20230443 Ver 1_U-5312 US 421_CE_20230327

i
US 421
From NC 16 to US 421 Business
Construct Operational Improvements, Wilkesboro
Wilkes County
Federal-Aid Project NHS-0421(72)
WBS 454461.1
STIP Project U-5312
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)
6p NORTN C4
9
yP� O y
o z
m0 O
9,9� Qom?
ANT OF TRANSQO_.
law V&tkfi���
�y ZAP 20�s
/ Richard W. Habcock, PE, Unit Manager Date
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit, NCDOT
- I_MU6W d �� 4,,\N)�A -4��
P John F.Sullivan III, PE, Div n Admi i' istrator Date
( '� Federal Highway Administ ion

i
US 421
From NC 16 to US 421 Business
Construct Operational Improvements, Wilkesboro
Wilkes County
Federal-Aid Project NHS-0421(72)
WBS 454461.1
STIP Project U-5312
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
FEBRUARY 2015
Prepared for:
N.C. Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
OF NORTH C4 ...
9
h v
v z
o
9q� P1P
O
FNT OF TRA109
Ada � ,,,�— s��at 1 S
Marshall Edwards Date
Project Development Engineer
l Prepared by:
SS��, �1lib
SE AL
14118 =
m
,5 z 0115
IN"eith D.Lewis,P.E. Donald J.-EKwn III,AICP Date
Project Manager Senior Project Planner
VHB Engineering NC, P.C. VHB Engineering NC, P.C.

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 421
From NC 16 to US 421 Business
Construct Operational Improvements, Wilkesboro
Wilkes County
Federal-Aid Project NHS-0421(72)
WBS 454461.1
STIP Project U-5312
NCDOT Division 11
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA)-regulated stream(s). Therefore, the NCDOT Division shall
submit sealed as-built construction plans to the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit upon completion of
project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment that
are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans,both
horizontally and vertically.
NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Roadway Design Unit will evaluate bicycle and pedestrian accommodations at superstreet
intersections during final design, in accordance with what is proposed within the 2007 Town
of Wilkesboro Pedestrian Plan (indicates sidewalks to be built along Curtis Bridge Road and
extending along US 421 to Addison Avenue; and crosswalk improvements for the Addison
Avenue and US 421 intersection) and the 2014 High Country Regional Bike Plan (indicates
New Browns Ford Road is designated as a bike route with planned paved shoulders)outlined
in Section 3.3 of this document.
Roadway Design Unit and Congestion Management will evaluate opportunities for
emergency vehicle access to US 421, once the new fire station location is determined by the
City of Wilkesboro.
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP)
to determine the status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT's Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent
final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
NCDOT Natural Environment Section
Construction authorization will not be requested until any pending coordination with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the Northern Long-eared Bat is complete.
U-5312 Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
February 2015 Green Sheet

Table of Contents
1.0 Purpose and Need............................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Proposed Action..........................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Summary of Project Purpose.....................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Summary of Project Need..........................................................................................................1-1
1.4 Purpose and Need Statement.....................................................................................................1-5
1.4.1 Background..............................................................................................................................1-5
1.4.2 Project Area Description........................................................................................................1-5
1.4.3 Roadway Conditions...............................................................................................................1-5
1.4.4 Accident Analysis....................................................................................................................1-6
1.4.5 System Linkages......................................................................................................................1-6
2.0 Development of Alternatives.........................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Previous Alternatives Studied....................................................................................................2-1
2.2 No-Build Alternative...................................................................................................................2-1
2.3 Travel Demand Management Alternative................................................................................2-2
2.4 Transportation Systems management Alternative..................................................................2-2
2.5 Mass Transit Alternative.............................................................................................................2-2
2.6 Build Alternative..........................................................................................................................2-2
2.7 Other STIP Projects....................................................................................................................2-9
3.0 Social, Economic, and Environmental Effects............................................................................3-1
3.1 Community Characteristics........................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Population Characteristics..........................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Local and Regional Plans............................................................................................................3-1
3.4 Indirect Effects............................................................................................................................3-3
3.5 Cumulative Effects......................................................................................................................3-4
3.6 Title VI and Environmental Justice..........................................................................................3-4
3.7 Relocations and Property Impacts............................................................................................3-4
3.8 Accessibility..................................................................................................................................3-4
3.9 Bicycle and Pedestrian Considerations.....................................................................................3-5
3.10 Emergency Vehicle Considerations..........................................................................................3-6
3.10.1 Fire........................................................................................................................................3-6
3.10.2 EMS......................................................................................................................................3-6
3.11 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................................3-6
3.12 Natural Environment..................................................................................................................3-6

3.12.1 Water Resources and Hydraulic Impacts........................................................................3-6
3.12.2 Biotic Resources..................................................................................................................3-9
3.12.3 Wetland and Stream Mitigation......................................................................................3-10
3.12.4 Threatened and Endangered Species.............................................................................3-10
3.12.5 Floodplains........................................................................................................................3-11
3.13 Section 4(f and Section 6(f Resources..................................................................................3-11
3.14 Farmlands ...................................................................................................................................3-11
3.15 Traffic Capacity Analysis..........................................................................................................3-11
3.15.1 Base-Year (2012) No-Build.............................................................................................3-11
3.15.2 Design-Year (2035) No-Build.........................................................................................3-11
3.15.3 Design-Year (2035) Build................................................................................................3-12
3.16 Traffic Noise Analysis...............................................................................................................3-12
3.16.1 Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours.................................................................3-14
3.16.2 No-Build Alternative........................................................................................................3-14
3.16.3 Traffic Noise Abatement Measures...............................................................................3-15
3.16.4 Nosie Barriers....................................................................................................................3-15
3.16.5 Summary............................................................................................................................3-16
3.17 Air Quality Analysis...................................................................................................................3-16
3.17.1 Attainment Status.............................................................................................................3-17
3.17.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT)................................................................................3-17
3.17.3 Summary............................................................................................................................3-20
3.18 Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks.......................................................3-20
3.19 Utilities ........................................................................................................................................3-20
3.19.1 Electric Power Transmission..........................................................................................3-21
3.19.2 Water and Sewer Facilities...............................................................................................3-21
3.19.3 Natural Gas Service and Other Pipelines......................................................................3-21
3.19.4 Communications/Fiber Optic........................................................................................3-21
3.20 Permits.........................................................................................................................................3-21
3.21 Cost Estimates............................................................................................................................3-21
3.22 Construction Impacts................................................................................................................3-22
3.23 Summary of Impacts.................................................................................................................3-22
4.0 Comments and Coordination.........................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Public Involvement.....................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Mailing List...............................................................................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Newsletters...............................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.3 Local Officials Meeting..........................................................................................................4-1
4.1.4 Public Meeting.........................................................................................................................4-1
5.0 Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................5-1

List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Project Location Map.........................................................................................................1-2
Figure 1-2 Base Year (2012) Annual Average Daily Traffic............................................................1-3
Figure 1-3 Design Year (2035) Annual Average Daily Traffic........................................................1-4
Figure2-1 Build Alternative.................................................................................................................2-3
Figure 2-2 Design Year (2035) Lane Geometrics and Traffic Control........................................2-10
Figure2-3 Typical Sections ................................................................................................................2-11
Figure 2-4 Build Alternative Photo Simulation...............................................................................2-12
Figure 3-1 Demographic Study Area..................................................................................................3-2
Figure 3-2 Wetlands, Streams and Floodplains.................................................................................3-8
Figure 3-3 Design Year (2035) Build Intersection LOS Results...................................................3-13
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Stream and Hydraulic Impacts...........................................................................................3-7
Table 3-2 Terrestrial Community Impacts.......................................................................................3-10
Table 3-3 Traffic Capacity Analysis Results.....................................................................................3-12
Table 3-4 Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts by Alternative*..........................................................3-15
Table 3-5 Engineering and Environmental Evaluation Factors...................................................3-23
Appendices
A. Agency Coordination
a. Historic Architecture Review
b. Archaeological Review
B. Relocation Report

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 PROPOSED ACTION
The project is located within Wilkes County, in the Town of Wilkesboro. The project involves
upgrading an existing 3.4-mile section of US 421 from a five-lane roadway to a four-lane divided
roadway with a 30-foot raised grass median and network of superstreet intersection
configurations. The proposed improvements are intended to provide better traffic flow with
reducing conflicts by controlling access points. Figure 1-1 provides the project location and the
study area.
1.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose for the proposed action is as follows:
• To improve the traffic carrying capacity of US 421 by providing movement Level of
Service (LOS) of D or better in the design year.
Access to side streets and driveways is more controlled with left turns onto the main highway
restricted and replaced by right turns followed by U-turns, known as a superstreet intersection.
Improvements including a median and these superstreet intersections are expected to operate at
an arterial LOS B during the 2035 peak hours. Capacity analysis results indicate that all
intersections and intersection movements of the proposed improvements are expected to operate
at LOS D or better with acceptable queuing in the 2035 design year peak hours.
1.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT NEED
The need for this study can be summarized as follows:
• Traffic congestion exists along the existing facility and is expected to worsen in the future.
US 421 operates as a freeway to the east and to the west of the project corridor. Vehicles traveling
through the area are slowed and stopped by congestion,traffic signals,and vehicles accessing the
numerous driveways throughout the corridor.
In 2012, traffic volumes were between 23,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and 35,000 vpd along this
section of US 421 (see Figure 1-2). By 2035, traffic volumes along US 421 are expected to increase
by 15-30 percent(see Figure 1-3).
• Conflict exists from the numerous access driveways and continuous two-way left-turn
lane throughout much of the corridor.
1-1

or
RaNjen oak Aa0
z s Ra eOO�e TrI
c�
Congo Rd m ,
Q Gon9°Rd
/ Old Brickya( w
C�
IALL
\ o �-nkler Mill Rd a Town of
Ra y � No`rth
Wilkesboro
�a a„
� o �I
421 °
m T
AL
grld9e d
� o
421
Begin Project „ o^- YADKIN RIVER 1
�a
End Project
I
y River St
Town of
u+
RougeRd Wilkesboro
n Mourn
co
3 268 r
-A co
a
oiyti�ehk,
ay268
OProject Study Area
Stream
W.Kerr Scott Reservoir Waterbody
" Project Location Map US 421 Improvements Figure
0 2,000 Feet U-5312
Data Sources: NCDOT;NC One Map;NCDENR-DWR;Wikes County
Wilkes County

p r � 9 �
O
�7 m Cn
m m 'o
-n
16 12 10 w 0 N '� 63
SR 1313 SR 1320 o
Congo Rd�s�s PM Congo Rd � `' °° q 5 BUS
7317)
1j a 1 42 PM 9 1 421114 37 47 st
14 33171 153
30 V-0 9a9
149 18 86 230 11 238 20 14 264 29 299 37 350 151168 6o�i ss 55
4
421 sU ('PM'$ 12 25 so�s 12 44 ssPM PM
e 29 42 2' 22 ss s 49
I �tt �t �? ° 280 s
47 aj, 59 al✓ 77 alp 28 alert Y ' ��jd5
� a
W
a r p T
N 182 67 18 109 6
PM
-n
o p < a o ss�s 42 ss is
n w < m
�n 255
421�
u
2012 AVERAGE ANNUAL NO BUILD
6 DAILY TRAFFIC SHEET 1-1
L E G E N D TIP: U-5312 WBS: 45446.1.1
p 7 421 ### No.of Vehicles Per Day in 100s
421 w — 1 Less than 50 vpd COU NTY: Wilkes DIVISION: 11
X Movement Prohibited DATE: 10-16-2012 Supplement: 9-24-2014
K�d�D PREPARED BY: Bryan D. Johnson
a 6 K Design Hour Factor(%)
PM PM Peak Period LOCATION: Wilkesboro, NC
D Peak Hour Directional Split(%)
26�
Wilkesbor Indicates Direction of D PROJECT: Operational Improvements on U
1 (d, t) Duals,TT-STs(%) 421 from SR 1266 to the Yadkin River
US 421 Improvements Figure
Not to Scale Base Year(2012)Build Traffic Forecast U-5312
Wilkes County 1-2

o
0 Cn s ' .per 4�
SR1313 13 11 SR1320 'tee 76 �y
Congo Rd75 r ° PY Congo Rd
p � u 3.1
l y L °5 n ti° a o � . 'BUS
130 1 0t 48 53 41 a s d '�0 y 421,
16 d l� =+++ s n 44 206 3 185
194 T�05 299 13 309 25 15 307 347 e-� 42 406 1� 1921 f63
65 4
='" ° 14 1 °° tad)° 29 37 5 (0 33 2� 25 SS ( 1°
OG s
n n I$ 0 344
53 67 88 32 „r -rQ �I%
n s ¢ TP 'pa-
Cn v
S �< � 208 78� 124
-n 0 ss 1s �4--9 21 ~j°
a 314
421,
u
2035 AVERAGE ANNUAL BUILD
+6 DAILY TRAFFIC SHEET 2-1
LEGEND TIP: U-5312 I WBS: 45446.1.1
### No.of Vehicles Per Day in 100s
p COUNTY: Wilkes DIVISION: 11
.zt '"� n � � � � 1- Less than 50 vpd
X Movement Prohibited DATE: 10-16-2012 Supplement: 9-24-2014
PM
K(d t 1t) D PREPARED BY: Bryan D. Johnson
boo K Design Hour Factor(%)
PM PM Peak Period LOCATION: Wilkesboro, NC
_ D Peak Hour Directional Split(%)
` Wilkesbor Indicates Direction of D
- PROJECT: Operational Improvements on U
-
(d,t) Duals,TT-STs(%) 421 from SR 1266 to the Yadkin River
�M
US 421 Improvements Figure
Not to Scale Design Year(2035)Build Traffic Forecast U-5312 Figure
` Wilkes County 1-3

The continuous two-way center left-turn lane allows traffic to make left turns into driveways all
along the corridor. These competing movements contribute to the congestion along the project
corridor.
1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
The purpose and need of the project is to address the existing and future traffic congestion along
this 3.4-mile section of US 421 by improving the traffic carrying capacity, providing movement
LOS of D or better in the design year.
1.4.1 Background
NCDOT proposes to improve the existing US 421 corridor in Wilkesboro in Wilkes County, to a
four-lane divided facility with superstreet intersection designs. The project would extend 3.4
miles from NC 16 to US 421 Business.
US 421 functions as an important regional route for travel to and from the mountains of North
Carolina. Within the immediate project vicinity, this section of US 421 is one of the main
commercial and business areas for the Town of Wilkesboro and the Town of North Wilkesboro.
The corridor currently has no control of access, with numerous driveways along the highway
within the study area. Some major commercial developments have signalized access; however,
the majority of driveways on US 421 are uncontrolled and allow all turning movements.
1.4.2 Project Area Description
The study area is in the Town of Wilkesboro in western North Carolina. The western half of the
study area is primarily rural and suburban residential; the eastern half is commercial retail. The
study area is rolling terrain.
1.4.3 Roadway Conditions
1.4.3.1 Existing Characteristics
The typical cross section along the study corridor is five lanes with a center left turn lane. There
are small portions of the corridor near each terminus that are four lanes with a grass median. The
lanes are 12 feet wide,with varied shoulder widths(typically 8 feet total,with 4 feet paved;some
areas have curb and gutter with an 8-foot berm).
1.4.3.2 Existing Traffic Conditions
The 2012 Annual Average Daily Traffic(AADT)is between 23,000 and 35,000 vehicles per day on
this section of US 421, as shown on Figure 1-2. Field observations and anecdotal information
indicate that as drivers enter this section of US 421,they experience delay at the first intersections
in the transition from freeway operation to signalized corridor. Analysis indicates that there are
1-5

some approaches and individual movements at traffic signals along the corridor that operate at
LOS D or E;however, all analyzed signalized intersections along the corridor operate at overall
acceptable levels of service (LOS) during both daily peak hours (AM and PM).
1.4.3.3 Projected Traffic Conditions
Under projected 2035 conditions, Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is between 29,900 and
40,600 vehicles per day on this section of US 421, as shown on Figure 1-3. The No-Build (2035)
analysis indicates that operations are expected to decline in comparison to existing operations.
Four of the five analyzed intersections are expected to have at least one approach operating at
LOS E during the peak hours, indicating additional congestion and delay along the corridor due
to increased volumes throughout the network.
1.4.4 Accident Analysis
An accident analysis indicates there were 336 reported accidents from January 1, 2010 to
December 31,2014. Current statewide averages for crash rates along facility types across the state
are available for the 2010-2012 data period. This corridor was evaluated as an Urban US Route.
Accident rates do not exceed the statewide average accident rates or critical accident rates in any
category,with the exception being fatal injury crashes. That category is slightly above (+4%) the
statewide average for similar facilities. Total accident rates, non-fatal injury accident rates, and
night and wet accident rates are all lower than statewide averages.
Despite safety not being the primary purpose, there are opportunities for safety to be addressed
as part of the project.
The most prevalent accident pattern along this corridor is rear-end accidents, which account for
approximately 38 percent of the total. This accident pattern is generally a symptom of congestion.
The other predominant accident pattern along this corridor is angle crashes, which account for
approximately 27 percent of the total and is attributable to the many turning conflicts
encountered when a center turn lane is present along a corridor.
1.4.5 System Linkages
1.4.5.1 Existing Road Networks
US 421 is designated as an Other Principal Arterial and functions as an important regional route
in Wilkes County,carrying both local and regional traffic. US 421 provides a major route between
Winston-Salem and Boone, connecting through Wilkesboro. The proposed project would
provide an improved connection between existing freeway sections of US 421 to the east and west
of Wilkesboro, completing a more uniform and freer flow route between Winston-Salem and
Boone.
1-6

The cross-section of US 421 varies along the length of the project. From west to east, the cross-
section of US 421 is as follows:
• At NC 16/New Browns Ford Road: Four-lane, 46-foot grass median-divided roadway
with two through lanes in each direction.
• NC 16/New Browns Ford Road east to Winkler Mill Road: Five-lane roadway with two
through lanes in each direction and a center two-way left-turn lane. Right turn lanes are
included at Congo Road, Kerry Lane, Lowes Home Improvement, Dancy Road, Staples
shopping center,Addison Avenue, and WalMart.
• Winkler Mill Road to US 421 Business: The five-lane roadway transitions to a four-lane,
46-foot median divided roadway with two through lanes in each direction.
Exclusive right-turn lanes are present at most major intersections along the corridor. The posted
speed limit within the study area varies between 45 miles per hour (mph) and 55 mph.
The US 421 project corridor has little to no restrictions on access to properties along the roadway.
1.4.5.2 Transportation Plans
The proposed improvement of US 421 is included in the NCDOT draft 2015-2025 State
Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) as project U-5312, scheduled for right-of-way in 2018
and construction to begin after 2020.
The proposed US 421 corridor is listed in the 2008 Wilkesboro Tomorrow Comprehensive Land Use
Plan as a significant state-maintained thoroughfare.
The 1993 Thoroughfare Plan for the Towns of Wilkesboro and North Wilkesboro indicates
congestion along US 421 west of Wilkesboro to be a system deficiency. The plan notes that US 421
is expected to exceed its capacity within the design period (2020).
1.4.5.3 Modal Interrelationships
The US 421 corridor is currently served by a public transit route that runs along the eastern
portion of the project. The Wilkes Express Shuttle provides deviated fixed-route service through
Wilkesboro and North Wilkesboro with three stops within the study area. The service provides
ten total trips per day,Monday through Friday, on a loop.
The Yadkin Valley Railroad, based in Rural Hall, NC, is a subsidiary of the Gulf and Ohio
Railways,provides freight rail service in Wilkes County,on tracks leased from Norfolk Southern.
1-7

The railroad, which is approximately two miles east of the project, extends into the county from
the east, following the Yadkin River to its terminus in North Wilkesboro.
Wilkes County Airport is located approximately 7 miles northeast of the project corridor.
Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro and Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
in Charlotte are both approximately 90 miles away.
1-8

2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
This section provides a discussion of the alternatives considered prior to this Categorical
Exclusion, and the alternatives carried forward and studied in this Categorical Exclusion.
2.1 PREVIOUS ALTERNATIVES STUDIED
A Feasibility Study for Operational Improvements along US 421 from SR 1226 (Westgate Drive)
to the Yadkin River was completed in 2010. Four alternatives were examined in that study— a
four-lane divided shoulder section, a six-lane divided shoulder section, a four-lane divided
superstreet shoulder section,and a six-lane divided superstreet shoulder section. Traffic forecasts
completed prior to this feasibility study had indicated a level of future traffic that would
necessitate a six-lane section of roadway. However,updated traffic forecasts were completed in
2012 after the economic recession and a traffic capacity analysis evaluated two alternatives, a
four-lane and a six-lane divided network of superstreet intersections. Results indicate that a four-
lane divided superstreet network through this corridor would accommodate the future traffic in
this area. This NEPA document evaluates this four-lane divided superstreet network alternative.
2.2 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build Alternative would involve routine maintenance only,with no improvements made
to existing roads.
With no improvements,intersection delay for the No-Build Alternative is expected to increase in
the design year. The existing eight-phase traffic signals contribute to substantial stopping along
the corridor. Continued use of the eight-phase signals with the No-Build Alternative would
result in additional stopping and delay for vehicles travelling US 421.
The No-Build Alternative would not have any adverse environmental impacts. However, the
increased traffic could lead to further delays and numerous conflicts for turning vehicles.
Additionally, according to the FHWA"Safe Access is Good for Business" publication,the lack of
an efficient transportation system could also cause a reduction of customers to existing
businesses.
The No-Build Alternative was eliminated because it does not meet the purpose and need of the
project.
2-1

2.3 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
Travel Demand Management (TDM) improvements are strategies and policies designed to
reduce travel demand or to redistribute that demand to other locations or to other time periods.
Road pricing,pedestrian-oriented design,and improving public transportation infrastructure are
some examples of TDM strategies. Improvements such as these are not effective solutions for this
project because of the nature of the region and the highway carrying regional traffic to the east
and west of Wilkesboro. TDM strategies are designed to work in more urban settings with higher
peak hour traffic congestion problems related to commuting. Therefore, the TDM Alternative
was not considered a reasonable and feasible alternative and was eliminated from further study
and consideration.
2.4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVE
Transportation Systems Management(TSM)improvements involve addressing congestion issues
by enhancing the existing transportation system through improvements such as intersection and
signal improvements or addressing geometric deficiencies such as narrow lanes and shoulders,
inadequate signage and pavement striping. These types of improvements would not increase the
capacity nor improve the levels of service along US 421. They also would not address the conflict
between turning vehicles attempting to access the businesses along US 421 from the center turn
lane. Therefore, the TSM Alternative was not considered a reasonable and feasible alternative
and was eliminated from further study and consideration.
2.5 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
The eastern portion of the study area is currently served by transit, described in Section 1.4.5.3.
The existing transit service is in place for those trips that would utilize transit. A large portion of
the traffic through this area, however, has origins, destinations, and trip lengths that are not
conducive to transit. Because of this, and the rural nature and low density of the area, the Mass
Transit Alternative was not considered a viable alternative.
2.6 BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The Build Alternative is a 3.4-mile long widening for the addition of a grass median with a
network of superstreet intersections from Westgate Drive to US 421 Business (shown in Figure
2-1). There are eight proposed superstreet intersections:
• Westgate Drive (signalized);
2-2

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
THESE FIGURES ARE CONCEPTUAL AND ARE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.THIS
IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF EXTENSIVE DESIGN
�� - - Parsons Dr
16
t �
Begin Construction - _
� dd
421 - P, _ - _- -71
_ u
b _
_
0
Westgate Dr
Begin Project -
-
New Br�whS Ford -
Rd
�6 BUS
421
421 a b c d e f
-7
421
" Build Alternative Proposed Centerline Proposed Concrete Median US 421 Improvements Figure
0 200 Feet Proposed Curb and Gutter 0 Proposed Grass Median
U-5312
Data Sources: NCDOT;NC One Map;NCDENR-DWR;Wikes County Proposed Paved Shoulder 2-1 a
Proposed Remove Asphalt Wilkes County N
a

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
THESE FIGURES ARE CONCEPTUALAND ARE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.THIS
IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF EXTENSIVE DESIGN
�a
Gor9°Ftd
VAL
IV. `
_ ,� . __ � . •� - _ __ __ __ Congo Rd � �
a
0
r
4 ,.. Kerry Ln
�s
T
a.
New Bro�,ns Forq Ra Azalea�n
16
Kim
471
BUS
421
421 a b c d e f
" Build Alternative Proposed Centerline Proposed Concrete Median US 421 Improvements Figure
0 200 Feet Proposed Curb and Gutter 0 Proposed Grass Median
U-5312
Data Sources: NCDOT;NC One Map;NCDENR-DWR;Wikes County Proposed Paved Shoulder 2-1 b
Proposed Remove Asphalt Wilkes County N
a

r�►�sc��+,'L�
1111MANN-61pu gig
0 0
qfflw
z.4%
P a A0 40
Ar
■
� a �
7
IMData Sources: NCDOT;NC One Map;NCDENR-DWR;Wikes County Proposed Paved Shoulder 2-1c
�
Build Alternative Proposed Centerline Proposed Concrete Median US 421 Improvements Figure
Proposed Curb and Gutter E:1 Proposed Grass Median U-5312
Proposed Remove

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
THESE FIGURES ARE CONCEPTUAL AND ARE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.THIS
IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF EXTENSIVE DESIGN
7 �
rr (n
��Grch
i+ 421
421
IL
v 421 �
is
S , r r wry
16 111•�i11!
BUS
421
421 a b c d e f -
421 ram• �r� -"
" Build Alternative Proposed Centerline Proposed Concrete Median US 421 Improvements Figure
0 200 Feet Proposed Curb and Gutter 0 Proposed Grass Median
U-5312
Data Sources: NCDOT;INC One Map;NCDENR-DWR;Wilkes County Proposed Paved Shoulder 2-1 d
Proposed Remove Asphalt Wilkes County
a

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
THESE FIGURES ARE CONCEPTUALAND ARE
_EW oil
SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.THIS
IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF EXTENSIVE DESIGN
IV
M�irRa o �•� ,
d
421 �
�T-
> Y Tys'
Q � O
WV
MEN
1 =
5�0
Stonecrest Oaks
I
n Ha 9�i y� !t?I idl
16 BUS !71 �;� il'll il'dl
421 ,I� trJ !IT
421 a b c d e f Ala !�
i�i!71
I� �a
ttw
" Build Alternative Proposed Centerline Proposed Concrete Median US 421 Improvements Figure
0 200 Feet Proposed Curb and Gutter 0 Proposed Grass Median
U-5312
Data Sources: NCDOT;NC One Map;NCDENR-DWR;Wikes County Proposed Paved Shoulder 2-1 e
Proposed Remove Asphalt Wilkes County
a

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
—Q �J G THESE FIGURES ARE CONCEPTUAL AND ARE
CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.THIS
IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF EXTENSIVE DESIGN
q Aiiii
Oi
� T son
Y Y � �d •.
t K> P
t
�G
?'s
�r�d9'e Ra
b
A
ehhe//St
Cep fed/S
End Project
16 X
BUS 421
421
421 a b C d e f End Construction
421 ;
" Build Alternative Proposed Centerline Proposed Concrete Median US 421 Improvements Figure
0 200 Feet Proposed Curb and Gutter 0 Proposed Grass Median
U-5312
Data Sources: NCDOT;INC One Map;NCDENR-DWR;Wilkes County Proposed Paved Shoulder 2-1 f
Proposed Remove Asphalt Wilkes County N
a

• NC 16 (signalized);
• Congo Road;
• Laurelwood Drive;
• Zion Hill Church Road;
• Dancy Road (signalized);
• Addison Avenue (signalized); and
• Winkler Mill Road (signalized).
The recommended intersection treatments at these locations are shown in Figure 2-2. U-turn
points on each side are included as part of the superstreet intersections. The intersection with
US 421 Business would be reconfigured to a continuous flow intersection, including a new
connection between Curtis Bridge Road and US 421. This concept provides continuous traffic
flow between the three intersections of; US 421 and US 421 Business, US 421 and Curtis Bridge
Road Extension, and Curtis Bridge Road and US 421 Business.
The Build Alternative would include the addition of a median which would eliminate left turns
from side streets along the length of the corridor. This would require that vehicles turn right and
then make a U-turn at select points. The proposed typical section for the project is a four-lane
divided highway with a 30-foot raised grass median with mountable curb and gutter. This
section accommodates 12-foot travel lanes and a 10-foot outside shoulder. This typical section
will fit within the 200-foot right of way that exists along the corridor, with only minor right-of-
way acquisition required to accommodate specific superstreet intersections. The typical section
is illustrated in Figure 2-3. A photo simulation showing what the completed Build Alternative
may look like from Zion Hill Church Road is shown as Figure 2-4.
In developing the Build Alternative, multiple configurations of the NC 16 intersection were
considered, including traditional widening opportunities. Ultimately, the superstreet
intersection configuration was determined to be the best option.
There are no relocations with the Build Alternative.
For this Build alternative,the estimated cost of right-of-way is$2.6 million;the estimated cost for
utility relocation is $4.4 million; and the estimated construction cost is $18.2 million. The total
project cost estimate is$25.2 million.
2.7 OTHER STIP PROJECTS
The STIP Project B-4977 is the only other transportation project that is proximate to STIP Project
U-5312. It is a bridge replacement on SR 1313 (Congo Road) over Fish Dam Creek, and is
scheduled for construction in 2018.
2-9

16 SR 321
SR 1320 1
Zion Hill SR 1323
Congo Road Church Road Dancy Road
® !
} SR 1313
Congo Road �I
r I
�I
�I
~ I
650' ~ `� 100'
375' I
375' 375' ///"'® 100' '�375' 375' 375' /�375' I
421 I I I
375' / 375'� 375'�/ ® 37S 375' 375'�� / 375'
5W�� 175'
I
I
I
I
1
SR 1182 I
i
Median U-turn crossovers should be Laurelwood
located approximately 600'to 800' Drive
SR 1143 from the side street and spacing may
New Brown's Ford also be determined by U-turn queuing Loaves Driveway
Road Addison Avenue/
Curtis Bridge Road WalMart Driveway
100'
IIII �
1 i i 2oa 421
20a �/� Bosr—
Lowe's Food
Winkler Mill Road I
Driveway
I � I
I
I �� �� I
I 100' 175' I
250'
1 375' i i ��375' ua /C ��375'
421 7/
375' 375' 30(V / 375' 325' � I
32
I � —Existing Roadway
j ——F h-Roadway
421
Iksign Year Laneage
jAddison Avenue/ asign Year Signal
' WalMart Driveway Kohl's Driveway
® Stop Controlled Approach
US 421 Improvements Figure
Not to scale Design Year(2035) Lane Geometrics and Traffic Control U-5312 2-2
Wilkes County

� y
g�
aY '
pY
_ %Y ppVY
Y
6' ► 12' Lane ►� 12' Lan ►� - ►� ►. ► ' ►
� Shoulder e 30' Raised Grass Median 12' Lane 12' Lane 6 Shoulder
4' Paved 4' Paved
200' Existing Right of Way
US 421 Improvements Figure
Not To Scale Typical Section U-5312
2
Wilkes County

looms -
• - :; , ;vim
r',�y''j•T' :ram.. :' �. � 1, ' `�`.• I ' I I I ' \ \ `-� � `_ _ _
'-� : _ � �.•��� � �•_ _-_.•yam+.. '-�. -
�- ® �,• •ham. ..,'f .._� - -. - - ..a..
1-751 Lb
t 1-
US 421 Improvements •
• • i • Alternative • • Simulation
Wilkes I
County

3.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
3.1 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
The surrounding study area is primarily rural and suburban residential in the western half and
commercial retail in the eastern half. The frontage on the study corridor itself is on fairly flat
land, but the surrounding parts of the study area are hilly. The development along US 421
throughout the study area is primarily commercial, but there are a few residential properties as
well. The commercial portion in the eastern half is characterized by big box retail stores,
restaurants, auto sales and service businesses.
There are several churches in or near the study area. None are located directly on US 421, and
impacts from this project are not anticipated.
3.2 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
The Town of Wilkesboro is centrally located in the southern part of Wilkes County. The town is
approximately 30 miles east of Boone in Watauga County,home to Appalachian State University.
Wilkes County had a population of more than 69,000 in 2010. The county population grew by 5.6
percent from 2000 to 2010,while the state as a whole grew by 18.5 percent over that same period.
The Demographic Study Area is shown in Figure 3-1. The minority population in Census Tract
9607,Block Group 3 is 20.6 percent,which exceeds the county average (9.4 percent)by more than
10 percentage points. The percentage of Hispanic population in that block group (14.1 percent)
is almost three times that of the county (5.4 percent). There are no impacts to minority
populations.
There are no populations living in the study area that meet the criteria for Limited English
Proficiency but does for Language Assistance for Spanish speaking populations.
3.3 LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANS
The Wilkesboro Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan was adopted in March 2008. The plan references the
Thoroughfare Plan for The Town of Wilkesboro and the Town of North Wilkesboro from 1993,
which notes widening and alignment improvements scheduled for US 421 (see Section 1.4.5.2).
The plan noted that improvements were scheduled to improve the level of service of US 421, a
"major carrier of through traffic."
3-1

• o
r� ■
fA
• Demographic
C) Project Study Area
Stream
Waterbody
Demographic Study Area US 421 Improvements Figure
Data Sources: .. . NCDENR-DWR;Wikes County; 3-1

Wilkes County has plans to constuct a raw water intake, pipeline, etc. on the W. Kerr Scott
Reservoir.
The Town of Wilkesboro has a zoning ordinance that covers the study area. Almost all of the
US 421 frontage in the study area is zoned "B-2 — General Business," designating it for general
commercial and retail use. The rest of the study area is mostly zoned "R-20 — Suburban
Residential" and "R-20A — Residential/Agricultural," which are low to moderate density
residential designations.
The High Country Council of Governments adopted the High Country Regional Bike Plan,which
covers Wilkes County and the study area in addition to other counties and municipalities in the
region. The plan was adopted in 2014. New Browns Ford Road is designated as a bike route and
the plan calls for four-foot paved shoulders to the south of US 421 and five-foot paved shoulders
to the north of US 421.
The 2007 Town of Wilkesboro Pedestrian Plan calls for two pedestrian improvements within the
study area. One proposed improvement is for sidewalks to be built along Curtis Bridge Road
and then extend along US 421 to Addison Avenue. The other proposed improvement is
crosswalk improvements for the Addison Avenue and US 421 intersection.
3.4 INDIRECT EFFECTS
There is low concern for indirect and cumulative effects potential for this project. The proposed
project is not expected to alter land use development. New traffic patterns at the US 421/US 421
Business intersection could result in increased exposure and access to the parcels to the south of
this intersection. Water and sewer service exists and has available capacity in the study area.
There are development plans and regulations in place for growth in the study area. The Town of
Wilkesboro and the Town of North Wilkesboro have zoning and future land use plans that cover
the study area. Wilkes County and the Town of Wilkesboro have watershed protection
ordinances that require riparian buffers for development taking place near water features. The
study area is within WS-IV Critical and Protected Water Supply Watersheds,but there are plans
to move the public water supply site,which would reduce the amount of water supply watershed
area within the study area.
No additional indirect and cumulative effects studies are recommended as a result of this project.
3-3

3.5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Minimal indirect effects as a result of this proposed project may occur in the form of increased
commercial and residential development. Impacts to stormwater runoff and downstream water
quality are not anticipated from any change in development patterns due to existing development
regulations,policies,and stormwater runoff controls. The cumulative effect of this project,when
considered in the context of other past, present, and future actions, and the resulting impact to
notable human and natural features should be minimal.
3.6 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The Build Alternative does not require any relocations and no specific neighborhoods or
communities would be impacted.
No notably adverse community impacts are anticipated with this project; thus, impacts to
minority and low-income populations are not disproportionately high or adverse. Benefits and
burdens resulting from the project are anticipated to be equitably distributed throughout the
community, and no denial of benefit is expected. Public involvement and outreach activities
ensure full and fair participation of all potentially affected communities in the transportation
decision-making process.
3.7 RELOCATIONS AND PROPERTY IMPACTS
There are no residential or business relocations with this project. Some businesses would lose
parking because of expanded right-of-way. None of the parking loss would require the relocation
of any of the businesses. One business property would lose direct access to US 421. A second
access point to the business would remain along K Street.
3.8 ACCESSIBILITY
There are numerous access driveways in the study corridor and the corridor currently has no
control of access. Some major commerical developments have signalized access. However, the
vast majority of driveways on US 421 are uncontrolled. There are five signalized intersections in
the corridor and many unsignalized intersections.
The addition of a median and superstreet intersections with the Build Alternative will alter access
to properties located on US 421 by limiting left-in and left-out access. Instead,vehicles would be
required to turn right and make a U-turn, or would need to continue straight, U-turn, and then
turn right-in.
3-4

As previously mentioned under property impacts,one of two driveways to the Olive Garden/Red
Lobster property would be removed because of the construction of a U-turn bulb out.
On the east end of the project, three intersections connect US 421, US 421 Business and Curtis
Bridge Road and its extension. Their intersections are designed to operate as a single continuous
flow intersection. The addition of access points would require integration with its operations.
The area south of this intersection is one of the locations being considered for a new fire station
so access is critical. As a result, two access points were planned for future operations. The
westernmost of these access points would tie into the US 421/US 421 Business intersection and
would accommodate a right-in, right-out movement, and dual left turns in. The median of US
421 would need to be altered to provide a dual-lane leftover movement into this site. The eastern
access is located across from the US 421/Curtis Bridge Road Extension intersection and would
provide a right-in and double lefts out of the property. US 421 would not require any alteration
for this future access point.
While no development plans exist at this time, accommodating for future access with the project
improvements may increase the exposure of these parcels.
Along the entire corridor, the proposed project is anticipated to change access by limiting
left-in/left-out access to parcels that currently have full access driveways. This limit on access
would be through the use of a median, resulting in left-overs and U-turn bulbs. While direct
parcel access would be altered in some places, the overall impact to accessibility is anticipated to
be moderately low.
The addition of a median and a network of superstreet intersections will reroute some left turn
movements,permanently changing direct access patterns to businesses located along the project
corridor;however,FHWA has completed extensive research showing that safe access is good for
business and overall corridor efficiency.
During the construction phase, access to businesses could be disrupted or altered temporarily,
with traffic diverted to other access points.
3.9 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS
No bicycle activity on this portion of US 421 was evident during a site visit. There are three bike
routes designated by Wilkes County in the study area, however. The Dam Loop runs in a loop
from downtown Wilkesboro to the dam on the W. Kerr Scott Reservoir and uses portions of
Congo Road,NC 16,New Browns Ford Road, and NC 268. The Southern Rendezvous Mountain
route starts in downtown Wilkesboro and runs along Congo Road. The Lake Loop is a loop
starting at the W.Kerr Scott Reservoir visitor center with a portion running along NC 16 and New
3-5

Browns Ford Road. There are no designated on- or off-road bicycle facilities within the study
area.
3.10 EMERGENCY VEHICLE CONSIDERATIONS
3.10.1 Fire
According to local fire officials, a new fire station is proposed with two locations being
considered. Both locations are along this section of US 421 — one behind the Lowes Hardware
across from Dancy Road on the western end of the project; the other on the eastern end, on the
Town owned property known as the Tyson shaving bend property to the south side of US 421
across from the intersection of US 421 and US 421 Business. Fire trucks would need easy access
to both directions on US 421 from a new station location. Fire officials indicate that either fire
station location would require a traffic device to allow emergency vehicle egress through the
median without needing to travel to a U-turn point. Continued coordination with local fire
officials is recommended.
3.10.2 EMS
According to the Wilkes County EMS Director, lane closure during construction would be a
concern for the movement of emergency vehicles. EMS transports approximately three to five
people per day to Winston Salem and construction delays could affect response times. Long-term
impacts as a result of the superstreet are not anticipated by EMS officials.
3.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES
A historic architecture review was completed by a NCDOT architectural historian. It was
determined on May 2,2013 that a historic architecture and landscape survey was not required for
this project(see Appendix A).
A NCDOT archaeologist completed an archaeology review. The archaeology review dated May
20, 2014 indicates that an archaeological survey was not required for this project (see Appendix
A).
3.12 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
3.12.1 Water Resources and Hydraulic Impacts
There are eight stream crossings(three major and five minor),all part of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin, which were identified within the study area. One additional stream is identified as being
in the study area but is not crossed by US 421. None of the streams are subject to any Buffer
Rules. There are no waters within the study area that have been designated by the USCG as a
Navigable Water under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Table 3-1 summarizes the
3-6

existing hydraulic structures at these crossings and the length of new stream impact that will
result from this project. There would be 459 feet of additional stream impacts (based on slope
stakes)as a result of widening the highway at six stream crossings;two existing stream crossings
are not expected to be widened and thus would not create additional impact. Of that impact,416
feet is to perennial stream and 43 feet is to intermittent stream.
Table 3-1
Stream and Hydraulic Impacts
Stream Stream Drainage Existing Adequate? Length of
Designation Name Area Structure Stream
Impact
Major Stream Crossings
SB UT to 341 acres 78" CMP Yes 15 ft
Yadkin River
SC Millers 2 27 miZ 2 @ 9' x 11' Yes 223 ft
Creek RCBC
SG Tucker Hole 2.74 mil 2 @ 11' x 11' Yes 121 ft
Creek RCBC
Minor Stream Crossings
SA UT to Fish
53 acres 60" CMP Yes NA
Dam Creek
SE UT to
Millers 147 acres 60" CMP Yes 43 ft
Creek
SF UT to 109 acres 60" CMP' Yes NA
Yadkin River
SH UT to Tucker
72 acres 66" CMP Yes 35 ft
Hole Creek
SI UT to Tucker
7 acres 24" CMP Yes 22 ft
Hole Creek
Two Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands were identified in the study area along with one non-
Section 404 wetland. A preliminary jurisdictional determination has not been made by the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources —
Division of Water Resources (NCDNR-DWR). However,no impact would result to any wetland
from construction of this project. The streams and wetlands are shown on Figure 3-2.
3-7

Raven Oak Dr dEP �a Boone-fir\
pa
aS Rd Q
U)
c
a�ea,o cn Vo
Congo Rd op
CD) G
X
Q � �y
C O� °��c Old Brickyard Rd
C' M�pn
6`OT n CD
s W Town of
160 North
Wilkesboro
pQ a
Gong° �
s
a
SA Parsons�r
�` g S
CD >SB t SC SD �° SE L) � , WF �,c� SG SG 421
1 C3
e Dr 421 � � 421
S:I SH ,
FOr
�eti9 NewBroo CherNBrOok� 1 WB yo ���`°� CurtisBrid9e m WA
a �0
IL° SG
Westover Dr
J Begin Project o C
Q,p Q - YADKIN Rll/ER
a
End Project
�N o
AlN a
NO\mess Ch'u�ch Rd eQ� lye Z
o Z
W.Kerr Rd i c7
e
�Se11
Ott�
00
Z Reservoir
o �
( Town of
268 Wilkesboro �°'\e9� o�ai`a
0
n � o9�0od Dr
r'
Old Highvway 268
J ��a O Project Study Area Jurisdictional Stream* O Public Water Supply Floodplain Features
Floodwa
�a°• Trout Waters (DWQ) ® Jurisdictional Wetland* ® Wetlands y
W/ errScottReservoir Streams/ USGS Bluelines ® Critical Water Supply Watershed 1%Annual Chance of Flood Hazard
/ Waterbody ® Managed Natural Areas 0.2%Annual Chance of Flood Hazard
" Wetlands, Streams and Floodplains US 421 Improvements Figure
o i,2oo Feet This information is from the Natural Resources Technical Report. U-5312
Field verified streams and wetlands are shown in the Project Study Area only.
Data Sources:NCDOT; NC One Map;NCDENR-DWR;Wikes County; 3-2 N
NC Floodmaps Wilkes County
"a

Recent field review and preliminary hydraulic analysis indicates all hydraulic structures within
the study area are hydraulically adequate and appear to be in good condition. The preliminary
recommendation from NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit for all structures would be to retain and extend
as necessary to accommodate the roadway footprint. These recommendations are preliminary
and could be subject to change based on information obtained from a more detailed analysis
during the final hydraulics design phase of the project.
There are no lakes or ponds within the study area. There are no designated High Quality Waters
(HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II)
within one mile downstream of the study area.
A small eastern portion of the study area is located within the Yadkin River WS-IV Critical Water
Supply Watershed. The remaining portion of the study area is within the Yadkin River WS-IV
Protected Water Supply Watershed. WS-IV waters are used as sources of water supply for
drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes. These waters are protected for Class C uses.
WS-IV waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or Protected Areas.
Stream SG (Tucker Hole Creek) lies within one-half mile of the critical area of the water supply
intake. Because the project will not be a major highway improvement, a hazardous spill basin at
this crossing will not be warranted. Classifications of all streams are listed in the Natural
Resources Technical Report(NRTR). NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit has noted that an existing storm
water basin located on the south side of US 421 east of Kohl's Department Store appears to be
lacking adequate maintenance by the owner. A 60-inch corrugated metal pipe(Stream SF)outlets
to the site after crossing the road. The inlet end of this pipe is in a closed system beneath the
shopping center to the north of US 421. Preliminary analysis indicates all existing stream crossing
structures meet NCDOT's level of service requirements.
No streams in the study area are listed as impaired waters. There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers
in the study area. The Yadkin River is, however, a state listed Natural and Scenic River, but is
not impacted by the project. Impacts to the floodplain are discussed in Section 3.12.5.
3.12.2 Biotic Resources
The project is not anticipated to have much of an effect on these resources. The acres of terrestrial
communities affected by the project are shown in Table 3-2. There would be 1.9 acres of forested
communities affected with construction of the project based on slope stakes plus 25 feet.
3-9

Table 3-2
Terrestrial Community Impacts
Terrestrial Community Impact(acres)
Maintained and Disturbed 2.4
Land
Impervious Surface 1.8
Mesic Mixed Hardwood 1.5
Forest(Piedmont)
Mixed Pine/Hardwood 0.1
Forest
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 0.2
Piedmont Levee Forest 0.1
Note: Impact based on slope stakes plus 25 feet.
3.12.3 Wetland and Stream Mitigation
NCDOT has sought to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the greatest extent
practicable. If mitigation is required it will be provided by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).
3.12.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has identified one federally protected species (the
bog turtle) for Wilkes County. The project is not expected to affect the bog turtle because no
suitable habitat is present within the study area. Additionally, due to the lack of Bald Eagle
occurrences within a 1.13 mile(1.0 mile plus 660 feet)radius of the project,it has been determined
that this project will not affect this species.
A US Fish and Wildlife Service proposal for listing the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) as an Endangered species was published in the Federal Register in October 2013.
The listing will become effective on or before April 2015. Furthermore, this species is included
in USFWS's current list of protected species for Wilkes County. NCDOT is working closely with
the USFWS to understand how this proposed listing may impact NCDOT projects. NCDOT will
continue to coordinate appropriately with USFWS to determine if this project will incur potential
effects to the Northern Long-eared Bat, and how to address these potential effects, if necessary.
Construction authorization will not be requested until any pending coordination with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the Northern Long-eared Bat is complete.
3-10

3.12.5 Floodplains
The project limits do not include the Yadkin River to the east, which is in a Federal Emergency
Management Agency(FEMA)detailed study.None of the stream crossings within the study area
are within a FEMA flood zone. The proposed project would add fill to the floodplain(0.1 acre of
100-year floodplain and 0.2 acre of 500-year floodplain)of the Yadkin River,shown on Figure 3-2.
3.13 SECTION 4(F) AND SECTION 6(F) RESOURCES
There are no properties or areas protected under Section 4(f) that would be impacted by the
project. There also are no areas that are protected under Section 6(f) Land and Water
Conservation Fund Resources.
3.14 FARMLANDS
There are no impacts to farmlands with this proposed project. Coordination was conducted with
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the USDA and they confirmed that CPA-
106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form was not required.
3.15 TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS
There are multiple commercial driveway intersections along the corridor that were not included
in the forecast, and thus are not analyzed in the capacity analysis.
The traffic analysis results are discussed below and summarized in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-3.
3.15.1 Base-Year (2012) No-Build
The Base-Year(2012)Average Daily Traffic(ADT)on this section of US 421 ranges between 23,000
and 35,000 vehicles per day. While peak hour capacity analysis indicates that all analyzed
signalized intersections along the corridor operate at overall acceptable levels of service (LOS)
during both daily peak hours (AM and PM),the lowest operating movements at all intersections
along the corridor currently operate at a LOS D or E. Analysis of the intersection of US 421 and
Winkler Mill indicates that the westbound left-turn approach experiences queues greater than
900 feet during the PM peak hour.
3.15.2 Design-Year (2035) No-Build
Peak hour capacity analysis indicates that all analyzed signalized intersections along the corridor
would continue to operate at acceptable LOS during daily peak hours, with slightly decreased
operations in comparison to the Base-Year (2012) results. Four of the five analyzed intersections
are expected to have at least one approach operating at LOS E during the peak hours, indicating
3-11

Table 3-3
Traffic Capacity Analysis Results
Base Year Design Year Design Year
Intersection
Traffic (2012) (2035) (2035)
Control No-Build No-Build Build
AM PM AM PM AM PM
US 421 and NC 16 Signalized C C C C
US 421 and Dancy
Signalized A A B B
Road/Lowes Drive
US 421 and WalMart/ Signalized B B B B See Figure 3-3
Lowes Drive for LOS Results
US 421 and Winkler
Signalized B B B B
Mill Road
US 421 and US 421
Signalized B C C C
Business
*LOS Results are reported for signalized intersections only and indicate overall LOS for that intersection.
additional congestion and delay along the corridor due to increased volumes throughout the
network.
3.15.3 Design-Year (2035) Build
The Design-Year(2035)ADT on this section of US 421 ranges between 29,000 and 41,000 vehicles
per day. To provide continuity along the corridor, a four-lane median-divided network of
superstreet intersections for US 421 from NC 16 to US 421 Business is recommended. This
configuration is expected to operate at an arterial LOS B during the Design-Year(2035)peak hours
with average speeds of 37 miles per hour or greater. All intersections and intersection approaches
to the superstreet facility are expected to operate at LOS D or better with acceptable queuing in
the Design-Year (2035) peak hours.
3.16 TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
In accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of
Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (Title 23 CFR 772) and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation Traffic Noise Abatement Policy,each Type I highway project must
be analyzed for predicted traffic noise impacts. In general, Type I projects are proposed State or
3-12

16
SR 1321
SR 1320 Zion Hill SR 1323
Congo Road Church Road Dancy Road
I
I
� I
� I
D/D C/C
g/g B/C
I
421 i
I
g/A B/C A/A C/D
A/A I
C
C/C
/C '
I
I
I
I
SR 1182
Laurelwood
Drive
SR 1143
New Brown's Ford Lowes Driveway
Road
Curtis Bridge Road
D/D
A/B
421
Buso,es
I
Lowe's Food Winkler Mill Road C/C '
Driveway
I I C/B
I I
I I
I < I
' C/C C/D B/C B/B
D/C
A/A A/B A/A
i 421
Ii A/A B/B A/A B/B A/B �A
A/A pproach Levels of Service(LOS)AM/PM
C/C D/C
' 421 0�)Median U-turn Superstreet LOS AM/PM
I
I
' Addison Avenue/
WalM art Driveway I(ohl's Driveway *LOS Results adapted from NCDOT Congestion
US 421 Improvements Figure
Not to Scale Design Year(2035)Levels of Service U-5312 3-3
` Wilkes County

Federal highway projects for construction of a highway or interchange on new location,
improvements of an existing highway that substantially changes the horizontal or vertical
alignment or increases the vehicle capacity, or projects that involve new construction or
substantial alteration of transportation facilities such as weigh stations,rest stops,ride-share lots
or toll plazas.
Traffic noise impacts are determined through implementing the current Traffic Noise Model
(TNM) approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and following procedures
detailed in Title 23 CFR 772,the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy and the NCDOT Traffic
Noise Analysis and Abatement Manual. When traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination
and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures must be considered for reducing or
eliminating these impacts. Temporary and localized noise impacts will likely occur as a result of
project construction activities. Construction noise control measures will be incorporated into the
project plans and specifications.
A copy of the unabridged version of the full Traffic Noise Analysis (TNA) document is on file at
NCDOT and can be obtained through the Project Development&Environmental Analysis Unit,
Century Center Building A, 1000 Birch Ridge Drive, Raleigh.
3.16.1 Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
The maximum number of receptors in the proposed project predicted to become impacted by
future traffic noise is shown in Table 3-4. The table includes those receptors expected to
experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement
Criteria(NAC) or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels.
The maximum extent of the 71-and 66-dBA noise level contours measured from the center of the
proposed roadway is 63 feet and 121 feet, respectively.
3.16.2 No-Build Alternative
The Traffic Noise Analysis also considered traffic noise impacts for the"No-Build" alternative. If
the proposed project does not occur, five (5) receptors are predicted to experience traffic noise
impacts and the future traffic noise levels will increase by approximately one (1) dBA. Based
upon research, humans barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change is more
readily noticeable. Therefore, most people working and living near the roadway will not notice
this predicted increase.
3-14

Table 3-4
Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts by Alternative'
Alternative Traffic Noise Impacts
Places of
Residential Worship/Schools, Businesses Total
(NAC B) Parks, etc. (NAC E)
(NAC C &D)
Existing 2 0 0 2
No-Build 5 0 0 5
Build 6 0 0 6
*Per TNM2.5 and in accordance with 23 CFR Part 772
3.16.3 Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts were considered for all impacted
receptors in each alternative. The primary noise abatement measures evaluated for highway
projects include highway alignment changes, traffic system management measures,
establishment of buffer zones,noise barriers and noise insulation(NAC D only). For each of these
measures, benefits versus costs (reasonableness), engineering feasibility, effectiveness and
practicability and other factors were included in the noise abatement considerations.
Substantially changing the highway alignment to minimize noise impacts is not considered to be
a viable option for this project due to engineering and/or environmental factors. Traffic system
management measures are not considered viable for noise abatement due to the negative impact
they would have on the capacity and level of service of the proposed roadway. Costs to acquire
buffer zones for impacted receptors will exceed the NCDOT base dollar value of$37,500 plus an
incremental increase of $525 (as defined in the NCDOT Policy) per benefited receptor, causing
this abatement measure to be unreasonable.
3.16.4 Nosie Barriers
Noise barriers include two basic types: earthen berms and noise walls. These structures act to
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise.
This project will maintain uncontrolled right of way access, meaning that most noise-sensitive
land uses will have direct access connections to the proposed project, and most intersections will
adjoin the project at grade. The Traffic Noise Analysis for this project confirmed that the physical
breaks in potential noise barriers that would occur due to the uncontrolled right of way access
3-15

would prohibit any noise barrier from providing the minimum required traffic noise level
reductions at all predicted traffic noise impacts, as defined by the noise abatement measure
feasibility criteria of the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy.
3.16.5 Summary
Based on this preliminary study, 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. No additional noise analysis will be performed for this
project unless warranted by a substantial change in the project's design concept or scope.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State governments are
not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development for which building
permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the
proposed highway project will be the approval date of the Categorical Exclusion (CE). For
development occurring after this date,local governing bodies are responsible to ensure that noise
compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
3.17 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and internal combustion
engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges
from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. Changing
traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or
the improvement of an existing 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).
The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 established the NAAQS. These were established in order to
protect public health,safety,and welfare from known or anticipated effects of air pollutants. The
most recent amendments to the NAAQS contain criteria for sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate
matter (PMio, 10-micron and smaller, PM2.5, 2.5 micron and smaller), carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (Os), and lead (Pb).
The primary pollutants from motor vehicles are unburned hydrocarbons, NOX, CO, and
particulates. Hydrocarbons (HC) and Nitrogen oxides (NOX) can combine in a complex series of
reactions catalyzed by sunlight to produce photochemical oxidants such as ozone and NOz.
Because these reactions take place over a period of several hours, maximum concentrations of
photochemical oxidants are often found far downwind of the precursor sources. These pollutants
are regional problems.
3-16

A project-level air quality analysis was prepared for this project. A copy of the unabridged
version of the full technical report entitled Air Ouali , Anal , US 421 Improvements from NC 16
to US 421 Business in Wilkes County dated November 25, 2014 can be viewed at the Project
Development & Environmental Analysis Unit, Century Center Building A, 1000 Birch Ridge
Drive, Raleigh.
3.17.1 Attainment Status
The project is located in Wilkes County,which has been determined to comply with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is located in an attainment area;therefore,
40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
3.17.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT)
Background
Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency(EPA)regulate 188 air toxics,also known as hazardous air pollutants.The EPA
has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007), and
identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in their Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS) ( http://www.epa.gov/iris/). In addition, EPA identified seven
compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and
regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natal999/). These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butidiene, diesel
particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases(diesel PM),formaldehyde,naphthalene,and
polycyclic organic matter.While FHWA considers these the priority mobile source air toxics, the
list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules. The 2007 EPA
rule mentioned above requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT emissions through
cleaner fuels and cleaner engines.Based on an FHWA analysis using EPA's MOVES2010b model,
even if vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increases by 102 percent as assumed from 2010 to 2050, a
combined reduction of 83 percent in the total annual emissions for the priority MSAT is projected
for the same time period.
MSAT analyses are intended to capture the net change in emissions within an affected
environment, defined as the transportation network affected by the project. The affected
environment for MSATs may be different than the affected environment defined in the NEPA
document for other environmental effects, such as noise or wetlands. Analyzing MSATs only
within a geographically-defined"study area" will not capture the emissions effects of changes in
3-17

traffic on roadways outside of that area,which is particularly important where the project creates
an alternative route or diverts traffic from one roadway class to another. At the other extreme,
analyzing a metropolitan area's entire roadway network will result in emissions estimates for
many roadway links not affected by the project, diluting the results of the analysis.
Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Health Impact Analysis
In FHWA's view,information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project-specific
health impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set of highway
alternatives. The outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be influenced more by
the uncertainty introduced into the process through assumption and speculation rather than any
genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure associated
with a proposed action.
The EPA is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from any known or
anticipated effect of an air pollutant. They are the lead authority for administering the Clean Air
Act and its amendments and have specific statutory obligations with respect to hazardous air
pollutants and MSAT. The EPA is in the continual process of assessing human health effects,
exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), which is "a compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the
environment and their potential to cause human health effects" (EPA, www.epa.gov/iris/). Each
report contains assessments of non-cancerous and cancerous effects for individual compounds
and quantitative estimates of risk levels from lifetime oral and inhalation exposures with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude.
Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human health effects of
MSAT, including the Health Effects Institute (HEI). Two HEI studies are summarized in
Appendix D of FHWA's Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA
Documents.Among the adverse health effects linked to MSAT compounds at high exposures are;
cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer in animals; and irritation to the respiratory
tract, including the exacerbation of asthma. Less obvious is the adverse human health effects of
MSAT compounds at current environmental concentrations (HEI,
http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=282) or in the future as vehicle emissions substantially
decrease (HEI,http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=306).
The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling; dispersion
modeling; exposure modeling; and then final determination of health impacts - each step in the
process building on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are encumbered by
technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete differentiation of the
3-18

MSAT health impacts among a set of project alternatives. These difficulties are magnified for
lifetime (i.e., 70 year) assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have
to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions
rates) over that time frame, since such information is unavailable.
It is particularly difficult to reliably forecast 70-year lifetime MSAT concentrations and exposure
near roadways; to determine the portion of time that people are actually exposed at a specific
location; and to establish the extent attributable to a proposed action, especially given that some
of the information needed is unavailable.
There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the
various MSAT,because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational
exposure data to the general population, a concern expressed by HEI
(http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=282).As a result,there is no national consensus on air
dose-response values assumed to protect the public health and welfare for MSAT compounds,
and in particular for diesel PM. The EPA (www.epa.gov/risk/basicinfor mation. htm#g) and the
HEI(http://pubs.healtheffects.org/getfile.php?u=395)have not established a basis for quantitative
risk assessment of diesel PM in ambient settings.
There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current context is
the process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to determine whether more
stringent controls are required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect for industrial sources subject to the
maximum achievable control technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries.
The decision framework is a two-step process. The first step requires EPA to determine an
"acceptable" level of risk due to emissions from a source, which is generally no greater than
approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors are considered in the second step, the goal of
which is to maximize the number of people with risks less than 1 in a million due to emissions
from a source. The results of this statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks
from exposure to air toxics are less than 1 in a million; in some cases, the residual risk
determination could result in maximum individual cancer risks that are as high as approximately
100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit upheld EPA's approach to addressing risk in its two-step decision framework.
Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest of highway projects
would result in levels of risk greater than deemed acceptable.
Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts described, any
predicted difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the
uncertainties associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such
3-19

assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information
against project benefits, such as reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities plus
improved access for emergency response, that are better suited for quantitative analysis.
MSAT Conclusion
The science of mobile source air toxics is still evolving. As the science progresses, FHWA will
continue to revise and update this guidance. FHWA is working with stakeholders, EPA and
others to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of developing analysis tools and the
applicability on the project level decision documentation process.
3.17.3 Summary
Vehicles are a major contributor to decreased air quality because they emit a variety of pollutants
into the air. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a
new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. New highways or the
widening of existing highways increase localized levels of vehicle emissions,but these increases
could be offset due to increases in speeds from reductions in congestion and because vehicle
emissions will decrease in areas where traffic shifts to the new roadway. Substantial progress has
been made in reducing criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles and improving air
quality, even as vehicle travel has increased rapidly.
Based on the air quality analysis completed for the proposed improvements, the US 421
Improvements project would not contribute to any violation of the NAAQS or result in any
increases in MSATs. Therefore, it is not anticipated to create any adverse air quality effects.
3.18 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANKS
Fifteen(15)UST facilities were identified within the study area. All 15 sites are anticipated to be
low risk. The preliminary design of the project does not affect any of these sites. Field verification
of the hazardous waste sites and identification of unknown sites will be performed during final
design.
3.19 UTILITIES
There are several utilities that are located within the project area. Relocation of gas, electric,
telephone, CATV, water, and sewer lines will be required with this project. The total estimated
cost of the utility relocation is$4.4 Million($3.6 Million of which is for water and sewer lines,$0.8
Million is for power lines).
3-20

3.19.1 Electric Power Transmission
Duke Energy has distribution lines within the project area. They have an aerial 250KV
transmission line that crosses over US 421 just east of New Browns Ford Road. There would be
no impact to this transmission line. There would be power poles relocated at various other
locations along the project.
3.19.2 Water and Sewer Facilities
West Wilkes Water Works has a two inch PVC water line buried at Westgate Drive. The Town
of Wilkesboro has an eight inch force main sewer line, an eight inch gravity sewer line, and an
eight inch PVC line that runs within the project area. Water and sewer lines will be impacted at
certain locations along the corridor.
3.19.3 Natural Gas Service and Other Pipelines
Frontier Natural Gas has a 16-inch steel and a 10-inch plastic line, both buried, that run
throughout the project area. No impacts to these pipelines are anticipated.
3.19.4 Communications/Fiber Optic
Charter Communications and CenturyLink each have aerial facilities on Duke Energy's poles.
CenturyLink has buried Fiber Optic on the north side of US 421. Some of Duke Energy's power
poles will need to be relocated as mentioned in Section 3.19.1, therefore some communication
lines may be temporarily affected.
3.20 PERMITS
A US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 will be applicable for the
construction of this project. NWP 23 covers all actions included in the approved CE document.
Any activities not mentioned in the CE are temporary impacts that would be covered by a NWP
33 (Permit for Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering) as needed. The USACE holds
the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project construction. If a
Section 404 permit is required then a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the
NCDWR will be needed.
3.21 COST ESTIMATES
Preliminary construction cost estimates were developed for the Build Alternative from the
preliminary designs. Three cost components were included in the total estimated cost,including
right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations and construction costs. The estimated cost of each
component is; right-of-way $2.6 million; utility relocation $4.4 million; and construction
3-21

$18.2 million. The total project cost estimate is $25.2 million. The most recent Draft STIP shows
a cost estimate of$34.5 million,$30 million for construction and$4.5 million for utility relocation.
3.22 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
NCDOT Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities will be adhered
to during construction to minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction.
3.23 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The impacts as a result of this project are not expected to be significantly adverse. Table 3-5 lists
the engineering factors and anticipated environmental impacts associated with the Build
Alternative. These factors and impacts are based on the preliminary roadway designs.
3-22

Table 3-5
Engineering and Environmental Evaluation Factors
Evaluation Factor Build Alternative
Traffic Volumes(2035 ADT) 29,000—41,000
Relocations(Residences,Businesses,and 0
Churches)
Cemeteries 0
Access Changes One business would lose one of two access points;all
businesses would be accessed by right-in,right-out,
with some left-over in
Parking Impacts 28 spaces lost from five locations
Traffic Noise Impacts(affected properties) 6(no mitigation recommended)
Stream Crossings—number' 8 existing crossings/6 impacted by extending culverts
Stream Crossings—linear feet2 459
Major Drainage Structures(>-72"Dia.) 3 total extensions(2 @ 9'X 11'RCBC,2@ 11'X 11'
RCBC,and 1 78" CMP)
Floodplain Encroachment-#of Regulatory 0
Floodways Impacted2
Floodplain Encroachment—acres of 100-year
Floodplain Impacted2 0.1
Floodplain Encroachment—acres of 500-year
Floodplain Impacted2 0.2
Forested Communities—acres 3 1.9
Prime,Unique,and Locally Important 0
Farmlands—acres
Wetlands—acres3 0
Historic Architectural Sites 0
Archaeological Sites 0
Hazardous Material Sites 0
Construction Cost $18.2 Million
Right of Way Cost $2.6 Million
Utilities Cost $4.4 Million
Total Cost $25.2 Million
19 Streams in Study Area;8 Streams cross US 421;6 Streams impacted by culvert extensions
ZBased on Slope Stakes
313ased on Slope Stakes plus 25 feet
3-23

4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
4.1.1 Mailing List
All property owners within the study area were added to a mailing list that was used to send out
meeting notices and a newsletter. After each public meeting or communication from the public,
the mailing list was updated to account for all interested parties. The mailing list contains
approximately 400 names.
4.1.2 Newsletters
Approximately 400 copies of the newsletter were mailed in December 2013 to property owners
within the study area. The newsletter contained information about the study process and
schedule,the purpose and need of the project,project contacts, and public meeting locations and
times.
4.1.3 Local Officials Meeting
A Local Officials Meeting was held at the Wilkesboro Town Hall on January 14,2014. More than
20 people attended, including the Mayor of Wilkesboro and all Town Councilmen. The purpose
of the meeting was to inform local officials about the project, to convey a conceptual
understanding of the superstreet intersection design, and to receive input. The map showing the
proposed project was on display and a traffic simulation was shown to visually identify how a
superstreet intersection would operate. Project representatives were on hand to answer questions
following the presentation. There were questions about accident history that were answered and
there was general support for the project.
4.1.4 Public Meeting
A Public Meeting was held at the Wilkes County Civic Center on January 14, 2014. The purpose
of the meeting was to inform attendees about the project, to convey a conceptual understanding
of the superstreet intersection design, and to receive input from the public. In one room, a
presentation explaining the superstreet intersection and project details,such as schedule and cost,
was given continuously throughout the public meeting. In a separate room,three maps showing
the superstreet intersection concepts for the project were on display for the public. A traffic
simulation was shown so the public could visually understand how the proposed superstreet
intersections would operate. Project representatives were on hand to answer questions in both
rooms.
4-1

The superstreet concept was generally well received by those in attendance. People who spoke
at the meeting were in general agreement that there is a problem along the project corridor that
needs to be addressed. Most verbal comments indicated that the public is in favor of the
superstreet design, though some comments showed concern about access to and from particular
sites along the corridor. Many citizens did express concern about the superstreet intersection at
the intersection of NC 16 and US 421,noting that NC 16 carries a level of traffic that some meeting
attendees do not believe would work well with a superstreet intersection. The majority of those
commenting about this intersection lived along NC 16.
4-2

5.0 CONCLUSION
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from the implementation of this project. The project is
therefore considered to be a Categorical Exclusion due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
5-1

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A:
Agency Coordination
Historic Architecture Review
Archaeological Review

Project Tracking No.(Internal Use
13-04-0040
HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
}'`g This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
tt is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: U-5312 County: Wilkes
WBS No.: 45446.1.1 Document
Type:
Fed.Aid No: Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
Federal ® Yes ❑No Permit NWP 14
Permits : Type(s):
Project Description:
Improve US 421 from NC 16 to US 421 bridge over Yadkin River in Wilkesboro
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, relevant background reports, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on May 2,2013. Based on this review there are no NR,DE, LL, SL,or SS in the project area.
There is one identified historic site (WK 272 Parson House) indicated on the HPO GIS map but it was
determine not eligible in 2006. According to Wilkes County Tax Data there are no of her p rimary
structures that are greater than 50 years of age in the APE. There are no other National Register eligible
structures in the APE of this project.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting that there
are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the protect
area:
Using HPO GIS website and the Wilkes County GIS Tax Data website provides reliable information
regarding the structures in the APE. These combined utilities are considered valid for the purposes of
determining the likelihood of historic resources being present.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
®Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
Historic Archileclure and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreemenl.
Page 1 of 2
A-1

FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes --NO SURVEY REQUIRED
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVF,Y R60UIIUS'D fo-m(or 1vfinor Transportation Projects cis Ouolified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreenteni.
Page 2 of 2
A-2

13-04-0040
NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM ?
A This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not vali
wfp ! for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the Historic
P P Y .:a
. Architecture and Landscapes Group. -f3
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: U-5312 County: Wilkes
WBS No: 45446.1.1 Document: CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
F.A. No: NHS-042(72) Funding: ❑ State ® Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: NWP 14
Project Description: Improve US 421 for 3-mile segment from NC 16 to US 421 Business in Wilkes
County including adding 30 ft. median, superstreet designs and possible widening. Area of Potential
Effects(A.P.E.)is approximately 4.8 kilometers(3 miles) long and 60 meters (200 ft.)wide. No design
plans provided. Federally-funded;will require Federal permits;will require temporary and/or permanent
easements for construction and drainage.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
see attached
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
See attached.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ® Photos ❑Correspondence ❑
Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEYREQUIRED
Caleb Smith 5/20/2014
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST 11 Date
A-3

APPENDIX B:
Relocation Report
Relocation Report

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
® E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS ELEMENT: 454461.1 1 COUNTY Wilkes Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
T.I.P. No.: U-5312
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US-421 from SR-1226, Westgate Drive to the Yadkin River
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $0-150 0 0-20M 0 $0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 0 150-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES"answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 0 250-400 0
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 0 400-600 0
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 0 600 up 0 100 UP 0 600 uP p
displacement? TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 0
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS(Respond by Number)
after project? 3. Businesses will continue to operate
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of 5. The plans that were submitted for the EIS study did not
employees, minorities, etc. indicate residential or business relocatees. In case of plan
changes there is enough replacement properties for housing
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? and businesses. There are some miscellaneous items that
x 6. Source for available housing (list). have to be relocated but will be handled accordingly.
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed? 6. MLS Services, local realtors, newspapers, etc...
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered? 8. As mandated by law if needed.
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families? 11. Housing Authority is available in this area.
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available? 14. Source same as for available housing on No. 6. Also
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing indicates sufficient business properties will be available.
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
I x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list NEGATIVE REPORT
source).
I 15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 1 18 mos.
n 0 4-L 10/13/14 10/15/14
Daneil S. Miles Date 7--Relocation Coordinator Date
Division Right of Way Agent
FRM15-E
Revised 7/7/14
B-1