by stable operation with drivers occasionally having to wait through
more than one red indication. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted in these
circumstances. At level of service D, the influence of congestion becomes more
noticeable. Delay to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short periods of the
peak hour. Level of service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay and
represents the theoretical capacity of the facility. Level of service F represents over
saturated or jammed conditions which are considered unacceptable to most drivers.
The project has 2 signalized intersections (SR 2106/SR 2217 and NC 119/
SR 2159) and 8 unsignalized intersections. Two new signals are proposed at SR 2123 and
at SR 2183/SR 2108. These intersections were analyzed using design year (2018) traffic
projections.
Signalized Intersections
Based on the projected traffic volumes, the intersection of NC 54
SR 2106/SR 2217 is expected to reach LOS D by 2018 with the improvements
shown in Figure 5A. These improvements consist of an additional turn lane on all
approaches (except the NC 54 westbound approach).
The intersection of NC 54 with NC 119/SR 2159 will function at a LOS D
in 2018 with the intersection geometrics shown in Figure 5B. These improvements
consist of two additional turn lanes on each approach, except the NC 54
westbound approach which would require only one additional turn lane.
Two additional intersections are recommended to be signalized as a part of
this project: SR 2183/SR 2108 and the intersection at SR 2123. An exclusive left
turn lane is recommended to be constructed at both intersections.
2. Unsignalized Intersections
It is recommended to include exclusive turn lanes for all unsignalized
intersections along the project to improve traffic operations and safety. These
intersections are anticipated to operate at a minimum LOS D in 2018. The
intersection of NC 54 with SR 2156 should be reevaluated at a later date by the
Area Traffic Engineer to determine whether a traffic signal is warranted.
D. Accident History
A total of 109 accidents were reported along the studied section of NC 54 during
the period from May 1, 1992 to April 30, 1995. The primary types of accidents were year-
end collisions (32.1%), accidents involving turning movements (29.3%), and angle
collisions (16.5%). These three types of accidents account for 77.9% of all accidents.
Accidents occurred most frequently at the intersections.
The total accident rate for the studied section of NC 54 is 262.27 accidents per
100 million vehicle miles of travel (acc/100 mvm) compared to the state average for
similar routes of 203.93 acc/100 mvm. This rate is substantially higher than the statewide
average for similar routes and is anticipated to increase unless provisions are made to
better accommodate the projected traffic volumes. The proposed widening improvements
will reduce the potential for the types of accidents occurring along the project. The
proposed project will improve the overall safety and convenience of motorists.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Other Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of the project, the widening of an existing segment of roadway,
no alternative corridors were studied. The recommended symmetric widening best uses
the existing right of way and minimizes impacts to the project area.
The "do-nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected. NC 54 is an
important connector between Burlington and Chapel Hill. The proposed cross section will
provide a safer environment to accommodate the current and projected traffic volumes.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Environment
Neighborhood Characteristics
Alamance County is in the central part of the state and is bounded by
orange, Chatham, Randolph, Guilford, and Caswell Counties. According to the
1990 Census Report, the county has a population of 108,213. The population
density (persons per square mile) is 251.25. Based on a cursory survey, there did
not appear to be any minority neighborhoods in the project area.
to
The neighborhood is described as a rural farm community that is rapidly
changing to a rural non-farm community. There are some subdivisions in locations
where farms used to be. Development along the proposed project site is a mixture
of residential, commercial, and institutional.
The proposed improvement will have some positive significant social
impacts. It will improve the visibility and accessibility for motorists using the
highway, which will improve overall safety. The proposed improvement will also
increase the efficiency of the roadway. Those residents and businesses located
along the project will probably realize an increase in property value because of the
improved highway. School buses will have a safer highway to travel, however,
they will have a wider facility to cross.
The proposed widening will not disrupt community cohesion or interfere
with the accessibility of facilities and services. Emergency vehicles will have
improved access to the area.
2. Public and Private Facilities
A church and a school are located along the proposed project. Riverside
Baptist Church is located on the north side of NC 54 just north of the Haw River.
Alexander Wilson Elementary School is also on the north side just north of
NC 119.
3. Cultural Resources
a. Architectural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requested in their
April 28, 1994 letter (located in the Appendix) that NCDOT conduct a
survey and evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project
limits. Sixteen properties were surveyed within the Area of Potential
Effect (APE): fifteen residences and one concrete bridge. There are no
properties within the APE that are considered eligible for the National
Register. The SHPO concurred with these findings in their letter, dated
January 31, 1995, located in the Appendix. This completes compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
b. Archaeological Resources
No archaeological resources were found within the Area of
Potential Effect (APE). The proposed APE is defined as the existing right
of way which as been extensively disturbed by gas, water, sewerline, and
telephone line placement. In addition, activities associated with the
construction and maintenance of NC 54 have impacted the existing right of
way. However, one diffuse surface scatter of lithic material (quartz) was
recorded on private property outside the APE. Accordingly prehistoric site
31 AM359 will not be affected by the planned widening of NC 54.
A completed archaeological site form for site 31AM359 was
submitted to SHPO as requested. The SHPO recommends no further
archeological investigation in connection with this project as proposed and
concurs with the determination that no National Register-eligible
archaeological resources will be affected by this project (see SHPO letter
dated November 14, 1994 in the Appendix). This completes compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
4. Relocation Impacts
Based on preliminary designs, the recommended improvements may require
the displacement of one businesses (a copy of the relocation report is located in the
Appendix). 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 or relocation:
Relocation assistance
Relocation moving payments, and
Relocation replacement housing payments and rent supplement
The Relocation Program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina
Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed
to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in
which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior
to displacement, for negotiations and possession of replacement housing which
meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-
day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced
persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property
will be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced and
12
reasonable 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
comparable replacement housing, (2) rental of comparable 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 attorneys' fees,
surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs, and if applicable make payment for
any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to
owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments,
and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 combined total, except
under the last resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including
incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down
payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the rent
supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's
state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable
replacement housing has been offered or provided for each 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.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it 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
1?
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.
B. Economic Environment
The State Employment Security Commission indicates that as of June 1994,
Alamance County had a total labor force of 62,420. Out of this total labor force, 60,420
persons were gainfully employed. This left an unemployment total of 2,160 or 3.5
percent.
The proposed improvement of NC 54 will not adversely impact businesses in the
vicinity, but will increase visibility and the accessibility for commercial vehicles to get to
and from their destinations. In addition, the proposed widening of this existing highway
facility will improve the safety features for those persons using it for commercial reasons.
C. Land Use
Scope and Status of Planninn
The proposed improvement is located in the jurisdiction of the City of
Graham. The city has adopted a general Land Use Plan and, in 1989, a sub-area
study which addresses the project area, entitled the Southeast Area Land Use Plan.
This plan provides detailed policy guidance regarding the future development of
the city south of I-40. The city also enforces a zoning ordinance and subdivision
regulations.
2. Existing Land Use
The northern end of NC 54, near I-40/85, supports commercial
development, including gas stations and convenience stores. South of SR 2183,
the land use is primarily residential, with some businesses, farms, and a church
located along the roadway. The city's wastewater treatment facility is located on
the west side of NC 54, just north of the Haw River. One of two maintenance
access points to the sewer outfall line runs along the Haw River under the NC 54
bridge.
One industry, Aridyne Corporation, is located on NC 54 at its intersection
with SR 2136. An elementary school, Alexander Wilson Elementary School is
located at NC 119.
14
Future Land Use
Several new development proposals have recently been submitted to the
city for residential construction in the NC 54 corridor. The River Ridge
subdivision will include 68 houses and is currently under construction. Another
50-unit subdivision accessed from SR 2156 has been approved. Two multi-family
complexes are also being considered for the area. In addition, the Honda
Corporation is planning to construct a new distribution center just off NC 54,
accessed via SR 2136. The industry is expected to employ up to 100 people.
The Southeast Area Plan identifies the NC 54 corridor as an emerging
employment area, with most development of this type located immediately adjacent
to the roadway. Residential development is expected to continue beyond the
frontage lots. The southeastern portion of the City is the most rapidly growing
section in Graham, with commuters to Chapel Hill and Durham moving to the
area.
The Southeast Area Plan also indicates that a greenway along the Haw
River is planned, which will follow the sewer outfall line along the river. The
greenway design has not been formally developed to date.
4. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. Land which has been developed
or is committed to urban development by the local governing body is exempt from
the requirements of the act. The proposed improvement meets both of these
conditions, as the improvements will occur largely on existing highway right of
way. Where additional land must be acquired, the area is largely developed, and
planned for further urbanization by the City of Graham. Therefore, no further
consideration of potential impacts to farmland is required.
D. Natural Environment
An ecological survey was conducted on August 25, 1994 to identify vegetative
communities and wildlife species contained within the project area. Vegetative
communities and wildlife were inventoried and mapped during on-site surveys. Wetlands
were identified, using methods in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(1987).
In-house preparatory work was completed prior to a field visit. The Alamance
County Soil Survey, USGS Burlington and Mebane quadrangle maps, and the hydric soils
list for Alamance County were studied to identify potential wetland sites. The
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map for Alamance County was used to determine if any
15
sensitive resources are present in the project area. N. C. Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) files were reviewed to determine if any
protected or rare flora or fauna occurs in the project area.
Ecological Resources
Distribution and composition of biotic resources throughout the project
area reflect topographic positioning, hydrologic influences, and past and present
land use practices. Maintained systems comprise the majority of the project area
while forested areas are small. Due to the overall uniformity of the project area,
terrestrial wildlife is addressed separately, rather than in the context of biotic
communities. Wildlife observed during field investigations are denoted by (*) in
the text. Common names are provided in the text for each species listed.
Scientific names are available in the Natural Resources Technical Report on file in
the Planning and Environmental Branch.
a. Plant Communities
The project area is rural, consisting primarily of agricultural fields,
and private residences. Small, fragmented forests are interspersed among
maintained areas. Three plant communities were identified in the project
area: Maintained, Hardwood Forest, and Mesic Hardwood Forest. Natural
community profile descriptions, where applicable, have been adopted and
modified from the NCNHP classification scheme (SchaWe and Weakley
1990).
Maintained Communities
Residential neighborhoods, agricultural fields, and roadside
shoulders constitute maintained communities in the project area. In this
community, man's structures or activities preclude natural plant succession.
Maintained shoulder slopes, and lawns support fescue as the
dominant vegetative component, complemented with landscape
ornamentals. Redbud, dogwood, pecan, red cedar, loblolly pine, and
various oak trees are common. Mowing is frequently associated with this
community.
Agricultural fields are interspersed in this suburban area. This
community contains only those lands currently managed for agriculture,
including fields under cultivation and fields temporarily fallow. Corn is
prevalent in the project area. Routine management practices associated
with farming, cause this community to retain only isolated remnants of its
native character, providing little of its initial value as wildlife habitat.
16
Remnants of native vegetation and various invading weedy species occur
within the agricultural fields and along field edges. Common plants include
tall golden-rod, black nightshade, and foxtail grass.
Hardwood Forest
Upland sites are typically dominated by an oak-hickory canopy,
consisting of white oak, southern red oak, and mockernut hickory.
Shortleaf pine, scrub pine and red cedar often occur as subcanopy
components. Understory composition is an amalgamation of dogwood,
privet, beauty berry, and sapling growth of canopy species. The
herbaceous layer is sparse or totally lacking, but groundcovers such as
Virginia creeper, poison ivy, and muscadine are typical.
Mesic Forest
Mesic woodlands are prevalent along creek channels, narrow
floodplain fringes, and lower slopes throughout the landscape. This system
is subjected to infrequent flooding and prevailing mesic conditions due to
topographic positioning. The canopy/subcanopy is dominated by
sweetgum, red maple, sycamore, willow oak, slippery elm, and ironwood.
Shrub development consists of blueberry, strawberry bush, and privet.
Ground cover densities may vary, and are characterized by Christmas ferns
and an invasive grass.
b. Wildlife Communities
The rural nature of the project area, combined with a mix of plant
community patterns, provide a variety of opportunities for various form of
wildlife. Forested tracts have all the necessary components (food, water,
protective coverage) to support a number of small and large mammals and
birds.
The Virginia opossum and raccoon are similar in life habits. Both
are opportunistic omnivores that wander widely in search of food. The
raccoon patrols a home range, which may include a variety of habitats,
while the opossum is nomadic. They prefer dry, sheltered dens under logs
and in hollow trees, brush thickets, and burrows. Both occur primarily in
association with wetlands.
The white-tailed deer prefers areas of mixed age-stands of forest,
interspersed with agricultural lands. It is primarily a crepuscular herbivore,
feeding on herbs, mast, and agricultural crops. Deer sign and sightings
were common in all habitats.
17
The gray fox and red fox are both chiefly nocturnal and
omnivorous. The eastern cottontail rabbit is an important food source as
are small rodents, birds, eggs, insects, and fruits. The gray fox prefers
brushy woodlands, while the red fox is more commonly associated with
open agricultural fields interspersed with woodlands.
Avifaunal diversity is high. Riparian habitat provides refuge for
many neotropical migrants and permanent residents. Black-and-white
warblers commonly nest in mesic hardwoods in the Piedmont. Other
migrants likely to inhabit the study area are the *wood thrush, American
redstart, and yellow-throated warbler. Observed were the *blue jay,
*northern cardinal, *mourning dove, and *pileated woodpecker. Predatory
birds such as the red-tailed hawk and barred owl are common and utilize
riparian areas for nesting.
Fallen, decaying trees and stumps provide numerous refuge sites as
well as basking and foraging areas for a broad range of reptiles and
amphibians. Amphibians, in particular, are highly water dependent for
completion of larval stages in their life cycle. Some species are totally
aquatic. A few of the reptiles and amphibians likely to be found in the
project area are the northern cricket frog, upland chorus frog, bullfrog,
pickerel frog, three-lined salamander, northern dusky salamander, painted
turtle, snapping turtle, and rat snake.
Fish species common in the study area are carp, channel catfish,
white suckers, snail bullheads, flat bullheads, and a few brown bullheads.
Redbreast sunfish and largemouth bass are common game fish.
Mesic forest and streams in the area, also provide breeding
opportunities for many amphibians. Amphibians, in particular, are highly
water-dependent for completion of larval stages in their life cycle. The
northern cricket frog, spring peeper, upland chorus frog, marbled
salamander, and the three-lined salamander are likely to occur in mesic
forests and reside in burrows under logs, stones and leaf litter in swamps
and along streams.
Maintained communities support mainly opportunistic species,
those animals adapted to urban environments. *Gray squirrels, house
finch, Carolina chickadee, blue jay, and northern cardinal, and the common
house mouse are very common in this community, and may be seen
foraging along roadsides and in lawns.
18
Biotic Community Impacts
Loss of habitat is likely to reduce the number of animals which rely
on communities present for shelter and foraging habitat. Loss of habitat
can cause a disruption of both short-term migrations and seasonal long
term migrations of animal populations, depending on individual species
requirements for food, water, and cover. Animal migration may also be
interrupted due to vehicular noise, and roadkills will decrease numbers of
individuals of certain species.
The loss and degradation of wildlife habitat, particularly for aquatic
species, are serious impacts that will result from dredging, filling, culvert
placement operations, slope stabilization and land clearing. These
construction activities result in the direct loss of benthic organisms and an
increase in silt load in wetland/aquatic environments. Mobile aquatic
organisms are better able to avoid impacts, than those species that are filter
feeders and/or relatively immobile. However, the removal of benthic
organisms reduces the potential food supply for vertebrate and aquatic
organisms.
Siltation has many adverse impacts on aquatic organisms: decreases
the depth of light penetration inhibiting plant and algal growth, which is a
food source; clogs the filtration apparatus of filter-feeding benthos and the
gills of fish; buries benthic organisms on the bottom, cutting them off from
a food source; adversely modifies preferred benthic substrate; and spoils
downstream spawning beds for fish. The majority of crossings are
intermittent streams. Planning construction during dry stream times would
minimize any potential impacts to these systems.
The following table summarizes potential losses from proposed
project construction. Calculations are based on right-of-way limits of 30.1
meters (100 feet).
ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Hectares (Acres)
Maintained Community 8.0 (20.0)
Har woo orest 3.2 8.0
eslc orest
Total 12.0 (30.0)
19
2. Protected Species
a. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of March 28, 1995, the FWS reports no federally protected
species for Alamance County.
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata), a Candidate 2 (C2) is
currently listed by the FWS for Alamance County. A Candidate 2 species
is not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and not subject
to any of it's provisions until they are formally proposed listed as
Threatened or Endangered.
b. State Protected Species
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted protection by the
State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the N. C. Department of
Agriculture. Sweet pinesap is a state Candidate species and is not legally
protected. A review of the NHP data base shows no known occurrences of
rare or protected species in the project area.
3. Physical Resources
a. Geology and Topography
The project lies within the Piedmont Soil Region and specifically
within the Mixed Felsic and Mafic System. Many of the mixed felsic and
mafic areas are moderately to strongly dissected. Topography in the area is
moderately dissected.
b. Soils
A Cecil-Appling soil association covers the majority of the project
area. Most of the acreage is on broad ridges and gentle slopes and is
cultivated. These soils are well drained and developed from a residuum of
granite, gneiss, and coarse-grained schist.
20
Worsham soils are hydric, and are confined to channels of
intermittent tributaries (approximately I meter (2-4 feet) in width) and low
wet depressional areas. These soils are poorly drained, and strongly acid.
Parent material is colluvium and local alluvium mixed with the residuum of
the underlying granite, gneiss, schist, slate, and other rock.
C. Contaminated Properties
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted along NC 54 from
SR 2106 to the intersection of NC 119. A file search of all appropriate
federal and state agencies was conducted to determine if any environmental
hazards were present in the proposed project corridor.
Based on the reconnaissance survey, three (3) operational facilities
and one (1) non-operational facility with the possibility for underground
storage tanks (UST's) along the NC 54 corridor were identified. One site,
the David Hall Paint & Body Shop, was identified as a possible hazard but
has been operated as an automobile body shop with no evidence of UST's.
A brief description of each site is listed below:
B & C Grocery UST Owner: Foust Oil Co.
942 East Harden Street 403 East Center St.
Graham, N. C. Mebane, N. C.
Facility I. D.: 0-23638
This site was undergoing UST removal and replacement
when the site survey was compiled. According to the DEM
records, the site contains three (3) gasoline (2-2000,1-1000 gallon)
UST's of steel construction. Also on site, there is one 550 gallon
kerosene UST, also of steel construction. The closest point of the
UST system to the centerline of NC 54 is 59 feet. After
examining the UST removal/replacement pit, it was evident that
there exists a high probability of soil contamination in situ.
2. abandoned station UST Owner: unknown
1200 Block E. Harden St. (NC 54)
Graham, N. C.
Facility I. D.: unknown
This site has recently undergone UST removal as noted
from the site survey and is not registered with the DEM. A large
covered pit was discovered on site, apparently where the former
21
UST's were located, approximately 62 feet from the centerline of
NC 54. No closure report has been ascertained yet, so little is
known about this abandoned facility.
Highway 54 Gas House UST Owner: Quality Oil
901 East Harden Street P. O. Box 2736
Graham, N. C. 27253 Winston-Salem, N. C.
27102
Facility I. D.: 0-034373
This operational gas station opened in May of 1995. It is
located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of NC 54
(East Hardin Street) and SR 2217 (Woody Drive). According to
field reconnaissance and DEM records, this site has three (3) UST's
and one aboveground storage tank (AST) currently in use. The
UST tanks contain gasoline (2-8,000 gallon, and 1-12,000 gallon),
while the one (1) AST is a 550 gallon tank containing kerosene.
The tank bed is located approximately 140 feet from the centerline
of NC 54 and 64 feet from the centerline of SR 2217. The pump
island is approximately 90 feet from the centerline of NC 54. This
property does not appear to be r}nder remediation at this time.
4. Amoco Food Shop UST Owner: McLeod Oil
904 East Harden Street. Box 99
Graham, N. C. 27253 Mebane, N. C.
27302
Facility I. D.: 0-031886
This operational gas station is located in the southeast
quadrant of the intersection of NC 54 (East Hardin Street) and
SR 2106 (Woody Drive). According to field reconnaissance and
DEM records, this site has three (3) 10,000 UST's containing
gasoline currently in use. The tank bed is located approximately
185 feet from the centerline of NC 54 and 280 feet from the
centerline of SR 2106. The pump island is approximately 120 feet
from the centerline of NC 54. This property does not appear to be
under remediation at this time.
5. Dave Hall Paint & Body Shop Property owner: Mattie Albright
1233 East Hardin Street 1229 East Hardin St.
Graham, N. C. 27253 Graham, N. C. 27253
Facility I. D.: Unknown
1) 1
This facility is located on the south side of NC 54,
approximately 187 feet south of River Dale Drive. According to
Mr. Hall, this site was never operated as a gas station and has
always been operated as an automobile body shop. No evidence of
UST's was observed at the site, but this still does not rule out the
possibility of tanks existing on the property.. Thinners and paint
waste produced from the body shop are stored inside the building in
a 55 gallon drum. Contamination from this material on the site is a
possibility. The site does not appear to be under remediation at this
time. If this site cannot be avoided in the final design (it shows up
on the relocation assistance report), a "Preliminary Site
Assessment" will be performed prior to right-of-way acquisition to
determine the existence and extent of any contamination. This
assessment will also be used by the Department to estimate the
associated clean up costs.
It is recommended that all UST sites within the project corridor be
avoided by additional right of way acquisition. It is anticipated that no
property from the UST sites will be acquired to construct the proposed
project. However, if final plans require right of way acquisition on these
properties, the Geotechnical Unit will conduct a thorough survey prior to
right of way acquisition.
Landfills
The files of the Solid Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste
Management were consulted and no landfills were located in this section of
Alamance County that should affect the project.
Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Section of the Division of
Solid Waste Management were consulted to ascertain whether any
unregulated dump sites or other potentially contaminated properties exist
within the proposed project limits. Based on those records and the EPA's
Superfund list, there are no potential environmental problem sites that
should affect this corridor.
d. Water Resources
Three major streams are crossed by the project, Town Branch
Creek, Haw River, and East Back Creek. See Figure 2 for stream crossing
locations. The Haw River is the largest water body crossed by the
proposed project and originates in the upper Piedmont of North Carolina.
Lying within the Cape Fear River Basin, it flows southeasterly until it joins
23
the Deep River. At the bridge crossing, it measures approximately 40.7
meters (133 feet) across. Depth and substrate were not discernible at time
of the field visit, though boulders are evident. Water velocity was observed
to be moderate. The banks of the river support a narrow riparian fringe,
bordered by pasture areas on both sides.
Back Creek and Town Branch Creek are characterized as well-
drained, perennial stream bottoms. Both are approximately 3.0 to 4.6
meters (10 to 15 feet) in width, and water was less than 0.2 meter (0.5
feet) in depth at the time of field investigation. A mixture of boulder and
rock make up the substrate. Mesie hardwood species occupy stream
banks.
The unnamed tributaries are characterized as well-drained, small
stream bottoms located in ravines on acidic soils. All are approximately
0.9 to 1.5 meter (3 to 5 feet) in width, and water was observed to be less
than 0.2 meter (0.5 feet) in depth. A mixture of sand and clay make up the
substrate. Mesic hardwood species and pines occur on these steep sites.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters of North
Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Any
stream which is not named in the schedule of stream classifications carries
the same classification as that assigned to the stream segment to which it is
a tributary.
A summary of "best usage" water classifications for water resource
components likely to receive impacts are listed in the table below. A
summary of the "best usage" for which the waters in each class must be
protected, follows.
"Best Usage" Classifications of Water Resources
WATER RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
Town Branch Creek C NSW
Haw River C NSW
Two unnamed tributaries to Haw River C NSW
Back Creek C NSW
Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
The supplemental classification "NSW" indicates water needing
additional nutrient management (particularly fertilizer run-off) due to their
being subjected to eutrophication.
24
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) (NC-
DEHNR, Division of Environmental Management) addresses long term
trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrates. These organisms are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality. Data from biological sampling of the Haw
River at NC 54 from 8/83 through 8/89 gives a fair bioclassification.
No Outstanding Resource Waters, nor any waters classified as WS-
I or WS-II are located in the study area, or within 1.6 kilometer (1 mile)
downstream. No National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits
have been issued for the project area. Since the project is not in any water
supply watershed nor in a high quality water zone, erosion and
sedimentation will be controlled through the appropriate specification,
installation, and maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control
measures. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained, to the extent
practicable. Groundwater resources should be assessed in final design in
any areas where significant excavation is anticipated in order to prevent
groundwater contamination. A more detailed hydraulic analysis will be
conducted during the final design phase of the project.
e. Floodplain Involvement
The City of Graham and Alamance County are both participants in
the National Flood Insurance Program. All of the three major stream
crossings are in detailed flood studies, having established 100-year
floodplain and floodway limits and corresponding regulatory water surface
elevations. The Hydraulics Design Unit will coordinate with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and local authorities during final design
to ensure that the project will be in compliance with applicable floodplain
and floodway regulations. The Town Branch floodplain is moderately
developed, being in a more urbanized area; however, the floodplains at
Haw River and East Back Creek are rural and wooded. From field review,
there were no buildings observed with floor elevation below the 100-year
flood level in the vicinity of the project. It is anticipated that the proposed
roadway widening and associated drainage work will not have any
significant adverse impact on the existing floodplains and floodways
involved, nor on the associated flood hazard.
The Town Branch Creek site is in a designated flood hazard zone,
and is included in the detailed flood study for the City of Graham, having
an established 100-year floodplain and floodway with corresponding water
surface elevations. A copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map is shown in
Figure 6A, and shows the established limits of the 100-year floodplain and
floodway. From information in the detailed flood study, it appears that the
100-year discharge may overtop the roadway; therefore, a floodway
25
revision may be required for the culvert extension. This will be assessed in
detail in the final hydraulics design phase of the project. This site is above
headwaters, and the proposed culvert extension can be accommodated with
only minor channel improvements at the upstream and downstream ends of
the culvert.
The crossings at the Haw River and East Back Creek are also in a
designated flood hazard zone and are included in the detailed flood study
for Alamance County. Figure 6B shows a copy of the Flood Boundary and
Floodway Map, delineating the established limits of the 100-year floodplain
and floodway in the vicinity of these crossings. The floodplain in the area
of these crossings is rural and wooded. The proposed bridge at Haw River
will have improved conveyance compared to that of the existing bridge,
thereby slightly reducing the upstream backwater. Therefore, the project
will have no significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain and
floodway nor on the associated flood hazard associated with these two
stream crossings.
f. Wetlands
Surface waters and associated wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) takes jurisdiction over the .
discharge of dredged or fill material into these waters of the U. S. as
authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No jurisdictional
wetlands were identified in the project area.
4. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
a. Air uali
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
Other origins of common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and
any form of fire. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges
from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient
air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when determining the
impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb)
(listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered
to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of
the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
26
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
27
sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect
that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline.
The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline
containing tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the
octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the
lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of
gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average
had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead
additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is
not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for
lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
,CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant
Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO
concentration at the nearest sensitive. receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes 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
1998 and the design year of 2018 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.
28
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor
415 at a distance of 16 meters from the proposed centerline of the roadway
and 16 meters from the existing centerline. The "build" and "no-build"
one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years
of 1998 and 2018 are shown in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest Build No-Build
Sensitive
Receptor
1998 2018
1998 2018
R-15 2.9 3.8 2.7 7.1
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
(maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour
averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since
the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can
be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard.
The project is located within the jurisdiction of the Winston-Salem
Regional Office of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources. The ambient air quality for Alamance County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on
the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that
burning will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will only be utilized under constant surveillance. Also
during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust 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.
29
Traffic Noise
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
widening of NC 54 in Alamance County on noise levels in the immediate
project area (Figure 6A). This investigation includes an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing)
noise levels in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted
noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise
impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise
impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of
highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title
23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are
predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement
measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation
plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a
composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway
interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure.
Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used
to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the
decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted scales
(A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle
noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency
range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz).
Sound levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often
expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be
expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Figure 6A.
Review of Figure 6A indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go
about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of
unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:
30
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 irate if an unwanted
noise persists. The time patterns of noise also enter into an individual's
judgment of whether or not a noise is offensive. For example, noises
occurring during sleeping hours are usually considered to be more
offensive than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from
other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at night
when background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would generally
be more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn in the afternoon
when background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities
of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal conversation would be
possible while sleep might be difficult. Work activities requiring high levels
of concentration may be interrupted by loud noises, while activities
requiring manual effort may not be interrupted to the same degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and
are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their
lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of noises
including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic
noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control
have developed rapidly over the past few years.
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to
be used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria
and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title
23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various
land uses is presented in Figure 6B. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is
the level of constant sound which, in a given situation and time period, has
31
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 Leq noise level along NC 54 as measured at 15
meters from the roadway ranged from 66.8 to 67.7 dBA. The ambient
measurement sites and measured exterior Leq noise levels are presented in
Figure 6A and Figure 6C, respectively.
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 2.2 to 3.6 dBA of the measured
noise levels for the locations where noise measurements were obtained.
Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low
traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-
spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars driving at different speeds through a
continual changing highway configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to
the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications
must be made to predict highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIlAA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-
RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number and
type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor
location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground
elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen the
existing two-lane highway to a five lane facility from SR 2106 to NC 119.
32
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 2018. A land use is considered to
be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the
FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial
noise increase. The basic approach was to select receptor locations such as
7.5, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, and 480 meters from the center of the near traffic
lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The locations of these
receptors were determined by the changes in projected traffic volumes
and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed project. The result of
this procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using this
grid, noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Figure 6D. Information included in these tables consists of listings
of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their ambient and
predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that
are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Figure
6E. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience
traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a
substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772,
4 businesses and 64 residential receptors were determined to be impacted
by highway traffic noise. Other information included in Figure 6E 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.
33
Figure 6E indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the
identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted noise level
increases for this project range from +5 to +7 dBA. When real-life noises
are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A
5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by
most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
TRAFFIC NOISE USAPACT ANALYSIS
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with
"approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b]
substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of
substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Figure 6B.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category. There are 68 impacted receptors in the project
area.
Hiahwav Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical
orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize
impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise
abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and
other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of placing the roadway
at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway
alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed,
volume and time of operations are often effective noise abatement
measures. For this project, traffic management measures are not
considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the
capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
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.
3.3
The project will maintain only limited control of access, meaning
most commercial establishments and residences will have direct access
connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the
project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be
high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant
sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the
noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically
unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at
access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight
distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a
barrier's length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to
the receptor. For example, a receptor located 15 meters from the barrier
would normally require a barrier 120 meters long. An access opening of 12
meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to
approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-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.
"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,
57 residences and businesses 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
+3 to +5 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise
level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily
noticed.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected particularly
from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during
grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature
35
of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours,
these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss
characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are
believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
SUMMARY
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23
CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional
noise reports will be submitted for this project.
E. Construction Impacts
There are some environmental impacts normally associated with the construction
of highways. These are generally of short term duration and measures will be taken to
minimize these impacts.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition, and other operations will be removed from the project, burned,
or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning done will be in accordance with
the applicable laws, ordinances, and regulatiogs of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air Quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care
will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practicable from
dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will be made under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction when the
control of dust is necessary for protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered in Article
107-3 of the Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, which is entitled "Control
of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution". The N. C. Division of Highways has also developed
an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program which has been approved by the N. C.
Sedimentation Control Commission. This program consists of the rigorous requirements
to minimize erosion and sedimentation contained in the Standard Specifications together
with the policies of the Division of Highways regarding the control of accelerated erosion
on work performed by State Forces.
36
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of way and
provided by the contractor, unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the
Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be
permitted without prior approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be permitted
when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding areas for
mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious disruptions in
service to any of the utilities serving the area. Prior to construction, a determination will
be made regarding the need to relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project area.
A determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible will be
made at that time. In all cases, the contractor is required to notify the owner of the utility
in advance as to when this work will occur. In addition, the contractor is responsible for
any damages to water lines incurred during the construction process. This procedure will
insure that water lines, as well as other utilities, are relocated with a minimum of
disruption of service to the community.
Traffic service in the immediate area may be subjected to brief disruption during
construction of the project. Every effort will be made so insure the transportation needs of
the public are met both during and after construction.
General construction noise impacts sugh as temporary speech interference for
passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project can be expected,
particularly from paving operations and from earth moving equipment during grading
operations. However, considering the relatively short term nature of construction noise,
these impacts are not expected to be significant. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby structures will moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
F. Permits
in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U. S. C.
1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into "Waters of the United States". Based upon site location and estimated acreage
involved, it is anticipated that impacts to intermittent streams will be authorized by
Nationwide Permit [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26)]. This permit generally authorizes discharges
of dredge or fill material in wetlands located above the headwaters (flow less than 1.5
cubic meters (5 cubic feet) per second) of non-tidal rivers, streams and their lakes and
impoundments including adjacent wetlands.
It is anticipated that widening over the Haw River, Back Creek, and Town Branch
Creek will be authorized by Nationwide Permit [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14)]. This permit
authorizes fills for roads crossing waters of the United States provided that the width of
fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual crossing; that the fill is placed in
37
waters of the United States is limited to a filled area of no more than 0.1 hectare (0.3
acre), and no more than a total of 61 linear meters (200 linear feet) of the fill for the
roadway can occur in special aquatic sites, including wetlands.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N. C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources will be required. This certificate is issued for
any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is
required.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is generally not required where Nationwide permits or
General permits are authorized; according to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers (COE).
Final discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Government Response
During the planning study, local, state, and federal agencies were contacted.
Requests for environmental input were sent to the following agencies and replies were
received from those marked with an asterisk (*):
*State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*Davidson County Schools
*N. C. Department of Environmental, Health, and Natural Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
Region G Planning Agency
Alamance County Commissioners
City of Graham
Mayor of Graham
B. Public Response
In addition to the written requests for input from appropriate agencies and
governmental bodies, a citizens informational workshop was held on August 2, 1994 at
the Alexander Wilson Elementary School to discuss the proposed improvement. The
meeting was advertised by the major local media prior to its being held. Approximately 30
persons attended the informal gathering including representatives of the NCDOT and
38
FHWA. The residents were generally interested in how their individual properties would
be affected by the project and the construction schedule. All comments received thus far
in the planning process have acknowledged the need for a wider roadway to improve
safety and accommodate current and projected traffic volumes.
AHS/plr
y!! 1 _L_? rat SOU1M[. 'J 191 , 1 301!
Z 7pl•
1720
G ]S].L i, 49 Satellite
Mow River
i2
ae es 23f. ar , ' /' uxe. .\ f ?l
770. =AU E ?aA 5t. 'AV / E
Ivlp
?. 67 ..LL 1? If21' I
W. mlyd.
GRAHAM
POP. 8,674
0
7!1L% r
J l`
219!
--
,C IYY..,t, 9a ? 00
0
221,E 1,}1 ? 1 ,...
1t
FAF 7e !fd1 0
E tt., .A is
1 le --
3 zi-m i 03 I27i
w
> ^
PROJECT .,i _ II12
PROJECT
.IH LIMITS - .10 ° II1Z?
e EGU+•.vM f•o /3 / 7y 37 2711 222!.=22
3,. i7 ?y i)9L
?LL IlIIi ittl \\
v m'
WA 2112 ' a tin % i
Ip l "? •11 o? /
a? 0 02
71!2. II eo
2:22
\ i
rJ
`. Y
` S
..,. 51 2221 ? .
1 Y\
2112
\51?
7
i
I
17 2
19 \ ti
21!1 i001= \1? 1

`
^ Jo
; ?I O
22L 2100 1` Cy
?_ "'
(
.
L2 F
2212 t 211
J" .??
V :: yo 11 .0/ oe r
.03. -IL1 ? Llil
?0 .70 221_
.31 °
/
p
/ C i UN. \ ./
..,
?
1 11'2 s IS 131 0 / \. Jf 2=1? ?•

... .lM ,p ?
V
i^ ?
?
?. ]711 11101 1G f?T\
'
° 1 0 5 I1 2122 /
I u] °-

07 Il
??
o
- Itxi -

//
i Illi oa

77
17
?
7 3 o
\
fb' /
SI9t /
I y
? v? 7213 ? ?

ILL!
722E
II!2 IIL ?,

213\ II

-. 1

a? '''o
222f 27.1E •°.` 2I9t ? t
??
1
227f
'1
=
119
ILpQ. 717. I
2LI-2
O .,
. 2172
27_1e f,? ?7
21L1
f47 4s 1 - ?
2.13= 2f 1
( 0 yo 21 7f 7I Ia 21
1

Ne, I!2l \
C9 o
71 ? 7134
? 2 IiL=,
\ L °y 1
k a s. f4,
sw. PROJECT

i
.o
21L .oa I1L
LIMITS

_
- 2111
5" 14
2112

1 zn 0
L VICINITY MAP
,
R-2538
SCALE: 1' Q 0
5 mile
. FIGURE 1
`?? ,,? , ,
?=?.- ? -
?:? _ r ?
I

t ?T

}

ul,t
tp`
PROJEC'T'
a LIMITS - 3
01
rf , =
14
BURLE GTON
AND VICINITY,
THOROUGHFARE
PLAN
.I .Ind •i ? 3 ?1 ?? ? 0 ? _
0 '? FIGURE 3
?i2l?FFIG f o?.i Ec rSa ?5 - AD
/440 ?' `? ? ? 720
s?so 3400 O
SR z z I =: -=? SR Z 10 G
h $o
-3740
R R1 480
/900
-?-?- SR Z/07
$oo
2200,
2900
X900
' I
0 00
• Q D O' ?
? V
/5ao
?3QO
S 2/0 4
420
?6'1a
/tea
? ?- 5R ZIoS
,2400
3/ D
/? s? zrz3
Qoa
'V"V-10 •
IFTr J
TJRI 4
27?2-- 1'9 99 AM"- YN/Y
Yew 2018 Zacs

SIC
Ira
Z /o
550
Oo$
J 00 ?
2 /D
S.e 2I3•G
SON
0
o?
am
3500
3900
0
a?
2000
ZSD0
S/5'o
45,10
lo
59 2136,
32.00

VEWe xxxx
_ /998
P- 0193 ?7'
145
TIGIJIE 4.
2 015 /SR 2217
NC,
-IT-F,R,SF,CT O GE ONI - T ICS

(0 I
I
T I
N
? I
C/) I
I
i
NC 54

T
N
N
cc
(ri
Ar?
I
I
I '
I
'I
I
I
F16tjRE 5

NC 54 and ETC 11915 2159
INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
NC 54
I ?
I ?
I I
I I
I I
I I
? I
I ?
T
T
0
b
NC 54
o---
I
I I N r
I I ?
I I ?
i I
I I
I I
FIGURE sB?

1 '
r
r
` ZONE Y
510yr r
eh.
2 ZONE X
509
RM10 !
512
PRIVATE DRIVE\17 514 513
51 \\ ,er' r+
\ .` zE M9
515 RM 11 SITE 1
!a
ls?
?nl
ZONE X 522 Y:r:Yr 519 ZONE X
53., r 24 ?0 r 1 RM12
019
.
YEAR FLOOD wSk _ ?7 \
VTAINED IN
VERY 534 1 533 +.
?s•
I} 38
' r
_'t' \ ' ? RM13
DAM
yr_t. ZONE AE
t
ZONE X.
L ?
city
FIGURE 6A
f 7 RSb,? r '5J. p /fi n `r
N 1 ti.?
rNj
AQ-
SITE '1, y p J,1,?
44-3
SITE 3 Q..tt. `. mow! r.:.-• ?:.,
,; ? • :: _? x ?,, ? 1 sue-'." ? - - • .?•'.
. ??., , •
lot
350
_a?.f•; 7 I. > %r?.. - -'FIGURE 6B'
PROJECT LOCATICN & AMBIE:iT MEASUREMENT SI =
NC 54
From SR 2108 to NC 113, Alamance County
TIP u R-2538, State Project s 8.1471101
14,
BE=
n
? test • ,ua +sya i
-? n
tr ._
i?
\E
? , \ ewes
22
as
-?
, as
as ar rt
au 'W
i
_ 0
• ay v ar ' •
( sat ?
w / wa % `
y n•
• as .
ttu t
'-• ? C:, new yt END
r
?I
RIARLNOt SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DALLY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chaaber 'HUMAN EAR PAIN TI=SHDLD

170
PireciacAers
120 Severe thunder, pmUSAtic Jackhaaer
• Hockey crowd
Anglified rock mule D¦CCNFOJMALLY LOUD

110
Tuttle loos
loo Subwy train, elevated train, fans tractor
power lawn Sower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory I=

90
D Dieaal true 40 apn SO ft. away
Z Sc crowded restaurant, `AZDAge diapoeal
C Average factory, vacuum cieamr _
I Passenger car SO cph :0 f:. away 1ooMTrLY LOUD

¦ 70
L Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-eonditicnar
S Quiet aat.asooile
Norval conversation. average office WILT

50
Roh"Id. refrigerator
Quiet office v1--r gu=

l0
Average how
10 Dripping faucet
Whispet S test way
20 Light rainfall. rustle of leaves
AVENGE PERSON'S TM=B= Of EXAMO
Whisper JSJ3T AUDI=

10
0 I '>'BLS,'Y.Y.D FOR AGUE =ARINC
Sournas World Hook. Rand Mortally Atlas of the Susan Body,
Zntyclopedla Asericana, "Industrial Moils and Hesrl:.g
Cooversatica^ trf J. B. 0112211fski and Z. R. Rarford
(Researched by G. Jam Hunt and published in the Cbicago
Tr+huns In an illustrated graphic by Tow Heinz.)
t
FIGURE 7A
_7
f-F
i
Activity
Category
A
B
C
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Lsq(h) Description of Activity Category
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.
67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
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 (CFA) Part 772, U. S. Departmant of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTLAL INCREASE
Hourly A-weighted Sound Level - decibels OBA)
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.
FIGURE '7E
aS]1YP!+AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
NC 54
From SR 2106 to NC 119
Alamance County
TIP # R-2538 State Project # 8.1471101 NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)'
1. NC 54, 380 meters East of SR 2183 Paved 67
2. NC 54, 100 meters West of SR 2109 Grassy 66
3. NC 54, 100 meters East of SR 2135 Grassy 67

Note:
The ambient noise level sites were measured at 15 meters from the
center of the nearest lane of traffic.
FIGURE 7C

Laq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 54
From SR 2106 to NC 119
Alamance County
TIP# R-2538 State,Project/ 8,.1471101
1/3
AMBIENT NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATICS NEARES T ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVE L
ID / LAND USE CATEGORY
-wwwwwwwwww- NAME
vww DISTANCE(m)
vvvvOw LEVEL
Ova NAME
?vww DISTANCE(m)
wvwwv? -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
.w---------- INCREASE
sOwv?
From Beginning of Project to SR 2109
1 Business C NC 54 80.0 R 54 NC 54 80.0 R - - 60 + 6
2 Business C '. 32.0 R 63 to 32.0 R - - G8 + 5
3 Residence B to 3010 R 63 of 30.0 R - - " 69 + 6
4 Residence B •' 28.0 R 64 of 28.0 R - - • 69 + 5
5 Business C to 30.0 L 63 it 30.0 L - - 69 + 6
6 Business C to 30.0 L 63 to 30.0 L - - 69 + 6
7 Business C to 40.0 R 61 " 40.0 R - - 66 + 5
8 Residence B '• 28.0 R 64 to 284 R - - • 69 + 5
9 Residence B ^ 28.0 R 64 ^ 28.0 R - - ' 69 + 5
10 Residence B to 30.0 R 63 to 30.0 R - - • 69 + 6
it Residence B .. 28.0 R 64 " 28.0 R - - " 69 + 5
12 Residence B to 48.0 R 59 to 40.0 R - - 65 + 6
13 Residence B " 26.0 L 64 to 26.0 L - - • 70 + 6
14 Business C " 26.0 -L 64 " 26.0 L - - 70 + 6
15 Business C to 16.0 L 67 " 16.0 L - - • 73 + 6
16 Residence B •• 40.0 L 61 of 40.0 L - - * 66 + 5
17 Business C " 22.0 L 65 to 22.0 L - - * 71 + 6
18 Residence B to 26.0 L 64 to 26.0 L - - * 70 + 6
19 Residence B of 38.0 L 61 " 38.0 L - - " 67 + 6
20 Residence B " 18.0 R 67 " 18.0 R - - * 72 + 5
21 Residence B of 34.0 L 62 ^ 34.0 L - - • 68 + 6
22 Residence a to 16.0 R 67 w 16.0 R - - * 73 + 6
23 Residence B to 20.0 R 66 to 20.0 R - - * 72 + 6
24 Residence B to 36.0 L 62 to 36.0 L - - •F67 + 5
25 Residence B to 26.0 L 64 to 26.0 L - - ••70 + 6
26 Business C to 36.0 L 62 to 36.0 L - - 67 + 5
27 Residence B It 30.0 R 63 of 30.0 R - - • 69 + 6
28 Residence B to 30.0 R 63 to 30.0 R - - • 69 + 6
29 Business C to 18.0 R 67 to 18.0 R - - • 72 + 5
30 Residence B to 24.0 R 65 to 24.0 R - - * 71 + 6
31 Residence B to 28.0 L 64 to 28.0 L - - • 69 + 5
32 Residence B of 30.0 R 63 to 30.0 R - - IN 69 + 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 extarior/interior (58/48). • ?> Traffic noise impact (par 23 CM Part 772).
FIGURE 7D

Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 54
From SR 2106 to NC 119
Alamance County
TIPI R-2538 State project$ 8.1471101
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATIOZi NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID f LAND USE CATEGORY

.............---It NAME DISTANCE(m)

....?.N.e..?.. LEVEL

e... NAME DISTANCE(m) -L- -y- M

.-..o....„..... .................. AXIMUM

. Y o . INCREASE
.o?P.
From Beginning of Project to SR 2109 (cont'd)
33 Residence H HC 54 34.0 L 62
- -
NC 54 34.0 L
' 68
+ 6
34 Residence H
30.0 L
63
to 30.0 L - -
* 69
+ 6
35 Residence D " 34.0 A
62
to 34.0 R - -
• 68
+ 6
36 Residence D
22.0 R
65
to 22.0 R - -
* 71
+ 6
37 Residence B " 24.0 A 65
24.0 R -
' 71
+ 6
B
32.0 R
63
^ 32.0 R - -
* 68
+ S
38 Residence - * 72 + 5
39 Residence B
18.0 L
67
" 18.0 L -
*
+ 6
B
34.0 L
62
" 34.0. T. - -
68
4,0 Residence - 65 + 5
Al Residence B
" 46.0 L
60
" 46.0 L -
*
+ S
H
40.0 R
61
" 40.0 R - -
66
42 Residence - ' 70 + 6
43 Residence H
26.0 L
64
" 26.0 L -
+ 5
Residence H
44 60.0 R 57 It 60.0 R - -
- 62
B
20.0 L
66
^ 20.0 L - -
* 72
+ 6
45 Residents - * 68 + 5
46 Residence a
of 32.0 'I.
63
If 32.0 L -
47 Residence B
20.0 L
66
" 20.0 L - -
• 72
+ 6
0 L
24 65/40 " 24.0 L - - 71/46 + 6/+6
48 Church E
.
-
* 69
+ S
49 Residence B
" 28.0 L
64
It 28.0 L -
From SR 2109 to SR 2135

50 Residence D
NC 54 30.0 R
63 - -
NC 54 30.0 A ' 69 + 6

D

to 24.0 L

64

It 24.0 L - - *

70 + 6
51 Residence 0 L -----------°-
" 16
?
TR/W--- -------- --
52 Business C .. 16.0 L 67 . r + 6
53 Residence H to 40.0 L 60 ^ 40.0 L - - 66
B •• 36.0 R 61 of 36.0 R - - • 67 + 6
54 Residence
- • 68 + 6
SS Residence D
It 34.0 L
62
to 34.0 L -
•
+ 6
II to 30.0 L 63 It 30.0 L - - 69
56 Residence
- •
72 + T
57 Business C to 20.0 L 65 to 20.0 L -
NOTE; Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-I> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-.> Noise lovol from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exurior/interior (38/48). * ?> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
FI?TTRE 7D
.
+-.fwd

T?f
3/3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 54
From SR 2106 to NC 119
A.1-nce County
TIP# R- 2538 State•Projectt 8.1471101
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEARES T ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVE L
ID I LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m) -L- -Y-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MAXIMUM
- - -- INCREASE
From SR 2135 to NC 119
58 Residence B NC 54 42.0 L 60 NC 54 42.0 L - - 65 + 5
59 Residence B " 42.0 R 60 It 42.0 R - - 65 + 5
60 Residence B " 30.0 L 63 of 30.0 L - - • 68 + 5
61 Residence B of 30.0 L 63 H 30.0 L - - to 68 + 5
62 Residence B It 26.0 R 64 It 26.0 R - - • 69 + 5
63 Residence B of 28.0 L 63 to 28.0 L - - • 68 + 5
64 Business C of 36.0 R 61 of 36.0 R - -
• 66 + 5
65 Business C of 34.0 L 62 - -
^ 34.0 Z 67 + 5
66 Residence B of 24.0 L 64 of 24.0 L - - " 69 + 5
67 Residence B If 26.0 L 64 of 26.0 L - - " 69 + 5
68 Residence B " 30.0 L 63 of 30.0 L - - " 68 + 5
69 Residence B It 24.0 R 64 '• 24.0 R - - • 69 + 5
70 Residence B of 34.0 R 62 It 34.0 R - - • 67 + 5
71 Residence B of 26.0 L 64 If 26.0 L - - • 69 + 5
72 Residence B of 32.0 R 62 " 32.0 R - - • 67 + 5
73 Residence B of 24.0 L 64 to 24.0 L - - It 69 + 5
74 Residence B of 30.0 R 63 of 30.0 R - - • 68 + 5
75 Residence B " 30.0 L 63 of 30.0 L - - • 68 + 5
76 Residence B of 40.0 L 60 to 40.0 L - - 65 + 5
77 Residence B of 44.0 R 59 It 44.0 R - - 64 + 5
78 Residence B of 44.0 L 59 M 44.0 L - - 64 + 5
79 Residence B It 34.0 L 62 of 34.0 L - - It 67 + 5
80 Residence B
34.0
L
62
It 34.0 L - -
•'67
+
5
81 Business C of 90.0 L 52 If 90.0 L - - 57 + 5
82 Rasidence B If 30.0 L 63 If 30.0 L - - It 68 + 5
63 Residence B It 40.0 L 60 " 40.0 L - - 65 + 5
84 Residence B of 30.0 L 63 of 30.0 L - - • 68 + 5
85 Residence B " 30.0 L 63 of 30.0 L - - * 68 + 5
86 Residence B It 30.0 L 63 " 30.0 L - - • 68 + 5
67 Residence S of 30.0 L 63 to 30.0 L - - to 68 + 5
88 Residence B to 30.0 L 63 ^ 30.0 L - - • 68 + 5
89 Business C ^ 52.0 L S8 of 52.0 L - - 63 + 5
90 Residence B of 24.0 L 64 of 24.0 L - - of 69 + 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noi2e level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). • -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
FIGURE 7I)

Description
1. From Beginning of Project to SR 2109
2. From SR 2109 to SR 2135
3. From SR 2135 to NC 119
FEWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 54
From SR 2106 to NC 119
Alamance County
TIP / R-2538 State Project t 8.1471101
maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (maximum)
15 m 30 m 60 m 72 dBA 67 dBA
71 67 62 21 m 39 m
71 67 62 20 m 39 m
70 66 60 17 m 34 m
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
0 35 3 0 0
0 6 1 0 0
0 23 0 0 0
TOTALS
0 64 4 0 0
NOTES - 1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from canter of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
Section
1. From Beginning to SR 2109
2. From SR 2109 to SR 2135
3. From SA 2135 to NC 119
TOTALS
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUM1QXY
VC 54
From SR 2106 to NC 119
Alamancs County
TIP l R-2538 State Project i 8.1471101
RECEPTOR EaERIOR rOISE LEVEL INCREASES
<.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >• 25

0 0 49 0 0 0 0
0 0 7 0 0 0 0
0 0 33 0 0 0 0
0 0 89 0 0 0 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2)-
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2
Substantial Impacts Due
N*se Level to Both
Inoreasu(1) Critcria(2)
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
FIGURE 7
T=ON' EZEPORT Borth Caro] ina Department of Transportation
x CORD-T7. ? DESIG31 RHLOCATICEI ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1471101 COUNTY: Alam3nce Alternate I_ of 1 _ Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2538 F.A. PROJECT: STP-54 (1)
DESCRIPTIOIi OF PROJECT: ITC 54 from I 40 85 at Graham to ITC 119
ESTII4ITSD DISPLACffi IIHXM LEVEL
2cee I (amass I Tenants I Total I itM I 0-1594 I 15-2511 I 25-35911 1 35-50H j 50 UP
Indivi,c3t?als
F?1i l i ns;
Businesses 1 0 1 0 VALUE OF IYJE=G DSS MELLIN GS AVAILAELE
Farms Orners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-2091 0-150 0-20111 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUBST ICNS 20-4014
1 150-250 2G-401i 150-250
YES UID BIG'LAIIZ ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70I1 IIA 250-400 NA 40-70H NA 250-400 NA
q 1. special relocation
Hil.l 70-100 400-600 70-100 400-600

2. ,
services be necessary
Hill acboo]s or churches be
100 UP
600 UP
100 UP
600 UP
affected by displacement
x 3. Will business services st i ll TOTAL.

X
4. be available after project
Hill any business be dis-
(S (Respond by Number
)
plac2d. If so, indicate size
estimated m=ber of
type
3. Only one busia.ss will be displaced, so the
,
c=pl:oyees, minorities, etc. brines amity bill only slightly be
x 5. Dill relocation cause a affected.

x
6 housing shortage
Source for available hour-
4. David Hall Paint & Body Shop - a family run
. Ing (list) business frith perhaps 5 employees. It appears
x 7. Hill additional housing to be a former gas station building, uith tuo
programs be needed service bays and office.
X 8. Should Last Resort using
be considered 6. I1LS and =mTapers.
X 9. Are there largo, disabled,
etc. families
elderly
14. Realtors have a feu sites available in the
,
A T8 ATM FOR DESK-tI Graham area (north end of project)
X 10. Will public housing be
needed for project
r%: Another business, the High ray 54 Flea
N/A 11. Is public housing avail- iiarhet, has a small part of its building
able in the existing R/H, but no purchase is
N/A 12. Is it felt there uill be ad- P for this area.
available
equate DSS bowing
.-_---- ;- ' - ?.
?
during relocation period i
X 13. will there be a problem of
housing within financial

x 14. Are a dtable business sites
available (List source)
15. Ik=bar months estimated to
' 1 J I
complete RELOCATICH six
t 4..1. _ . •
-- b -19-gS
Relocation Agmt Date
Farm 15.4 Revised 5/90
Approved Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Tgent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
FM206 DEPARTMENT Oil AGMINISTR~
116 WEST JONES STREETCza. 4
RALEIGH NORTH GAROLI7- L7603-8003
Ott 1 4 1
Z
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DIVISICN OF
HIGHWAYS
MAILED T0: FROM: F,y?,A?P
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MS. JEANETTE FURNEY
FRANK VICK ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
PLANN. 6 ENV. BRANCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 54y FROM I-40/85 TO
NC 119 IN GRAHAM TIP #R-2538
TYPE - SCOPING
THE N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 94E42200742. PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE.
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 05/04/94.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL (919) 733-72329

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET El VF
05-05-94 RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 276003
i - ?QY 0 9 199
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO: FROM:,
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
FRANK VICK DIRECTOR
PLANN. E ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 54, FROM I-40/85 TO
NC 119 IN GRAHAM TIP #R-2538
SAI NO 94E42200742 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO-THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].

C.C. REGION G
. srn.-F ..
`\ ORTH CAROLINA
•. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825 May 2, 1994
BOB ETHERIDGE
4,qte Superintendcnt
10
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
FROM: Charles H. Ita
intendent
Assistant er
ces
Auxiliary
QAV®aC
DIVISION of
y t HIGHWAYS `
RE: NC 54, from I-40/85 to NC 119, Graham, Alamance County, Federal-
Aid Project No. STP-54(1), State Project No. 8.1471101, TOP Project
R-2538
Please find attached communication from Dr. Frank Clements, Principal for
Alexander Wilson School in Alamance County, relative to subject project.
mrl

Enclosure

23 W NC 54 • Graham, NlZrih Carciina 27253
Frank W. Clements, Ed. D., Principal [phone]
! Cindy Rich, Secretary
April 25, 1994
Dr. Utley,
The proposal to widen N.C. 54 to five lanes will,
have a major impact on Alexander Wilson Elementary.
Of course, my response is without the benefit of
knowing how much school property is involved.
At this time, our school buses, both regular and
E.C., exit the campus on N.C. 54. I am concerned
about fourteen buses daily pulling onto a five lane
highway. The five E.C. buses all turn left out of the
bus parking lot onto N.C. 54 and this compounds my
concern. My recommendation is to relocate the bus
parking lot so that buses would use Highway 119 when
entering and leaving the campus.
Administrative and teacher parking lots may be
reduced in size. This potential reduction is dependent
on the amount and location of school property involved
in the proposal. The project does provide an opportunity
to design entrances and exits at Alexander Wilson to
smooth school traffic flow and reduce congestion on
N.C. 54
Traffic lights at the intersection of Highway 119
and N.C. 54 are already needed. The increased traffic
from highway expansion makes the traffic lights impertive.
I hope this information is beneficial. Please,
contact the school office if you need additional oT
different data.
State of North Carolina_ _
Health clnci Natura Resources 0 ° °
Office of Policy Development
James B. Hunt, Jr., Goveincr
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary John G. Humphrey, Director U-0 P-Q
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 94-0742 Scoping I-40/85 to NC 119 in Alamance County
DATE: April 27, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
list and describe information that is necessary for our divisions
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
r
attachments
FN)
PR 2 T i,,. .
P.O. Box 27687. Rdeigh, North Ccrorina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recyclod/ 10`S, post-consumer pap©r
State of North Carolinc
NJ-
Health anc. •,C~i ui ai ;;?
Division cf S ,' 3: wUcter 0,xisania i:;n
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
David W. Sides, Director
MEMORANDUM
ED E F=k
April 20, 1994
T0: Melba McGee ,?1 J?V
FROM: David Harrison .
SUBJECT: NC 54, from I-40/85 to NC 119 in Alamance County.
Project No. 94-0742.
The proposed improvements involve widening the existing 2-lane
section to a 5-lane curb and gutter. Work will also be done at
the bridge crossing Back Creek and the Haw River. The
Environmental Assessment should identify any unique, prime, and
important farmland that would be impacted by the project. A
wetlands evaluation should be included.
DH/tl

P.O. Box 27687, Rdeigh, North CoroGno 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employor 50%mcyclod/ 10% post-comumor popor

Smte -rY'? -1 Carolina
:?zFarunzrr? cr Livircr-mie--c, .:.? :-.. and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. N?arfn, Governor PROJECT RBV zW COHHHIUS Charles H. Gardner
Wllllam W. Cobey, Jr.. Secretary Director
Project Number: CI rl - -'? L/ Z County:
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
V This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
/ i
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental. Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
Y The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Sox 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity Alfirmadve Action Employer
• Mato of North CmUna
Clr„n'-n.lroo n? I...:r..{- 1 !glalel:', ?r1d ?latay^?' r`fc?sr*;?,
WTERGOYEFINMENTAL REY)E1Y - PROJECT COLWEIM
1 Reviewing O ico: se<.) I
Nurnoer. Due Date:
After rovi" Of this taroiect It has b *6n Wtrmtttld that the EHNR pzrmit(si andtor cpprovals Indicatad may need to be obtained in
order for atn project to campiy with North Carohnie Lraw,
__.wi_..w?.. .......•r.. wM..IA tb ddrCSAgd to the rt2aionnl Offi= Indicated on the Mvarza of t;te tWM
Quesilofu lapwrr•ay 4- a......... ?..??.? _------- -
Ali ailplicat}orts. fftforrttstion end guldelinas mlative to these plus and prmits art araitable from the tie
Nom, Process
lRepion? t?ffsta. Tema

.
FEREitfTta SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS otstutoty lri
tsnill
Penrtil to =n1lruet A operate wastewater trsatrsont Application CO Deus before login eonatru ton or award at ? pan
? 11=111539. rawer erstem extensions. A Grwet CanatrYCti*n Cotttrtde On•aita W4Pa:tian. POS140Pli: iOn
systems rrat orscharsing into Suit WrIscs Uslars. txnn,car conference crauW Co titeys)
NPDES •;3rm" to discharge Into auda:e water W4W Application 1CD pin tafore begin =1vity. OM01 inaction. 6FtID Gas's
? permit to operate and construct wastewater 9=11lian
rface wrim
ut
s
i Pre-tpphcation conference usual Additionally. Worn Parma to
crosuuct wastewater tmstmtnt fe:iiitt•gran?ed site, HPDES RQpiy
WlA)
u
aaycrttrgin2
e
nto B tint. = days after foctrpt of plans or faecal at tMES
parrmtt whlcnsver to titer.
? ern
d ay
? Water U= Prins Pta?plicatiCn Uzhn+..1 conference usually ratcsUzry F
7 ago

? Welt Consutlciion Poston cicmpNte ADplication must be recti?d end parmn ?d
poor to tat mau+istion of A "I.
cos pays)
Application copy must be serre0 on each adjacent npa•isn Property LS days
Dredge care Via Pwml owner On•slte Inspection. Pre-opplication conference usual Fitting
1
(M da
s)
may raquirt Easement to lA from WC Deoanm3nl c y
Administration end Faderst Drsdgit c?td Fie ParrM.
Permit to consliwo A ope:att Air Pollution Abatement Pi0 days
(W days)
? fa:itdirs anato! Emission Sources ss per 15A NCAC 21H WA
Any open burning asso:rated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with tSA NCAC 20D=.
Demohtlon or renovations of structures containing EO drys
asbestos malaria! must be In compliance with 15A
? NCAC 2D MI. which requires notification and lomOv'..h t to
prior to demolition Contact Asbestos Control Grog
L7X days)
919 73"B"
Comptes Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0h/p0.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1913 must be property addressed for any land drsturbin? activity. An erosion t sedimentatro
30
ionar Office Rend Oualrry Ss:t.l a+ reset
roxy Rs
ith
fil
d

TO pan
p
p
w
e
control plan will be required If one or more acres to be disturbed Plan
of M for the first acre a-0 52000 for eats' sdd-nona' a:,t Of aA must accom an the tan
A f 30 days)
? ee
dris Wort be^•nn.n a:trv0
The Sadimanlat/on Pollution Control Act of 1913 must be addresses with respect to the Wettenced Local prdinancd: r 00 days)
On site inspection usual Surety bond fileC wiln EHNR Bono amount
? ).thing Parr at varies with type mint and number of acres of affected land Any site
nale bond
it
The a
ro
d
t 30 day
t5o days)'
pp
p
be perin
e
.
mined greater than one acro mus
must be received before the permit can be issued.

r .
NOnh Carolina Burning perms on-slit lnspection by NC. Division Forest Resources If ptrrnit

s
4 dr
d 1 dry

(NIA)
y
eacec
s
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit •22
On-siie inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -It more
ons
t
t day
(NIA)
? Counties In Coedit H.C. with otganlc sollll i
than Gre acres of ground clearing activities are involved In7pec
s before actual burn It planned.'
ast ten da
t
t f
d
y
e
a
e
should be reques
90120 days

C1 •
i
ili
F ? _
WA •(N:A)
t
es
Oil Relining
ac
,
If permit required. a;p?ication 601days before brgin construction. 30 days
Appticanl must hire N C. Qustif.ed engineer to prepare plans,
? D.m Safety Permit,
• Inspect eonstruc.'::, eer'!;•• onstfuction It, acco,ding to CHNR *;Prorr'
ed plans. Way also luquirt kinit under mosqu;lo control program. And 1G0 drys)
a 404 ptimit from Corps of Eng:ncers An inspection of site is nacte•
. sa-y to verily Ifa:ard Classification. A minimum Ice of i2?: (b must ate

• tom;any the applk.&Non. An add$:unar processing fee baled On a
1 •r d on Com Oletion
• I 1 'i' t
t
w?.??nla?• or the 1c.2 P10ject COS Mi . •tqV• t VG

Normal process
VERMI'M SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREME1TS tstuut°rT lama
E:i+it1
Flk Surety bond of 95x000 wtM EHNR running to SWI d ci.C 12 ca
ftm9t to 0a aLOW1111xY oN w on won oonaitfonal that any well epened try Orin operator Wll. QUA)
abar?donrrnt. to piuggeo accoming to EMNR ruin Gnd r3ptAsti rs.
GOOD"" Eiplora m Pwftt Application 111Q with EMNR at past 10 Can prior to bun Gf p:rrA W gays
Application by tatter. No stanCsrO t.ppt"oon toinn, 99A)
aim IMAM Corratrucuon Po met Avoliution lee buad at strvcium size is eh irpao Wat I:blw^a W."a CM
aisuriptwni i Drawings of structure Z proof of ownership QUA)
Or riparian pow Y.
CO Gays
4M Water Ouanty Cwtflrcatron Cal 0:0 cars!
65 Gays
CAUA Fernn to MAJOR d"eftw oM VW= tae RvM Cccornpany =pk---ti:mn (150 Gays)
22 Gays
CAUA Permit 1a MINOR oe"lopmont 950.00 tee must c: orr?wy c;Viutgn as days)
Several geodetic nwrwnwnts an located in or now the protect area tt amt monuments h"d to be mowed of Gestroreo. plisse eatdY.
NZ 6sooalic sWV6J. doe 2Tti. Raleigh, t1.C. Val1
Abar4ww nit of any wens. H ratiuir.e. must be in accordance with Title 1SA. 5vbcnaptor:=CO.
Notifrcatrtu? of ilia proper mgioW othu is tpuwsted 0 -orphW underground alwape trs nU LASTSj are discoverea during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NG?C 2M t000 (Coastal Stonnwater itutetl is npuirad. AS Gays
(NIA)
Atha comments (attach aocihonal pages as necessary, being certain to cite commant autnonty):

l ? f

L
L
C
L
REGIONAL. OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be'addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
?Asheville Regional Office ?Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodlin Place
NC 28801
Asheville Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville. NC 28301 •
.
(7041 2516208 [phone] _
? mooresville Regional Office ? Ra'eiph Regional Office
Suite 101
35')0 Earrett Drive
919 North Main Street. P.O. Box 450
Mooresville. NC 28115 .
Ra'ei9h. NC 27609
3
(7041663-1629 33-2314
(9191
O Washington Regional Office ?1'.7mincton Regional Office
127 Cardinal Orr.•e Extension
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington:NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28,105
(919) 9--66481 [phone]
L
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
David Cox, Highway Projects
Habitat Conservation Program
April 22, 1994
Coordinator
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for NC 54, from I-40/85 to NC
119, Alamance County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-
2538, SCH Project No. 94-0742.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed improvements, and our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
This project involves widening NC 54 from a 2-lane
section to a 5-lane curb and gutter section. The bfidge
over Back Creek is to be widened and the bridge over the Haw
River replaced. Land use along the project is mostly
residential development with some commercial sites.
The NCWRC is concerned about potential impacts to the
Haw River and Back Creek. The replacement bridge over the
Haw River should be designed to span a distance similar to
the existing structure. This will allow for wildlife
movements along the riparian corridor as well as avoiding
any further floodplain impacts. Also Best Management
Practices should be used when rehabilitating or
reconstructing these facilities.
Memo Page 2 April 22, 1994
review process, cur general informational needs are outlined
below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project construction
should be included in the inventories. A listing
of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered
Species Program maintains databases for locations
of vertebrate wildlife species. While there is no
charge for the list, a service charge for computer
time is involved. Additional information may be
obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Section
N. C. Wildlife?Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project. The need for channelizing or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
Memc Page 3 April 22, 1994
Engineers (COE). If -the CD7 the
person delineating wets identified
and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary
development facilitated by the improved road
access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be
coordinated with other state, municipal, or
private development projects, a description of
these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors
should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please contact David Cox,. Highway
Projects Coordinator, at [phone].
cc: Larry Warlick, District 5 Wildlife Biologist
Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
St fte of Nor-4-i Carolina
Health and Natural Resources 00 o .
Division or cnviron-neraci',Acncgerr,el 'c
?r
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jcnct'=^ B. Howes. 52crE, 'cry
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 25, 1994
MEMORAIMUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart",' Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0742; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 54 in Graham
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stzdam channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated. .
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed. '
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
P.O. Box 29535. Rdoigh. North Carorna 27626-0535 Telephono 919-733-7015 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmativo Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
April 25, 1974
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to, help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. on-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over'out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written' concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10582er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
r

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Huat, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 28, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Broo
Deputy State Historic Preservation Offi r
1,1 AY 0 2 1994
Ps z/
2 n!V.ISIC^1 OF - ???
SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 54 from 1-40/1-85 to NC 19, Graham,
Alamance County, R-2538, 8.1471101, STP-54(1), 94-E-
4220-0742
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse.
Carl Lounsbury conducted a survey of historic architectural resources in Alamance County
in 1980. We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area.
Since the historic architectural survey of Alamance County was conducted over a decade
ago, properties which may be eligible for the National Register may be located in the area of
potential effect. We recommend that an architectural historian survey and evaluate any
properties over fifty years of age which were not recorded during the 1980 survey.
Archaeological site 31 AM210 is likely to be affected by the proposed project, and site
31 AM228 is located in the project vicinity. Neither of these sites is eligible for the National
Register and no investigation of these sites is recommended. The major portion of the
project area has never been surveyed. The area of the Haw River crossing and the eastern
portion of the project are likely to contain significant archaeological resources. We
recommend that these areas be surveyed prior to project implementation.
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
B. Church
T. Padgett
N. Graf
109 East Joaes Street - Raleigh, North Caroliaa 27601-2807

s-

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary C E
November 14, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
NOV 1 7 1994
Department of Transportation 2
310 New Bern Avenue 2 D?V?S?C?4 OF
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 HIGHWWN.,
Re: Archaeological Survey Report, widening NC 54 ???'/RON
from SR 2106 (just east of 1-85/40) to NC 119,
Graham, Alamance County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-54(1), TIP R-2538, ER 95-7688
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1994, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by John Mintz of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
concerning the above project.
Only one prehistoric archaeological site was recorded during the course of the
survey and this site (31 AM359) is located outside the area of potential effect. We
do not recommend any additional archaeological. investigation in connection with
this project as proposed and concur with your determination that no National
Register-eligible archaeological resources will be affected by this project.
Before we can complete our file on this project, Mr. Mintz needs to submit a
completed archaeological site form for 31 AM359. Although the site is located
outside of the area of potential effect and will not be affected by the road
widening, documentation is incomplete without the archaeological site form.
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,
2Q? ° -:
?3y David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slVHF.'Vick
cc: T. Padgett
J. Mintz 109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
a,? In?J C?- ce?D I'rLA

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
January 31, 1995 Nicholas L. Graf
C
Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for widening of NC 54 from SR 2106 to NC 119, Alamance
County, R-2538, STP-54(1), 8.1471101, ER 95-
8226
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of January 19, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Scott Owen concerning the above project.
We concur that properties #1-16 are not eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
loi
DviDvid ely, -
Broo k
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:sl?w?
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigb, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q:1?P
PQ . r? PRIDE I
z? 7JrL' ?? _: to tPg C'f _ilterior AMERICA
FISH r11,1D WILDLIFE SERVICE '° v
M4gCH ?0?? Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726 F / L
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 /<17C
pril 19, 1994
A
ti? DIVlS1CV O;'
HrC3H
Mr. H. Franklin VickWAYS
Planning and Environmental Branch ??RONN(EP?
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of March 29, 1994 requesting
information on evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
the proposal by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) to widen NC 54 from I-40/85 to NC 119 near Graham, Alamance
County, North Carolina (TIP Project R-2538). The comments of the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are provided in
accordance with 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 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by NCDOT calls for the widening of NC 54.along
its present path from the existing 2-lanes to a 5-lane curb and
gutter facility. The bridge at Back creek will be retained and
widened and the bridge over the Haw River will be replaced. We
estimate that the total length of the project is approximately 3.5
miles.
The Ser :•icc has e;:amined the pr_.orosed corridor oh both the
topographic map and the National Wetlands Inventory map'(Burlington
and Mebane quadrangles). Based on this review the project area
does not appear to have any major wetlands in the direct project
path. The major waterways to be crossed are the Haw River and Back
Creek. There appear to be some minor streams and/or drainage
ditches near the corridor. We would like to emphasize that it is
the responsibility of.NCDOT to determine the amount of wetlands to
be impacted by this project and to obtain any necessary permits
from the. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. If this project results in
wetland impacts, we will recommend avoidance and minimization.
Should unavoidable impacts remain after the above actions, a
compensatory mitigation plan will be required.
4PR 2 5
z
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed species which
occur in Alamance Coun.v. At the prasert _ime no endangered
species are known to occur in the county. Therefore, an endangered
species survey along the proposed corridor will not be required.
However, we recommend that NCDOT survey for the single candidate
species, the sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata), since this
species could become officially listed as threatened or endangered
in the future. If new species are listed for Alamance County, a
new survey may be required. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program should be contacted for information on species under state
protection.
The environmental review of uplands should include a brief
description of the habitats or forest cover types which will be
affected by the project. This should include a general evaluation
of the wildlife resources using these areas.
The wetlands part of the environmental review should include:
1. a description of the wetland types which will be
impacted. This should follow the wetland
classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory.
2. the acreage of each wetland type to be impacted.
Wetland acreages should be determined in accordance
with the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delihea
3. the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
The environmental review should evaluate various alignments and
construction techniques. This section should demonstrate the
amount of impacts on uplands and wetlands for each alignment and/or
construction technique. For a road widening such as this project,
symmetrical versus asymmetrical designs should be evaluated. The
Service is particularly concerned about potential impacts on stream
and river ecosystems and associated wetlands within' the project
corridor. Special care should be exercised in thg design and
construction of all stream crossing structures. This section of
s the review should conclude with a statement of the selected
f alignment and general construction techniques. The discussion
should indicate that the selected procedures are the least damaging
to fish and wildlife resources or the reasons for selecting the
proposed alternative.
! If the necessary funding .and permits for this project are obtained,
we recommend-that the project contract specifications require the
following measures during construction in or near wetland areas:
1. When project construction is initiated, complete all
work quickly to minimize the period of environmental
disturbance;
2. Minimize the disturbance or destruction of vegetation;
3. During and after construction, maintain existing
elevations and natural flow regimes in both flowing and
standing water areas;
4. If construction of the existing roadway reduced or
completely blocked natural water flow patterns in
nearby wetlands, restore these patterns during the
present construction; and,
5. Follow all applicable best management practices to
avoid increased sedimentation in adjacent wetlands and
waterways.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
Please continue to advise us of the progress of this project,
including your official determination of the impacts of all
project-related construction. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard
Hall, the biologist reviewing this project, at [phone].

enclosure
Sincerely yours,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Field Supervisor

a
REVISED MAY 18, 1993
Alamance County
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) 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 threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) - C2
r
s
a
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
q
TO: M
,BLDG.
O
O
REF. NO. OR R
//
r ' .I L./ Gr1 VM/ 11 ?? ,y
{'-
?
?
TA m 1 Dn 0 g
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
A. -pt ?
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

' s

i?

STATE u
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
Review of Scoping Sheets for NC 54 from I-40/85 to
NC 119, Graham, Alamance County, R-2538
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for March 3, 1994 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Angela H. Smith, Project Planning Engineer, at 1733-7842.
AHS/pl r ?Wvl ?? C NS ?.1 l .
Attachment _ NI5IA /? , / f /

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 2-1-94
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning
Design
TIP # R-2538
Project # 8.1471101
F.A. Project # STP-54(1)
Division 7
County ALAMANCE
Route NC 54 Functional Classification MINOR ARTERIAL
Length 3.3 MILES
Purpose of Project:
WIDEN EXISTING ROADWAY TO IMPROVE SAFETY AND CAPACITY.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work:
WIDEN EXISTING 2-LANE FACILITY TO A 5-LANE CURB AND GUTTER
SECTION, FROM SR 2106 (JUST EAST OF I-40/85 INTERCHANGE) TO
NC 119.
ALL WIDENING TO BE SYMMETRIC ABOUT THE CENTERLINE
WIDEN BRIDGES AT BACK CREEK (BRIDGE #34) AND AT HAW CREEK
(BRIDGE #70), RECOMMEND A NEW BRIDGE AT HAW RIVER (BRIDGE #11
WAS BUILT IN 1928 AND RECONSTRUCTED AND WIDENED IN 1973)
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No _X
If yes, by whom and amount: ( $ ) or ( o )
How and when will this be paid?
Page 1
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility: URBAN
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None _X
Type of Roadway: MINOR ARTERIAL
Interchanges Grade Separations Stream Crossings 3
Typical Section of Roadway: 2-LANE, 24-FOOT PAVEMENT
Traffic: Current Design Year
% Trucks
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO _X 3R
Design speed: 45 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . . .
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary Engineering..._.
Total Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$
$ 8,200,000
$ 8,200,000
$ 700,000
$ 8,900,000
Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED ( ) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
_X _ Pavement
_X_ Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,633,280
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 657 , 080
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $ 344,960
_X_ Drainage (List any special items) $ 800,000
Sub-Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x $
_ X_ New Bridges x $ 1,138,864
_ X_ Widen Bridge x $ 407,040
_ X_ Remove Bridge x $ 83,424
New Culverts: Size Length $
Fill Ht.
_ X_ Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 38,040
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
Noise Walls . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures. $
_X_ Concrete Curb & Gutter.(21-611). . . . . . . $ 380,160
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. $
_X_ Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 81,000
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
_X_ Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 80,000
Signing: New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading. . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . $
RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms. . . . $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade . $ -
_X_ Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo _X_ . $ 72,000
Markers _X
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Delineators . . $
_X_ Other misc. & mob., clear & grubbing . $ 1,384,152
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 7,100,000
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,100,000
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subtotal: $ 8,200,000
_X_ Right of Way:
_X_ Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes _X_ No
_X_ Existing Right of Way Width: 100 FEET
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
_X_ Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
_X_ Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost
(Includes R/W)
Prepared By: ANGELA H. SMITH Date:

2-1-94
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
-County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Manager, Program
Development Branch
Asst. Highway Admin.
Secondary Roads off.
Construction Branch
Landscape
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Chief Engineer
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
Page 4

l . s°yy
A 4)
-?,?? _ ,•' , esq./? ??/?•-f??? .(???.??? " .- _ ??. ;.?y, ? ?. ??•?.6? \. I' 'R J',??,? " r71 ?? ?% ?' 1?,? -;
- ;?? / f./ b(?? ?! J`1j?/,???-'?.?-? /? :v 1 ` yt??.,\ . r/ 1)`?\? ????'?iNl/+_?? ?r? ? :Ya'"•?? iti?
`_' ? . (? NON{y^ ? ?. a ?? '?11\? i , _ -?1.' ?, ??i R ? s ? ?.L-t? .o ? y? ej•
C3? `\?' A tel. •;, '?G \ `_--?.V "?.( '1:
Sol,
04 1
' ? ? __? __ .i. sue". ,? ??\/?, •?-?. ??? I ?,,. ? {,? ?a.y? iJ. ?'A `: i J ? ? J ,????,_ y ? .? ? ,
_ ?? ? ; ? ??• ? ? o?. ? \ ° ? / ? ?? ? a a ?? I? ??l\?,C ???,'<R'„ ?,/ i? ?,? %I ?? ?? ter- ! ?.
y? SS-
-
1 1 / i 40P."
` 1 . ?• Ufa ,? ,I I f ?/ '. \sfl.Z T~ // AZT
2106
' - ?I ?\ i\• ?y? _O?11??-.? ?? y r A \.?'
.-!??? i x i? J?q ." ,f? '??) I? e.. J ..:. ? F+ j i ??1?I I mil` ? -_,, -I r-.i ?\ ?
,
rr ?> I ?? I ? ?? ? ? ?{• ? L h 7. ?
ors - ??-?1 f _• S' u` /'` 1A ?`' > l / -.? '`?,?.. v [V? 'V%J ,?J_. _v 1
U ;1"
?1 z '?? "?? I ? r v r A
ST,
A/
13c
r ?
too
TOW
>?`.?, i Ili .-?7 •9?( r ?/I I? V' 1?1 '?r //y/>(?,\,?/`1
LIN
1 RY +'? llt \ z l ! \ /i` ?? a? - ?• ?-'
fit i1il
?? ?1`=.?A??c`a, ?.,,?'?(;?'t? v< Y ? j1i1;v 1v J°'y?tZ,a? A. $?
... ? t?, / /I"'?-/:" \??\?`??/-??1 / ? axe ` ? 1 ? 'Y?, _ •?/
? a 611
j z :9 w t7 a _ i -? , r??? C - u
o Y?/ 1 illy //? ! 1' ?, `- 1 r?r ~ f?.
i ?
-tic
a,
/
r \

April 25, 1994
101pf rfe L:lz 6 11 ? I
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihar*, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0742; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 54 in Graham
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.

Melba McGee
April 25, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10582er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP
_ DATE
TO:
,mi 1C- GA z A Ivtp, REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
DM
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
7
A, 4. SNt in-. - ? ?
/
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

15 f9°
WERANTS G
IVATER QUALITY

` MAR I 1994
WETLANDS G "6t' 6
WATER QUIiUTY S-rr;<Il
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR RO. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 10, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Angela H. Smith A•HS
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for R-2538, NC 54 from SR 2106 (just east
of I-40/85 interchange) to NC 119, Alamance County, State
Project No. 8.1471101, Federal-Aid Project No. STP-54(1)
The following were in attendance at the March 3, 1994 scoping meeting:
John Taylor Roadway Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
Danny Rogers Program Development
Sid Autry Location and Surveys
Eddie Hales Geotechnical
Don Sellers Right of Way
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
David Cox NCWRC
Wanda James Traffic Control
Keith Johnston Photogrammetry
Hubert Thaggard Roadway Design
Dave Kolmer Roadway Design
Linwood Stone Planning and Environmental
Angela Smith Planning and Environmental
The length of the project is 5.3 kilometers (3.3 miles). The project was
originally scheduled in the TIP to extend for 32.2 kilometers (20 miles) to
Chapel Hill, but strong public opposition succeeded in reduction of the
project length.
The project calls for widening the existing 2-lane, 7.2 meter (24 foot)
section to a 5-lane, 19.2 meter (64 foot) curb and gutter section. The
design speed is recommended to be 80 kilometers/hour (50 mph). A shoulder
section is not appropriate due to the existing roadside development and the
additional right of way that would be required.
0
March 10, 1994
Page 2
It is anticipated that widening can generally be accomplished
symmetrically about the centerline within the existing right of way width of
30.5 meters (100 feet) from the interchange to SR 2109 (just west of the Haw
River) and 36.6 meters (120 feet) for the remainder of the project.
Asymmetric widening to the south is recommended for Bridge #11 at the Haw
River mainly because traffic must be maintained during construction.
Widening to the south will also help avoid impacting the Riverside Church
located on the north side of NC 54 just west of the bridge. However, an
abandoned service station with questionable soil contamination is located on
the south side where asymmetric widening is proposed. Widening to the south
will require close coordination with the Geotechnical Unit to determine the
extent of involvement with the UST site (see later paragraph for UST
discussion). The existing right of way limits will be investigated to ensure
they are accurate.
It is anticipated Bridge #34 at Back Creek can be retained and widened
but Bridge #11 at Haw River will require replacement (the sufficiency rating
dropped from 85 in 1990 to 65 in 1994). Traffic Engineering specified the
need for at least a 9.6 meter (32 foot) clear roadway width on the existing
bridge during construction (the existing structure width is 13.2 meters (44
feet)). The existing structure will be analyzed to determine whether it can
withstand construction impacts and adequately support detour traffic (this
will determine the ultimate clear roadway width on the detour). Note that
Bridge #70 is not part of this project as indicated on the scoping sheets.
The Division indicated that they do not anticipate any major problems
with the proposed project.
The FHWA was concerned with the proximity to Alexander Wilson School
(located at NC 119) and the radio towers (located on the south side of NC 54,
east of SR 2183). The playground areas of the school-are located behind the
school and the radio towers will not be impacted. They also stated that
Bridge #11 has no historical significance. The FHWA questioned whether the
project area is in a Critical Watershed Area, but the Environmental
Sensitivity Base map indicates it is not.
Utilities were located throughout the project length. A power
transmission line crosses NC 54 west of SR 2109. The Orange-Alamance Water
System has waterlines along NC 54 predominantly on the west side. MCI and
Southern Bell have fiber optics lines along NC 54. A sewer district is
located around NC 119 and serves the Honda Plant. Piedmont Natural Gas
Company has two transmission lines along NC 54 and plans to locate a major
transmission line on the City of Graham s right of way along the west bank of
the Haw River.
Two facilities were identified as having the possibility for UST's along
the project. One is located on the south side of NC 54, east of SR 2183 and
is operational. The closest point of the UST to the centerline of NC 54 is
18.0 meters (59 feet) and there appears to be a high probability of soil
contamination. The other UST is also located on the south side of NC 54
immediately east of SR 2109 and is non-operational. The tanks have been
removed from the site but no information is available concerning
contamination. The pit from which the UST's were removed, is approximately
March 10, 1994
Page 3
18.9 meters (62 feet) from the centerline of NC 54. Due to lack of
information concerning contamination of these sites, it is recommended that
both sites be avoided by purchasing additional right of way and widening
asymmetrical in these areas.
Traffic Engineering requested that the limits be extended to include a
westbound left turn lane on NC 54 at the NC 119 intersection. The existing
roadway includes a westbound left turn lane which will be retained and
upgraded to align with the new cross section of NC 54.
Statewide Planning requested that we include planning and preliminary
design for a future interchange of the planned NC 87 Northeast Bypass (U-2502
identified as a future need in the TIP). The Northeast Bypass will cross NC
54 approximately 0.87 kilometer (0.54 mile) north of the Haw River. This
will not be included in R-2538 since it is beyond the scope of this project.
Project I-303, which was recently constructed, included Y-line
improvements to NC 54 which extended the 5-lane section east to SR 2106.
Existing average daily traffic volumes along NC 54 is approximately
10,700 vehicles per day (vpd) and 2010 volumes vary from 12,000 to
14,150 vpd.
The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) noted the water bodies
crossed by this project: Town Branch Creek (a tributary to Haw River), the
Haw River and two unnamed tributaries, and Back Creek. All these creeks are
classified as Class C nutrient sensitive. DEM will require normal soil and
erosion control measures during construction and has no additional concerns
unless Fish and Wildlife identifies threatened and endangered species in the
project area.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) did not
identify any threatened and endangered species, however, the final
determination will be made by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There is
moderate fishing in the Haw River so Best Management Practices are
recommended to be followed during project construction. Since there is
significant wildlife traffic under the bridge, NCWRC recommends that
sufficient width under the new bridge is retained to allow this activity to
continue.
No historic or state study properties were identified along the project,
but the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will request a survey to
check for potentially eligible properties. An archaeological survey along
the Haw River is anticipated to be required.
No formal Bicycle routes are planned by the DOT Bicycle section, however
it was mentioned that Alamance County may have some plans. Alamance County
and the City of Graham currently do not have any bicycle routes planned for
the project area.
March 10, 1994
Page 4
The construction cost estimate, completed in 1990, shows $8.2 million
for construction and $700,000 for right of way (utilities) for a total of
$8.9 million. The original estimate limits extended to SR 2138 east of Haw
Creek, an additional 1310 meter (4300 foot) section.
The TIP shows right of way acquisition in fiscal year 1997 and
construction in 1998. Roadway Design indicated they will prepare a design
and cost estimates by the end of June. We anticipate having the Environmental
Assessment completed by October 1994 and a FONSI in April 1995.
AHS/plr
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA,IION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE

v
j
TO:
?IL GA L/a?_S R
C F. NO. OR
ROO M, DLDG.
DEA--ID
FROtA: REF. NO. OR ROOM, DLOG.

1 774
5M
-p A
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR PEOUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ADOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

WET L>__,

e.SAQ
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 29, 1994
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
OEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager /LG'•''_40
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: NC 54, from I-40/85 to NC 119, Graham, Alamance County,
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-54(1), State Project No.
8.1471101, TIP Project R-2538
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to NC 54 in Graham. The project is
included in the 1994-2000 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1997 and construction in
fiscal year 1998.
The proposed project is located south of Graham along NC 54. It is
proposed to widen the existing 2-lane section to a 5-lane curb and gutter
section. Bridge No. 34 at Back Creek is anticipated to be retained and
widened and Bridge No. 11 at Haw River is recommended to be replaced.
Traffic will be maintained during construction.
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 April 29, 1994 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact
Angela H. Smith, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment

I?IQ I I7]6 _ _ _ r ?S
.1 SOUIH
719 0.d. 06 'J 1_9I I f ??1 2016 1pI J- J.
FAU ?1t 'Qf, .Jn
1771
r
r 1720 - FAU 41 Mon \\ CJIo `I' I
I I I
a'o 1719 69 ` LSatellite of
I
Haw River
Crrrk
12
16 85 2216 tr UR6
2796 FAU E Pork St. fAU /
ref
67 L
1110
1965 ` 1961 ,971`
_ e6 2110
c o3 , J i
U` B.-ch
e _
t1J. lo
81
1716
1961 d t ?. 1967
50 PAP .56 ?
W. Hord- St. 1961- ._ ® f F
E Hard- St. ?•? -rA, _ a6 65 7J MI 65
I ? .I6 - FC4\i
.50
GRAHAM _ Z-1 I .-j
POP. 8,674 LIDO of 2UA
..6 Ivr1,C' ? JJ25 ~? 1 .`F ??r H
2766 F` i 2226
.20 h 'J o? 1271 I
noo oy ?_? 9 i
J
`
EGilb-th 6 f,U 03 / °S 57 2211 2;-6 W1 /
sr, •? 15 919L
7100 / 1916
A ?I
.. ° ` i1!i 22,7 - w 2108
Z.1 °.Z.1
/? .
t? .02
ay. 71 7 n 7
./v a ILpS 6
. ` .•? 0
ij
r r ? C? _ L
ZIL4
87
a t. ?
0 ? ?o rr.r sl. 1^` 772} 11I
\ tb ? o
r I
n 2709 _.. _.• _.. 1 \JT ?? ,923 7
•`5101 .17
3 5t 14, / \\ y? qj , .ya 1176
ti L4P
.' 11ll ,
' .60 .50 t 11 05
(`?r '? i .C? ]7Z 21a 1 1 10 7175 ?t
211_
J, o e 2 Ill
2111
711! ?° 7117 C6 -0Y ? \
.20 7311 .JI ? `?
71 v7 0
r'?: a5 i ?2
219 2191 / , .
r Jo t . X9.6. \ .2 0. .15 .151 0 / \\\ ms Ii 22r.
] 9] n /
o• ° 7 5
.° o,.
u 9Q6 11 08 ?% \ F\+r.? 21.47' .710.7 0__ 77=6 - 2176
-IL
!2 9 ?i] o l '?ts 1116 .•rJ? 2 05 11 S 27
O .moo a
r
l i 7417 6° 9. 116 ?s L 231.87 o.7 r3? 2 9 ° `-.JJ-il_? 3? IL.2tr 6 :-f ,___-r.,. 7 22ca (// / i 7226 J-
2113 ? 1 1 t' 5
soY p 1?os
9
1 2222 r ?° 2177
119
7Lo4 2116
J A6 7156
123 J"
1 < `
212 9"
7' I1J! )) ` 231 2157
f 72!2
PAS 66 1 7 - / / 7p II70 21$
.
2156 \ ^ 'i0 O ..2
\ 09 2161 71'.
\\ JIS] 2160 OS S
,g .? 51 f
/ •rJ Swepsmvill?
R-2538 a0 ,J?
/1:26
•o
234 ros 274!
9C 54, 1-40/85 AT GRAHAM ?I }6
7L3
TO NC 119 1, 22'1; 1191 0 271
ALAMANCE COUNTY
1. 7 .U
\ w 1156
SCALE: 1' Q 0.5 mile
,. swF
t s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NoRR1S TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 24, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office IJOII03S A111V110 831b
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 400 SaIJV1J31,4
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer ?I f
NCDOT Coordinator I
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer,
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR A NATIONWIDE PERMIT 12, TIP R-2538,
ALAMANCE COUNTY.
On January 11, 1999, the North Carolina Department of Transportation submitted
an application for a Nationwide Permit No. 14 for the widening of NC 54 to a multi-lane
undivided facility. As of this date the NWP 14 has not been received. On March 12,
1999, the North Carolina Department of Transportation submitted an application for a
Nationwide Permit No. 33, and this permit was approved on March 23, 1999, by
USACOE regulatory project manager, John Thomas, Jr.
The total project distance is 3.14 miles, extending from I-40 in Graham to NC
119. It has subsequently been determined that utility construction, regarding the
replacement of a water line under Town Creek, will need to be performed. Detailed plans
and a PCN form are attached.
Utility construction consists of the installation of an 8 in (200mm) water line
under Town Creek. Total length of the installation is 4941 ft (1506 m). The length of
water line installation under Town Creek is 30 ft (9 m). Upon completion of all in-stream
work, preconstruction contours will be restored in the stream bed. All material resulting
from excavation in the stream will be placed so that it is not dispersed by currents or
other forces. Any excess material will be removed to upland areas and exposed stream
banks stabilized immediately upon completion. Enclosed are sketches of the structures,
project site map and preconstruction notification form for the utility line replacement.
V.V
Utility construction will not impact federally protected species. As of January 15,
1999 the US Fish and Wildlife Service does not list any federally protected species for
Alamance County.
It is anticipated that the above mentioned activities will be authorized under
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 12 (Utility Line Discharges) and NCDOT is requesting
the issuance of the permit. By copy of this letter, it is also requested that a General Water
Quality Certification be issued by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. If you
have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Bruce Ellis at
[phone].
Sincerely,

William D. Gilmore, PE, Branch Manage--
Planning Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. John Watkins, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
I
DWQ ID: 990038
CORPS ACTION ID:199602000
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT
#) : 12
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION
APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE
APPROPRIATE FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE T.C.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES
SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 25201
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF
DIFFERENT
FROM MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): 919-733-
3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE
OFFICIAL, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore , P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Alamance NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Graham
T
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Widening of NC 54 from I40-85 to NC 119
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN: Cape Fear
Town Creek
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL
SALTWATER (SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING
RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ]
NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ]
NO [X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE
PAGE 7 FOR LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE
PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION? No
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED
FOR USE ON THIS PROPERTY? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, PROVIDE
ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401 CERTIFICATION): An
application for a Nationwide Permit number 14 was submitted on
11 January 1999, and a Nationwide Permit No. 33 has been
approved for this project (USACOE action ID no. 199602000)
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY
IN THE FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED
WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON
PROJECT SITE:
0.0
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0.0 EXCAVATION: 0.0
FLOODING: OTHER:
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
i
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT (IF RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER
RELOCATION) :
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours):
Variable FT
WIDTH AFTER: Variable FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: Variable FT AFTER: Variable
FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF
THE WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPL
OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11"
DRAWINGS ONLY: Installation of an 8 in (200 mm) waterline
under Town Creek.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Relocation of a public water
line due to widening of NC 54
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST
BE CARRIED OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO
MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE (USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
(NMFS) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF
ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR
THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: previosly submitted (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM
THESE AGENCIES.)
P
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET)
REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT
AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE
CONTACTED: previoulsy submitted
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
OR THE USE OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [I
IF ANSWER.TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION
FROM THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS
SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,
116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003,
TELEPHONE [phone].
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS
APPLICATION IF PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF
EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS,
STREAMS, LAKES AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE
PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS
(INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON
THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1 INCH
EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS
TO BE IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE
ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF
REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Rural
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE
DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF
APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED
PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEER
PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY)
CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER
FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
STATING THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM:.
7/ c -1;a ? 1') --z' Gl,?
OWNER S/AGENT,S SIGNATURE
4-241fil
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))

N
?I
z?

?I
V?i
I?
Im
N
III I gm
NjC6

? I

? U

O
U ?

N
X
0

w
? w / LIJ
Q
z
< Qo/
FC)
? ?- / C? -
tx?
W'
? ??
?? o
.? C
Q
OC)
I _

i
/?I I p - i
J
of I -? ? ? -
wF f 1

J " U
u :i,
? {
i
I
I z 0
i -? ./
I I?
i

_ CD i

;
LL J

?°

NCI ?

?- C6
ti
y Co
N

Qo

N <E

+ Ln / n-
< ???.51 I' CL
Q2j- -m
o
CO =
LLJ ?I
. ,, Q
PROJECT: 8.1471 101(R-2538) STA. 16+73.
NOTES:
TEMPORARY FILL IN SURFACE
WATERS=0.0001 HECTARE
TRENCH WIDTH=0.81m
LENGTH OF THE WATER LINE UNDER CREEK = 9 m
SANDBAGS AND CLASS I AND CALSS 11 SHALL BE THE SECOND OPTION.
le?s? C??1 one 7- 5D 412-T
ask. f?r kffDEe.
4ait?' r-L

CULVERT SURVEY & HYDRAULIC DESIGN REPORT
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HYDRAULIC DESIGN UNIT
RALEIGH. N. C.
D. No. __ R _ 253 ------ Project No. --- $ -14 l l o 1--------------- Prof. Station __ t_ D3, laLl l - (?\_-----
;ounty ----------- Stream --------------------------- Stru. No.. c3y-7--
in Highway ---(?fG 54-----------------• Between __S2.2,o-7 ----------- and ----5-2183------------------------
ecommended Structure --------------------------------- 1(?
-- ?, ?_.L1 x 1.\ A?(> 1 ?, 11 x 1.1
------ - -------------------------- --- ---------------
----- Cdc,-- -r- --`sc--- ?t?L C AI`??o OWT?-Z c
- - - Cf?D,?ALLS
-------------------------- -- -------------------- ----------------------------------------
'ecommended Location is Up,_ At Down Stream from Existing Crossing. Skew ______ Cot

ecommended
Width of Roadway ______
19.2_ r-;,-) ___ F - F------------------------ m
ench Mark is _L y-- ----1rfC----? ZLZq. \?1'1
- - - -
---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------- ----- ----------------- --- Elev. _15-1, OL1?-----m Datum:
emporary Crossing ---?ioT _RF?'1c?i R= --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
;signed by: -------- H!NES-- E----------------------
:sisted by: ------- =):_?r14Tan/
------------------------------
oject Engineer: -__ Nin1E.-; P, E,
----------------
viewed & Approved by: ---- --------------------- Date
f • :. .1
`f ? 23 l4-i
I
1., ?-. `?'?'. ?r+iw.d'?rr€=??'?'SF'..?? ?"v"?^F•. - .. _ _ .T -..:.;?C- =e?,?p :-u r.?.? ..q,•.....
70 ? C 1.0 10 20 3-/ 4 S
_ `_ C:-??LE?_.=?-o.c.5.+•:; ._ :GRP?'QE ?? ftE?:• 15?i.5?? L?fhA'?C?- Nti,6???-cGo A?? •v?.Rt t -.
CF?M 1oP oF'tbp Str?
61
5a"{a?:Exit. , pQoe?kla 1SL.?-• ° - --7-r' - ___ - o?_ ? ___. - __-____- __-_ ------. ..
-
3 RT` - - - --_. as
- -
'C?E6-?....---- ?Q- 2.4?t_'t:t_:I .?5?•t-5'T=r--:r ?.o'_ _ 8 °'-^? -_..__.1 •.?• ____..-._.-`_ -----v?.- ----
--_ =i-NHSS?L-=?L?SI-#s_??4ta?._?ELt?,
--- _ -- --?? 472L .W-fk 154.09 --
r-- --?--- -- ^ Ind-'??L? _ - - - -- - - -- /
.. 7 -- ??CtS'? f
:_ - _i.=------- ? ---•L??,SE-tea-- - _ ? --??- - - - --??_ T..-=_ _ _ _- ?? _? -
.

-s??.m -

1

I -T
CC)
CC)
AL:
- - r- - - - .? -- - - -- -- - - _ - - --
w
co 41
14-
-
-- ._._. - - --? ?-a-- - ??