20191006_Meeting Minutes_20080505

I 4%

rb

4'

&UZL-j1Lt 46,

A*Otlil, WIL

c:

4 p

LAS

y~.o
N d

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
AGENDA
Western Concurrence Meeting
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Board Room, Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina

1:00 PM to 5:00 PM -Undrea Major, Project Planning Engineer, PDEA Branch
TIP No. I-3819, Statesville I-40/1-77 interchange from US 21 to 1-77
Iredell County, Division 12

Team Members:

Steve Lund, USACE
Undrea Major, PDEA
Felix Davila, FHWA
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Marla Chambers, WRC
Polly Lespinasse, DWQ
Renee Gledhill - Early, SHPO
Bjorn Hansen, Iredell County RPO (non-signatory)

NCDOT Technical Support Staff and Other Agency Staff:

Kathy Matthews, USEPA Greg Perfetti, Structures
Dan Grissom, Division 12 Robert Memory, Utilities Coordination
Mike Holder, Division 12 Alper Pthel, TPB 'M~ cL -e-1 0 -C
Cathy Houser, Roadway Design Drew Joyner, HEU
Marshall Clawson, Hydraulics Phil Harris, NEU
Njoroge Wainaina, Geotechnical Teresa Hart, PDEA
Don Lee, Roadside Environmental James Bridges, PDEA

* The purpose of this meeting is to reach concurrence on CP 2A and
CP 4A.

MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548

Proposed 1-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements
Iredell County

Federal Aid Project No. IMS-40-2
State Project No. 8.1823901
WBS Element No. 34192.1.2

TIP Project No. 1-3819

CONCURRENCE POINTS 2A & 4A

MERGER TEAM PACKAGE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

~ of ~aert
4~,y

P10 7

T . ! OF TRAN$RO~ RECEIVE&)

APR 2 3 2008

NC DENR MRO

DWQ-Surface Water Protect n

Prepared By:
URS CORPORATION - NORTH CAROLINA

April 2008

1-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements
TIP 1-3819
Iredell County

Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting
Concurrence Point Nos. 2A & 4A

Purpose of the Meeting

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is hosting a Section
404/NEPA Merger Project Team meeting in its Board Room at 10:30 AM on May 13,
2008. The primary purpose of this meeting is to achieve Merger Project Team
Concurrence on Points 2A (Bridging and Alignment Review) and 4A (Avoidance and
Minimization) for the proposed 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvements.

:j Background

The Initial Merger 01 Screening Meeting for the proposed project was held on March 17,
2004, and it was determined that the project would follow a modified process. After a
Jurisdictional Determination field meeting on March 29, 2005, the USACE suggested
that, due to the amount of jurisdictional features potentially impacted by the project and
the higher quality characteristics associated with several systems present, the project
would be returned to the Merger 01 Process at CP 1.
After an agency coordination meeting on April 14, 2005, NCDOT received a letter from
USACE addressing their change in position that the project enter the Merger 01 process
at CP 1. An agency coordination meeting was held between NCDOT, FHWA and
USACE on September 27, 2006 to present the project alternatives carried forward,
explain the alternatives that did meet the purpose and need, and quantify the impacts to
the natural and human environments. Based on this presentation, USACE agreed that it
' would be acceptable to proceed with the project as originally agreed upon as long as
NCDOT held a coordination meeting with the other Merger Team members to solicit
comments before the circulation of the Environmental Assessment (EA). An agency
` coordination meeting was held on October 17, 2006 to present the project to the Merger
Team members and solicit input.
The EA was approved on November 29, 2006.

Project Description

The proposed action is designated in the latest approved NCDOT's Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as TIP project number 1-3819 and is described as
"Statesville, modification of 1-40/1-77 interchange area."
- The primary needs for the proposed action include the following:
• Traffic capacity deficiencies;
• Existing safety concerns;

• Diminished ability to function as a North Carolina Strategic Highway Corridor;
and,
• Diminished ability to function as a part of the United States Interstate System.

The primary purposes for the proposed action include the following:
• Improve traffic flow along the 1-40 and 1-77 corridors within the study area; and,
• Improve regional connectivity between Iredell County and points, east, west,
north and south within North Carolina and across the Interstate System.

A range of alternatives for the proposed action were evaluated including the No-Build
Alternative, Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative, Mass Transit
t Alternative, wetland avoidance alternatives, and several build alternatives. Based on an
evaluation of the alternatives and the purpose and need for the project all but two build
alternatives were eliminated from further study.
I erna Ives

PAM- OWN,
e

Design Revisions

Final design has begun and has been completed to the 25% design phase.

MEN MW I_ 1110111''
IMA The data that is not yet available is denoted as `To
e etermined` or TBD* in this package.

Summary of Agency Comments
See "Agency Comments" tab for summary of agency comments.

Summary of Public Involvement Comments

See "Public Involvement" tab for post-hearing meeting minutes.

Avoidance and Minimization

Due to the extent of wetlands and streams within the project study area, and the location
of the existing roadways and interchanges, avoidance is not possible.

Minimization for wetlands includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps
to reduce adverse impacts to wetlands. Wdus
4" mi RA
811
11101111-
A

Minimization of streams includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce adverse impacts to streams. A retaining wall is proposed to run adjacent to the
east side of 1-77 for 1,730 feet to keep the fill slope from impacting stream S3.

Other steps that will be implemented to minimize impacts to wetlands and streams
include:
s
• Minimizing "in-stream" activities,
• Strictly enforcing the sedimentation and erosion control best management
practices (BMPs) for the protection of wetlands and streams,
• Decreasing the impacts of the project through the use of Type III clearing
and grubbing which does not clear the entire right of way width,
Decreasing the footprint of the project through the steepening of fill slope
where possible, and
` Utilizing natural stream channel design principles when relocating
streams.
Summary of Impacts

The summary of impacts is included in Table 1. The impacts in the Environmental
Assessment were based on 10 feet beyond the slope stake limits. Current NCDOT
guidance calls for the impacts for preliminary design to be based on a 25-foot buffer from
the slope stake limits. Because of this some of the impacts have changed.
r; •1
Table 1: Total Jurisdictional Impacts
Impact Type EA Impacts New Design Impacts
(10' offset) (25' offset)
Streams 2,428 If 1,634 If + TBD*
Stream 1,476 If 1,453
Relocations
Wetlands 3.19 acres 2.76 acres + TBD*
TBD* Denotes impacts that will be quantified following development of detailed hydraulic studies
See Jurisdictional Impacts Tab for more detailed summary of impacts.

Resource Structure Type Flom Stream Stream Type & Size of
ID ings Impacts Relocations Existing Structure
h linear feet linear feet
1 Bridge(new) 36 It x 340 0 0 N/A
2 Bridge (existing to remain N/A 0 0 200' Ion x 72' wide
3 Bridge(new) 34 It x 177 0 0 N/A
4 Dual bridges (replacement) 219 ft x 22i 0 0 Dual 150' x 45' wide
5 Bridge(new) 29 It x 218 0 0 N/A
6 Bridge(new) 72 ft wide 0 0 N/A
7 Temporary Bride new 40 ft x 162 0 0 N/A
8 Dual bridges (replacement) 138 ft x 20/ 0 0 Dual 160'x 30'(NB) /
58' SB
9 Bridge(new) 50 ft x 435 TBD* 0 N/A
10 Bride new - replace culvert 70-106 ft x 0 0 Dual 7.5'x7.5' RCBC
11 Bridge(new) 55 ft x 340 TBD* 0 N/A
12 Culvert (extension) Extend exiE 152 0 Triple 9.25'x 9.25'
and 60 It do RCBC
13 Bridge (replacement) 103 ft x 3V 47 0 270' Ion x 74' wide
Culvert new <721nches TBD` 0
Bridge(new) Same as 0 0
Culvert new <72 inches 601 0
17 Culvert (extension) Extend exiE 122 0 <72 inches
' and 30 It do
18 Culvert (extension) Extend exiE 109 0 <72 inches
and 40 ft do
19 Stream Relocation N/A 0 578
20 Culvert extension Extend exiE 235 0 <72 inches
Culvert new <72 inches 253 0
2 Stream Relocation N/A 0 283
23 Stream Relocation N/A 0 565
24 Culvert extension Extend exiE 71 0 <72 inches
25 Wetland Fill N/A N/A N/A
26 Wetland Fill N/A N/A N/A
27 Bridge(new) Same as 4 N/A N/A
28 Wetland Fill N/A N/A N/A
29 Stream Relocation N/A 0 27
30 Culvert extension Extend exiE 44 0 <72 inches
Total Impacts 1634+TBD* 1453
TBD* Denotes impacts that will be quantified following dev

Table 2: Stream Impacts

Stream' Four-level Offset Alternative
Stream Stream Name Impacts New Design Number of Crossings
Label Classification Stream pa impacts (if) Nu
S1 Perennial Fourth Creek 0 0 8
S2 Perennial UT to Fourth 0 TBD* 3
Creek
S3 Perennial UT to Fourth 145 199 3
Creek
S6 Perennial UT to Fourth 500 TBD* 2
Creek
p S12 Perennial UT to Fourth 590 0 1
Creek
S16 Intermittent UT to Fourth 601 601 1
Creek
S18 Perennial UT to Fourth 89 122 1
Creek
S19 Perennial UT to Fourth 80 109 1
Creek
S20 Perennial UT to Fourth 69 44 1
Creek
S22 Intermittent UT to Fourth 237 235 1
Creek
S23 Intermittent UT to Fourth 0 71 1
Creek
S24 Perennial UT to Fourth 117 253 1
Creek
Total 2,428 1,634+TBD* 24
TBD* Denotes impacts that will be quantified following development of detailed hydraulic studies
Table 3: Stream Impacts due to Stream Relocations
Stream EA New Design Impacts
Stream Label Stream Name Impacts
Classification (if) (if)
S11 Perennial UT to Fourth 269 283
Creek
.:f
S17 Perennial UT to Fourth 565 565
Creek
S20 Perennial UT to Fourth 616 578
y Creek
S21 Perennial UT to Fourth 0 27
Creek
S23 Intermittent UT to Fourth 26 0
Creek
Total 1,476 1,453

Table 4: Total Stream Impacts
Type , EA Impacts (1f) New Design impacts (If)
Stream
Crossing 2°428 1,634 +TBD*
Stream 1,476 1,531
Relocation
TOTAL 3,904 3,165 + TBD*
TBD' Denotes impacts that will be quantified following development of detailed hydraulic studies

Table 5: Impacts to USACE Jurisdictional Wetlands

Riverine/ EA New Design
Wetland Wetland Non- Classification NCDWQ Impacts Impacts - 25' Area (acres) Riverine Rating (If) offset (If)
W6 0.60 Non- PF01 23
Riverine 0.00 TBD*
W7 0.87 Riverine PF01 40 0.51 TBD*
1 W8 3.87 Riverine PFO1 56 0.10 0.00
W12 3.74 Riverine PF01 38 0.00 TBD*
W14 0 Non- PF01 21 0.00 0.00
Riverine
W15 14.72 Riverine PEM1/PF01 92 1.81 2.41
I W16 0.17 Non- PFO1 19 0.17 0.00
Riverine
W17 0.29 Non- PFO1 16 0.04 0.05
fi Riverine
W20 0.09 Non- PFO1 16 0.09 0.09
Riverine
W24 0.52 Riverine PFO1 46 0.14 0.18
W25 0.22 Riverine PFO1 69 0.02 0.03
WSL 0.21 Riverine PF01 15 0.21 0.00
Total Impacts 3.19 2.76 + TBD*
TBD* Denotes impacts that will be quantified following development of detailed hydraulic studies

Table 6: Summary of Impacts
Impact EA Impacts New Design
Impacts
Length (miles) 6.8 6.8
Estimated Cost
Construction Costs $170,000,000 $263,900,000
Right-of-Way Costs $15,715,000 $15,715,000
Total Costs $185,715,000 $276,615,000
Relocation Impact Summary
Residences (total) 5 5
Owner Occupied 3 3
Tenant Occupied 2 2
Minority 1 1
Businesses 3 3
Farms 1 1
Section 4(f) Resources Impact Summary
Section 4(f) resources 0 0

Community Services and Facilities Impact Summary
I Schools 3' 3'
Parks and Recreation Facilities 12 12
Churches 23 23
Cemeteries 0 0
Utilities
Electrical Easement Crossings 1 1
Major Gas Mains 0 0
Railroad Crossings 0 0
Cultural Resources Impact Summary
No. of Archaeological sites 0 0
No. of Historic Resources 0 0
a Farmland Impact Summary (acres)
Prime and Unique Farmland 27 27
Statewide and Local Important Farmland 16 16
Biotic Community Impact Summary (acres)
;::ens
Piedmont/Mountain Semipermenant Impoundment 0.9 0.9
Low Elevation Seep 1.6 1.6
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest 12.1 12.1
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 12.2 12.2
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 6.1 6.1
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest 0.1 0.1
Pastoral/Agricultural Land 49.5 49.5
Urban/Disturbed Areas 207.8 207.8

Impact EA Impacts New Design
Impacts
Jurisdictional Impact Summary
Acres of Wetlands Impacted 3.19 2.76 + TBD*
r- Number of Wetland crossings 9 TBD*
Total Linear Feet of Jurisdictional Streams Impacted 2,248 1,634 + TBD*
Total Linear Feet of Jurisdictional Streams Relocated 1,476 1,453
Protected Species Impact Summary
bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergit) No Effect No Effect
Allegheny woodrat (Neotoma magister) No Effect No Effect
Prairie birdsfoot-trefoil (Lotus unifoliolatus var. No Effect No Effect
hellen)
Air Quality Impacts
f No. of Intersections exceeding Carbon Monoxide 0 0
NAAQS
Noise Impacts
V Number of Impacted Receptors 120 120
Hazardous Materials Impact Summary
No. of Impacted Hazardous Materials Sites undetermined undetermined4
Source: URS, 2006
Impacts calculated for EA based on 10 feet beyond the slope limits. Impacts for New Design calculated based on 25 feet
beyond slope stake limits.
Right-of-Way acquisition only. No impact to school usage
'•;'j 2 No new Greenway crossings. Existing crossings to remain.
3 Right-of-Way acquisition from church property only. No impact to use or facilities.
° 63 potential sites identified within the study area. Additional studies will be required to determine the number within the
proposed right-of-way limits.
TBD* Denotes impacts that will be quantified following development of detailed hydraulic studies

A

t

~t

a
•

iY ~ aP

rz
S ri

:.a
-F
:i

J

eA

North Carolina Legend Date: April 2008
Department of Transportation N
~aot woRrn Q! RESOURCE ID NUMBER W E

s - - JURISDICTIONAL STREAM 8
' Q JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
- PROPOSED BRIDGE
I-40/I-77 Interchange Improvements _ CONCRETE BARRIER Figure I
Iredell County

TIP Project No. 1-3819 Project Overview

a: iyt t f
1a14h 1 Y a,:
~ F ) r.
r ~ tTr: '"q~/~ t

,~gg r / f

.ri

Nil

r1
'R, ~+sk -
)J

I ~

A

R ,

b
t

z

North Carolina Le en Date: April 2008
Department of Transportation "
RESOURCE ID NUMBER
p0e iN C
e ° JURISDICTIONAL STREAM w E
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM IMPACT
i; JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND s
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACT 2 0' 0' 290' 490'
or rr?+°Q~~ ® JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND BRIDGED
100'
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
PROPOSED BRIDGE
1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvements CONCRETE BARRIER
Figure 2
Iredell County - FILL SLOPESTAKE
- - CUT SLOPESTAKE
25FOILLTRAER~ONSLOPESTAKE Jurisdictional Impacts
TIP Project No. 1-3819

I
BMW

ttII + r2~
d3

i~

~o

i

h

` North Carolina Le -iend Date: April 2008
Department of Transportation RESOURCE ID NUM3ER N
C~ p4e tk
~ ~r ~ ¦ ~ JURISDICTIONAL STREAM w e
y _ JURISDICTIONAL STREAM IMPACT
$ Q JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND a
y T JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACT 210, 0' 2 0' 4 0'
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND BRIDGED
OF 100'
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
PROPOSED BRIDGE
1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvements CONCRETE BARRIER
Iredell County FILL SLOPESTAKE Figure 3
CUT SLOPESTAKE
ZCUT~ B RSITION SLOPESTAKE Jurisdictional Impacts
TIP Project No. 1-3819

. ~ ~ ~ 114

-

'T
`'71 w F

North Carolina Leaend Date: Apol2008
Department of Transportation ® RESOURCE ID NUMBER N
- f KoRrK
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM w e
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM IMPACT
li O JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND s
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND MACT 210, 0' 290' 4 0'
or ~0?+°1~ JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND BRIDGED
EDGE OF PAVEMENT MY
PROPOSED BRIDGE
1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvements CONCRETE BARRIER
Iredell County FILL SLOPESTAKE Figure 4
CUT SLOPESTAKE
CUT/FILL TRANSITION SLOPESTAKE
TIP Project No. I-3819 25 FOOT BUFFER Jurisdictional Impacts

i
t

K
f•

ra 1r
~r

v ~ r
3 1 n u 1I
_ S-
> North Carolina Leaend Date: Apri12008
Department of Transportation N
e~ ow rq RESOURCE ID NUMBER w E
- ¦ - JURISDICTIONAL STREAM
r
e s JURISDICTIONAL STREAM IMPACT s
y O
Q JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND 2 0' 0' 2 0' 4 0'
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACT
_ JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND BRIDGED Iw
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvements PROPOSED BRIDGE
Iredell County CONCRETE BARRIER Figure 5
- - FILL SLOPESTAKE
- - CUT SLOPESTAKE Jurisdictional Impact
TIP Project No. I-3819 CUT/FILLTRANSITION SLOPESTAKE 25 FOOT BUFFER

$ ` W d H~ h ~~-c - A
q`~ r
J. rirM. ! {n FF

1 d

t- ~

j s.
h ti ,

i

l

1

North Carolina Le n Date: Apri12008
Department of Transportation N
wo« rM RESOURCE ID NUMBER
L
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM w e
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM IMPACT
i; JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND s
w JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IIVIPACT 2 ' 0' 210' 4q01
o~ Y x++`~~~ JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND BRIDGED
EDGE OF PAVEMENT 100'
I-40/1-77 Interchange Improvements PROPOSED BRIDGE
Iredell County FILLSLOp PEST AKE RRIER Figure 6
CUT SLOPESTAKE
CUT/FILL TRANSITION SLOPESTAKE
TIP Project No. 1-3819 25 FOOT BUFFER Jurisdictional Impacts

r i

f i.

) r w ~ti Nell.
~x

.•k}}

9

r

~ - I

3

North Carolina L en Date: Apd12008
Department of Transportation RESOURCE ID NUMBER N
t at Mq~ rq ,
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM W E
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM IMPACT
y Q JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND s
°w o
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND WALT 2 0' 290' 4 0'
e
or JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND BRIDGED
EDGE OF PAVEMENT 100'
PROPOSED BRIDGE
140/1-77 Interchange Improvements CONCRETE BARRIER
Iredell County - - FILL SLOPESTAKE Figure 7
- - CUT SLOPESTAKE
CUT/FILL TRANSITION SLOPESTAKE
TIP Project No. 1-3819 25 FOOT BUFFER Jurisdictional Impacts

r

North Carolina Le en Date: ApHl2008
Department of Transportation N
cQ Now rk r+' RESOURCE ID NUMBER W E
? JURISDICTIONAL STREAM
e * JURISDICTIONAL STREAM IWACT s
Q JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
2
0' 2 0' 4 0'
T, 4
a~ JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND WACT
+EM, cr i eF+'a JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND BRIDGED 100'
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvements PROPOSED BRIDGE
Iredell County CONCRETE BARRIER Figure 8
FILL SLOPESTAKE
CUT SLOPESTAKE
TIP Project No. 1-3819 CUT/FILLTRANSITION SLOPESTAKE Jurisdictional Impacts
25 FOOT BUFFER

Id0fi-77 Interchange Area Improvements
TIP Number)-3819
Iredell County, NC
SR 2171 Jane Sowers Road
Figure 1
Sowers d Four-level Offset
Interchange Alternative
i
/ SR 2174 Crawford Road
J Legend
/ SR 2158 Oki Mocksville Road
l SR 2187 Glenway Drive -Project Study Area
J ~ -Interstate
US Highway
- - James Farm Rd
-State Highway
Local Road
I 11 \ Railroad
~ Municipal Boundary
--z
/ - - Streams (non-delineated)
Four-Level Offset Alignment
I
Right of Way
a

21

SR 2003 Radio Road Q
Free Nancy Drive

I
E road t Li 1 N
i,
_s
~TATESVI W E
s ( I B ~ \ I
90
64 0 0.25 0.5 1
SR 2321 East Broad Street \ Miles
SR 2735 Salisbury Road i

70 °z
I
Of l[
NC Counties
\ Date: September 2006
-IredellCounty
Sources: Iredell County. NC; NCDOT; ESRI, Inc; and URS.
- I ` I Map for reference only.

Church of Jesus 1.4011-77 Interchange Area Improvements
Christ of the Latter TIP Number 1-3819
Day Saints Iredell County, NC

Figure 2
Public Facilities and Services

Davidson Baptist
Church and Cemetery \ Legend
% - Project Study Area
i = Interstate
/ - US Highway
Fairview Church Davis Regional - State Highway
Medical Center \ Local Road
r Railroad
Municipal Boundary
Western Ave. Streams (non-delineated)
115 Baptist Church Fire Station
Statesville ~-J
- Christian School -
Local Government
-1 ® Hospital
s © Library
Albert B. McClure Park - Northview Elementary - r
Police Station
- 64 .I a Post Office
© Recreational Facility
School
ttt Cemetery
21
+ it C- ~AJ~~ / d Church
i
rr~r~ Greenway (proposed and existing)
Holy Trinity Lutheran Church Iredell Memorial
Hospital \ b / ` 1
r - ~ ( N
Pressly Elementary
A ~~h A SILL W E

90 l Fire Station #3
I ~ 64 0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
1 = p Statesville
C] Montessori School ~~o~4,~
•
- i it
o
~ Saint Phillip the
^I_. Apostle Catholic Church
,it
NC Counties
?
Iredell Coun
ty Date: September2006
10
t Sources: Iredell County, NC; NCDOT; ESRI, Inc; and URS.
. Map for reference only.

I40fl-77 Interchange Area Improvements
TIP Number 1-3819
Iredell County, NC

Figure 3
A Utilities
Sowe

Legend
/ Project Study Area
= Interstate
US Highway
a - State Highway
- - Local Road
James Farm Rd - , Railroad
Municipal Boundary
~ ~ Streams (non-delineated)
• Electric Transmission Towers
~J
115 - Main Electric Transmission Lines
r
- Centerline Turbine Alignment
Centerline Offset Alignment
- City of Statesville Sewer Lines
- City of Statesville Water Tanks
64

- - City of Statesville Water Lines
21

G

a
t
W E

l S

64 90 0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles

1r t
b
it x x
m z
`TO
70 yf~0i1RA°k
r i
NC Counties
Date: September 2006
Iredell County Sources: Iredell County, NC; NCDOT; ESRI, Inc; and URS.
s f Map for reference only.

4

i 1.4011.77 Interchange Area Improvements
TIP Number 1.3819
~i Iredell County, NC
j
Figure 4
- Jurisdictional Streams
S10A
21
S10B Legend
Project Study Area
S9 1 a Natural Resource Study Area
~ =Interstate
- US Highway
State Highway
S24
-Local Road
- Railroad
$2 Municipal Boundary
S7 S27 - Streams (non- delineated)
S4 Jurisdictional Delineated Wetlands
i
a S14 S6 S8 - Jurisdictional Delineated Streams
J' S1 S17
Stream ID
S1
S25
\ -1 S26 S12 ' sa
S2
S5 I
S16
S15 S13 \ J
S11
i A In - ~
/ S3
S18 ~
9
v~ S21 f l
S3 N
S22 ( W E
T S L
64
j S23 0 0.25 os t
t T S19 i,
\ S19 Miles
l V ~ S20 i

r yv o
S2

70 I ~I f I
,I
= NC Counties
2006
" t - Iredell County Date: September
II
Sources es: Iredell County, NC; NCDOT; ESRI, Inc; and URS.

1.4011.77 Interchange Area Improvements
TIP Number 13819
, Iredell County, NC

Figure 5
Jurisdictional Wetlands

\J
W21 Legend
W9
-Project Study Area
Natural Resource StudyArea
Interstate
- US Highway
W8 - State Highway
- \ r - Local Road
W5 y
W1 Railroad
W4 Municipal Boundary
V% Streams (non- delineated)
W7 W21W3 r Jurisdictional Delineated Wetlands
Jurisdictional Delineated Streams
j Wetland ID
W15 WSL _ W12
64
W13
W16
W11
1\
W14 W10 i /
~I ' W18 W15 J
W17

I
ri 1~ ^ W24 W23

~f W25 \ 11i
~ W E
STATE iLL
1
D 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
64
/ T 1 1-~
i
t ; 0"

i
70
o
ice` I I i i ' _ '4~
f /
N-
f
NC Counties
i Date: September 2006
Iredell County
Sources: Irdell County, NC; NCDOT; ESRI, Inc; and URS.
` Map for reference only.
I

6 , I-4011.77 Interchange Area Improvements
TIP Number 1.3819
l Iredell County, NC
Figure 6
Flood Hazard Evaluation
Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative

21
Legend
Project Study Area
Interstate
- US Highway
-State Highway
Local Road
~E Fourth Creek t Railroad
Municipal Boundary
t \ I Streams (non- delineated)
s / Tributary 3 / - Four-level Offset Alignment
Morrison Creek \
Four-level Offset Slope Stake
FEMA 100 Year Floodplain Boundary

- Fourth Creek ;

77
i

1 Free Nancy Branch
i

~ i
STAT7Sy1LLE~ Tributary 2 A N
W E

I ; ~A ~ I~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ / r S

0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles

p--

i
70
NC Counties
j Date: September 2006
it Iy / - Iredell County Sources' Iredell County, NC; NCDOT; ESRI, Inc; and URS.
Map for reference only

s 14011.77 Interchange Area Improvements
TIP Number 1.3819
Iredell County, NC
Figure 7
J e Sowe Rd Noise Barrier Study Locations
Ambient Measuring Site t

Legend
Project Study Area
A Interstate
US Highway

James Farm State Highway
/ , - Local Road
Ambient Measuring Site 4
Railroad
Municipal Boundary
Study Area D
Streams (non-delineated)
I I / Ambient Measuring Site 5
nw5ne Proposed Noise Wall Locations
Study Area C -
Ambient Noise Level
- } Monitoring Locations
64 Noise Wall Study Location
(not reasonable and feasible)
Four-level Offset Alignment
Study Area E i Four-level Turbine Alignment
21 Study Area A
I Q
i
Study Area B
t Ambient Measuring Site 3 _
n~ 'x
Ambient Measuring Site 2
N TA ESV f

~A I Study Area Al 1
r
90
j 64 \ 0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles

( I
a
o
fu
\ 'Y~'10f 71Aµ5
NC counties
Date: September 2006
j - ! - Irede9 County Sources: Iredell County, NC; NCDOT; ESRI, Inc; and URS.

-r-L_.i._ Map for reference only.

L 1.4011-77 Interchange Area Improvements
L TIP Number 1-3819
Iredell County, NC
`f SR 2171 Jane Sowers Road
Figure 8
e SOwe Rd Four-level Offset
Interchange Alternative
Historic Properties
SR 2174 Crawford Road
Legend

/ SR 2158 Old Mocksville Road Project Study Area
i
y SR 2187 Glenway Drive Interstate
McKee House US Highway
James Farm Rd State Highway
a ~
-3 0 II Local Road
r D r1
p Railroad
Historic Boundary
/ I
Municipal Boundary
Streams (non-delineated)
Four-Level Offset Alignment
- T _
Right of Way
21 T_
I 1 1~
SR 2003 Radio Road

Free Nancy Drive

I~ N
B ad St
I
- S ESVILLE W E
1 't

90 ,
i~ 0 0.25 0.5 1
64
SR 2321 East Broad Street - Miles
SR 2735 Salisbury Road
cli

70 o

NC Counties
[ I _ y Date: January 2007
Iredell County Sources: Iredell County, NC; NCDOT; ESRI, Inv-and URS.
' Map for reference only.

Agency Comments Received on the Pro'ect
Comment Comment Response
No.
United Stated Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, April 28, 2005
1 This project was the subject of a NEPA/404 Merger Process Screening Meeting in An Agency Coordination meeting was held with
February 2004 at which time we concluded, based on available information, that representatives from the Corps of Engineers on
this project did not meet merger screening criteria and would not proceed under September 27, 2006 to discuss concerns related to the
the merger process. It was agreed that impact minimization would be reviewed Merger Process. At the meeting it was determined that
following completion of the environmental document. Recent developments, in the the project would still enter at Concurrence Point 4A and
form of design changes and natural resource field data, have caused us to that NCDOT would coordinate with all members of the
reconsider this earlier position. The purpose of this letter is to identify why we Merger Team prior to distribution of the EA. The additional
believe this project should now be processed under the NEPA/404 Merger coordination meeting was held on October 17, 2006.
Process.
2 During the referenced merger screening meeting, this project was presented as a An Agency Coordination meeting was held with
reconstruction of the existing interchange having limited expansion outside of the representatives from the Corps of Engineers on
existing footprint. No natural resource field data were available, however impacts September 27, 2006 to discuss concerns related to the
to jurisdictional waters and wetlands were projected as minimal and expectations Merger Process. At the meeting it was determined that
were that the project would be authorized by nationwide permit. On March 10, the project would still enter at Concurrence Point 4A and
2005 we received a Jurisdictional Stream and Wetland report for the project from that NCDOT would coordinate with all members of the
your consultant, URS Corporation, and conducted a joint inspection of the site in Merger Team prior to distribution of the EA. The additional
March 29, 2005 with representatives from NCDOT, NCDWQ, FHWA, and URS coordination meeting was held on October 17, 2006.
Corporation. Based on this report and our field inspection, the proposed project
alignment would impact a substantial bottomland hardwood forest and riparian
wetland complex in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. This wetland
complex is estimated in the consultant's report to measure approximately 20 acres
in size and constitutes a high quality wetland, receiving a total score on 92 on the
NCDWQ Wetland Rating Worksheet (Fourth Edition). New interchange ramps
from the proposed project alignment, which we understand is the only alternative
being considered for detailed study by NCDOT, would run through the center of
the wetland thereby maximizing the probably impacts from construction. A follow-
up merger screening meeting was held on April 14, 2005 to consider this new
information. Representatives of NCDOT and FHWA concluded, however, that
they would continue to develop this project outside of the merger process and get
agency input on their preferred alternative when the draft Environmental
Assessment is released.
3 The Merger 01 Screening Process criteria (Appendix D) are now clearly met by the An Agency Coordination meeting was held with
present project. An individual Department of the Army (DA) permit will be required representatives from the Corps of Engineers on
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. High Quality natural resources will be September 27, 2006 to discuss concerns related to the
impacted and the total direct impacts to these resources will far exceed the one- -Merger Process. At the meeting it was determined that

Comment Comment Response
No.
will provide more substantive eprnments. Should any rare resources be
discovered in further work oethis project, we will provide the. consultation
necessary. "
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Intergovernmental Review-Project Comments, February 11, 2004
1 The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addresses for Comment noted.
any land disturbing activity. An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be
required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional
Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of
$40 for the first acre or any part of an acre.
2 Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A, Comment noted.
Subchapter 2C.0100.
North' Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Forest Resources, February 23, 2004
1 The widening of an existing roadway usually has fewer impacts to forest resources Impacts to terrestrial communities, are detailed in the
than a new location project. So that we can evaluate construction impacts, list, by NRTR and addressed in Section 6.4.1.1 of the EA.
timber type, the total forest land acreage that is removed or taken out of forest
production as a result of the project. If no impacts will occur please state so in the
document.
2 Efforts should be made to align corridors to minimize impacts to woodlands in the Priorities noted. The project is primarily an interstate
following order of priority: 1) managed, high site index woodland; 2) productive widening along an existing corridor. Woodland impacts will
forested woodlands; 3) managed, lower site index woodlands; 4) unique forest be minimized to the greatest extent practicable for any
ecosystems; 5) unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands; 6) unmanaged, cutover new location alignments within the project.
woodlands; and, 7) urban woodlands.
3 The EA should include a summary of the potential productivity of the forest stands Comment noted. The project will not impact any managed
affected by the proposed project. Potential productivity is quantified by the soil forest stands. The effect of the project on forest resources
series, and is found in the USDA Soil Survey for the county involved. is not likely to be significant.
4 The provisions the contractor will take to utilize the merchantable timber removed Although contractors option, NCDOT will encourage the
during construction. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products. However, contractor to salvage forest products for productive
if the wood products cannot be sold then efforts should be made to haul off the purposes.
material or turn it into mulch With-a tub grinder. This practice will minimize the
need for debris burning, and the-risk of escaped fires and smoke management
problems to residences, highways, schools, and towns.
5 If woodland burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and Comment noted.
regulations of open burning as covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through G.S. 113-
60.31. Iredell County is a non-high hazard county, and G.S. 11-60.24 requiring a
regular burning permit would apply.

Comment Comment Response
No.
If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be practicable and roadway design criteria would allow.
chosen. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules f 15A NCAC However, mitigation efforts will be required due to
2H.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear unavoidable impacts. Mitigation for the proposed impacts
feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation becomes required, to streams will be arranged through the NCDENR
the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) under the
values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules f 15A NCAC 211.0506 Memorandum of Agreement (MOS) between the USACE,
(h)(3)), the NC Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP) may be available for use NCDOT and NCDENR of 2002. Mitigation planning will
as stream mitigation. take into account requirements set forward by NCDWQ.
Fourth Creek and the lower South Yadkin River watersheds (03040102 030020 & Wetland and stream impacts were avoided where
030040) are two of 55 watersheds in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin that have practicable and roadway design criteria would allow.
been identified by the NCWRP as areas with the greatest need and opportunity for However, mitigation efforts will be required due to
stream and wetland restoration efforts. This watershed will be given higher priority unavoidable impacts. Mitigation for the proposed impacts
than a non-targeted watershed for the implementation of NCWRP restoration to streams will be arranged through the NCDENR
projects. Please contact NCWRP or the Division of Ecological Enhancement for Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) under the
more information if this project require mitigation Memorandum of Agreement (MOS) between the USACE,
NCDOT and NCDENR of 2002.
3 Construction Issue's Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed Comment noted.
in wetlands. Sediment should be removed from any water pumped from behind a
cofferdam before the water is returned to stream.
Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that
compensatory mitigation will be required if wetlands or waters are impacted by
waste or borrow.
Impacts due to utility relocations from the project may require compensatory
mitigation.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,' Division of Environmental Health, February 19, 2004
1 The City of Statesville's water treatment plant is located on the west side of the No roadway improvements will impact the water treatment
proposed study area. Currently, this is the City's only source of water. Therefore, plant.
project should avoid impacting this area.
2 If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water Comment noted.
line relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public
Water Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1634, [phone].

Comment Comment Response
No.
the environmental document, and all project sponsors should be identified.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office, March 5, 2004
1 We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no Comment noted.
historic resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no
comment on the undertaking as proposed.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Board of Transportation Member, Division 12 (on State of North Carolina - General Court of
Justice; Superior Court Division letterhead) , March 22, 2004
1 The first and most important concerns traffic proceeding in a westwardly direction A proposed two-lane flyover ramp for this primary move on
on 1-40 intending to proceed south on 1-77. This would be traffic coming from the the 1-40/1-77 interchange is included in the recommended
Winston-Salem area headed toward the Charlotte area and represents a huge and alternative.
ever increasing volume. The present route of this traffic at the interchange is an
up-grade loop from 1-40 up to 1-77. The angle of the turn-off from 1-40 is such that
a reduction in speed is absolutely required and the grade of the loop upward
prevents normal acceleration of most vehicles (particularly trucks) resulting in a
less than normal and undesirable speed of vehicles on this loop and is very
hazardous for the slower vehicles merging into normal speed traffic on 1-77. The
preliminary drawings of the proposed improvements that I have seen all seem to
retain this loop as it exists. I urge strongly that some type high speed "fly-over"
road or route be incorporated in the plans to carry south bound traffic on 1-77 from
westbound 1-40 in a more efficient, safe, and desirable fashion. I feel very
sincerely that not to do so would be a serious mistake that future generations of
travelers on this particular intersection would have to endure.
2 The first is the need for adequate street lighting of the study area which at present Comment noted and can be addressed during the final
is non-existent except for very minimal (band-aide type) lighting in the immediate design phase.
1-40/1-77 interchange that was installed a few years ago. Statesville is the only
town I am aware of that has virtually no lighting of the interstates within its limits
even at the interchanges. We must at least provide modern highway lighting in the
study area as part of this project.
3 The other feature that I see no provisions for in any plans that I have seen are Preliminary noise wall locations have been identified
sound barrier walls along residential areas on the west and east sides of 1-77 following the FHWA guidelines. Locations are shown in the
south of the 1-40/1-77 interchange in the study area and on the south side of 1-40 EA. The use of alternative construction materials for noise
west of the interchange also in the study area. Some of the neighborhoods area barriers will be in accordance with the NCDOT Traffic
very upscale and deserve a quality brick-type barrier wall. Noise Abatement Policy.
4 The only other matter I would mention is the arrow pointing down on the study Comment noted. Future maps eliminated this arrow.
area map indicating that "To Downtown Statesville" is toward the bottom of the
ma while downtown Statesville is actual) to the left west of 1-77 and south 1-40.

Comment Comment Response
No.
the service road from 1-40 described in item #2 above. continue the widening of US 21.
City of Statesville, Office of the Fire Chief, December 17, 2004
1 Current issues with existing travel patterns: Highway 21 at 1-40 interchange at The project will add turn lanes and improve the signal
virtual standstill during workday traffic and holidays due to retail services in the timing at the US 21 interchange, improving the LOS
area. through the design year 2030.
2 Construction activities should allow fast adequate access to all areas from center Comment noted.
of city.
3 Comments - the Statesville Fire Department does not use 1-77 or 1-40 as Comment noted.
emergency response routes due to traffic conditions and dangerous conditions
presented by the access ramps. Responses are generally limited to emergency
incidents that occur on or in areas contained by the Interstate highways. Any
corrections at your listed interchanges would be most welcomed by our
department and we can work with your personnel to prevent problems during
construction.
Iredell County Rescue Squad, Inc., January 6, 2005
1 Current Issues: 1) Clover leaf area of 1-77 & 1-40 is extremely over crowded. You The proposed project will improve the traffic operations
should never have cars exiting and entering using the same roads. 2) The area and safety of the concerns addressed in Issues #1 and #3.
around Highway 46 and 1-40 is becoming more congested as time goes on. A Issue #2 is not located within the study area and Issue #4
traffic signal will be necessary in the near future. 3) Highway 21 has numerous is addressed through the addition of turn lanes on the exit
problems - congestion prevents exiting the interstate on the west bound side ramp and an additional lane on Old Mocksville Road to
without long lines lining up beside the travel lanes of 1-40. Along Highway 21 the improve access to westbound US 64.
area is congested in the lunch and work times making response difficult. 4)
Reconsider the closing of the entrance and exit ramps at Highway 64. These
areas if closed will cause much more congestion at the Old Mocksville Road
ramps. These ramps do not hinder traffic as they now exist.
2 Issues with Construction Activities: 1) Up to date notice of closings or limited Issues related to access during construction activities will
access to construction areas. 2) Complete as much as possible during night and be addressed as the final design and detailed traffic
non peak hours of travel. 3) Compensate for turnarounds for emergency vehicles. control plans are developed.
4) Limit construction to non-vacation time. 5) Allow access to emergency vehicles
into construction areas. Allow vehicles to utilize construction lanes when traffic
backs up blocking access to any part of the interstate.
Iredell County Emergency Medical Service, February 16, 2005
1 The names and locations of all EMS facilities within or immediately adjacent Comment noted.
(within a street or two) to the oroiect study area: No EMS physical facilities are
located in the boundaries as noted on our ma (project stud area). Two points of

A enc Comments Received on the EA Response
Comment Comment 77==
200
No. -
North Carolina Department of Environment and Nauof the State rc FourtDh Creek is VV Quali BMP will be incorporated into the design Ithe
im lemented where practicable.
1 Fourth Creek is a Class C, 303 (d) wate s on the
303(d) list for impaired use for aquatic life due to turbidity, fecal coliform and P
biological impairment. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts
that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that the most protective
sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient
runoff to Fourth Creek. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of
the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most
recent version of the NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
2 The environmental document should continue to provide a detailed and itemized Impacts to streams and wetlands are inclpresentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding Natural Resources Technical Report (NRmapping. If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is summarized in the EA.
preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior thComment e North noted. CD1 T is aware o Certifithe ul ti ns for Carolina Water to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. proposed stream crossings for the project are identified in
the EA, and mitigation planning will incorporate these
regulations. Mitigation for the proposed impacts to
streams will be arranged through the NCDENR Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) under the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the USACE, NCDOT and
NCDENR of 2002.
3 Environmental assessment alternatives should consider rdesign unoff. Thesei at at reduce M s will be wincorpo he a rated into he design plans and
the impacts to streams and wetlands from storm water should include road designs that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff
through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of
NCDWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer
areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
allow.
4 Prior to issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the the and NCDOT is minimization of respectfully Wetland practicable and and stream roadway impacts design were criteria avoided where
would areminded that they will need to demonstrate the c However, mitigation efforts will be required due impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management mmission's Rules {15A NCAC unavoidable impacts. Mitigation for the propose 2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts ogreater than 1 acre to to streams will be arranged through the NCDENwetlands. In the event that mitigation is required, tes9 The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Agreement (MOS)(betvyeenthdesigned to replace appropriate lost functions and valu NCDOT and NCDENR of 2002. Miti ation tan

Response
Comment Comment
No.
water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or
stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a
formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the CD d Q.
Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoance
and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical,
the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion
of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate. Comment noted.
14 Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
15 Whenever possibleh wOithprefers spanning structures'. panning in the steam or grubbing of She streambanksrand Comment noted.
usually do not require work
do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances
provided by bridges allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure,
do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by canoeists and boaters. incorpo 16 Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. B MPs will be whe a rated int acticable he design plans and
should be directed across the bridge and pre-treated through
means gthe st stream, Please refer to the most current version iof NCDWQbefore
entering
Stormwater Best Management Practices.
17 If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to Comment noted.
prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that
inadvertently contacts uncured concrete should not be discharged to surface
waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills. graded
control of
for th
erosion 18 If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the eshoulld be seeded or mlinPmizellany impa is fromeclearing and grubb ng to
its preconstruction contours and elevations. Disturbed areas
mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species should be activities.
planted. When using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area
to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
ion of he streambed by one foot for al culverts with all Comment noted.
19 Placement of culverts
be placed below the elevation
diameter greater than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic
life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary
erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and
down stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide
evidence that the a uilibrium is bein maintained if re quested in writin b DWO.

Comment Comment Response
No.
impacts range from 3.19 to 3.65 acres. The level of impacts should have placed September 27, 2006 to discuss concerns related to the
this project in the Merger 01 process; however, despite efforts by the US Army Merger Process. At the meeting it was determined that
rs the NCDOT and Federal Highway Administration will not the project would still enter at Concurrence Point 4 hand
p Corps of Engineers,
roject in the Merger 01 process until the 4A stage. that NCDOT would coordinate with all members o
lace project
the
Merger Team prior to distribution of the EA. The additional
coordination meeting was held on October 17, 2006.
2 Direct impacts are expected to Fourth Creek and numerous unnamed tributaries Comment noted. Additional coordination on avoidance
(UTs) to Fourth Creek, all Class C waters and on the 303 (d) list of impaired and minimization measures will continue to be addressed
waters. It appears that nine wetland areas will be impacted, including a large high- in the Merger 01 process.
quality wetland (NC Division of Water Quality rating 92) in the southwest quadrant
of the 1-40/1-77 interchange. We commend NCDOT on efforts to minimize impacts
to aquatic habitats and floodplains, such as using bridges at all Fourth Creek
crossings, designing new bridges to span the floodways, and using a retaining
wall. It appears that NCDOT will also provide for the existing and planned
greenways in the area. We are hopeful that additional minimization of impacts can
be achieved, especially to aquatic resources in the southwest quadrant of the
interchange. We look forward to working with NCDOT on this within the Merger 01
process.
3 Numerous studies have shown that when 10-15% of a watershed is converted to Future development was addressed in the November 2005
impervious surfaces, there is a serious decline in the health of receiving waters ICE study. At this point, it has not been determined that
(Schueler 1994) and the quality of fish habitat and wetlands are negatively quantitative water quality impact analysis be conducted.
impacted (Booth 1991, Taylor 1993). The project area is rapidly developing. The
water quality has been degraded and stream crossings are being upgraded to
account for higher flows due to urban development. Some natural and agricultural
areas still exist; therefore potential for further development is high. Crossing
designs should use a build-out scenario for the area to determine adequate sizes
for the structures.
Possible mitigation is addressed in the ICE study.
4 Secondary and cumulative impacts are a serious concern. We strongly
recommend that NCDOT and local authorities work together to minimize
construction and development impacts through strong sediment and erosion
controls and stormwater management. Special efforts should be made to prevent
further degredation of area streams and to improve their water quality. Impervious
surfaces should be limited and floodplains should be preserved in a natural state.
Measures to mitigate secondary and cumulative impacts can be found in the
Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative
Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife (NCWRC 2002). We also encourage
NCDOT and local authorities to use low impact development techniques to
manage stormwater uanti and quality in developed and develo in areas see

Response
Comment
Comment
No.
comparing the two alternatives.

-j
UIRS

MEMORANDUM
a
To: Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees

From: Peter Trencansky, PE
Project Engineer

Date: July20, 2007

Subject: DRAFT Meeting Minutes to Post-Hearing Meeting
I-40/I-77 Interchange Improvements
Project No. I-3819
WBS No. 34192.1.2
Federal Aid No. IMS-40-2

A post-hearing meeting was held on May 27, 2007 in the Roadway Design Conference Room to discuss
the comments expressed at or following the Public Hearing on TIP Project I-3819, I-40/I-77 Interchange
Area Improvements. The Public Hearing for the I-40/I-77 Interchange Improvement project was held on May
21, 2007 at the Statesville Civic Center and conducted by Mr. Jamille Robbins. A Pre-Hearing Open House was
held from 4:00 - 6:30 p.m. and the Formal Hearing began at 7:00 p.m. The Recommended Alternative was
presented, as well as the findings of the engineering, environmental, and public outreach efforts conducted for the
project. Participants were encouraged to provide comments for the public record, whether verbally or in writing.
Maps and exhibit boards were available for viewing and all attendees received a project handout.
;a
A total of 301 participants signed in at the Public Hearing. NCDOT also received 37 comment sheets, emails, or
letters regarding the project, and eight people spoke on record. A summary of verbal and written comments made
during the Hearing is presented in the Summary of Public Hearing Comments.
The following representatives attended the Post Hearing Meeting:

Art McMillan Highway Design Branch
Jay Bennett Roadway Design Unit
Scott Blevins Roadway Design Unit
Greg Brew Roadway Design Unit
Robert Stroup Roadway Design Unit
Mike Holder Division 12
Dan Grissom Division 12
Erin Hendee Congestion Management Section
Bao Long Le Congestion Management Section
Ray Lotfi Program Development Branch
James Bridges Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Undrea Major Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Jamille Robbins Human Environment Unit
Marshall Clawson Hydraulics Unit
Peter Trencansky URS Corporation
Meme Diaz URS Corporation
URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Tel: [phone]
Fav•QiQARi IAl R

UR.S
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 20, 2007
Page 2

An executive summary of the main issues concerning the project is as follows:
Executive Summary

• The US 21 corridor was a concern to many of the attendees of the public hearing due to safety concerns
(including fatal accidents at the I-40 interchange) and persistent congestion along the corridor. The
proposed project will improve the I-40/US 21 interchange as well as provide improved access control
along portions of the corridor. Substantial improvements along the corridor were determined to be
beyond the scope of the proposed project and two future TIP Projects (U-2930 and U-2731) will widen
US 21 and improve the traffic operations along the corridor.
• Concerns related to the reconstruction of grade separated crossings of Radio Road over I-40 and US 64
(Davie Avenue) over I-77 were expressed by attendees. NCDOT will study the feasibility of
temporarily closing the roadways and reconstructing the existing grade separations at the existing
locations during the final design of the project.
• Concerns were expressed regarding the loss of access to Gaither Road as a result of the elimination of the
two-way movement on the westbound ramp to I-40. Current guidelines do not allow non-interstate
access. The proposed configuration was determined to be the preferred solution.
• Concerns relating to the effects of noise at multiple residential locations were expressed by attendees.
Due to growth along the 1-40 and I-77 corridors, additional noise analysis will be performed during final
design to determine the reasonableness and feasibility of providing additional noise abatement measures.

Summary of Comments and Responses

The following people made comments at the Public Hearing: -

Julie Stropp - Commented on access during construction along US 21 and had concerns regarding travel
between area hospitals.
Ike on re
The construction of the project will maintain 2-lanes of traffic in each direction and will attempt to minimize
disruptions to the traveling public to the extent practical. The maintenance of traffic plan and construction
phasing for the project will incorporate safety features to protect both the motoring public and the construction
workers.
Victor Crosby - Expressed concerns about I-40 from I-77 to Radio Rd. He stated. that there were problems with
priorities. He believes that US 21 is more of a problem and that there is a need to extend US 21 up to Jane Sower
Road with revised access to Glennway.
n re
WO
The project will include substantial improvements to the US 21 interchange including longer ramps, increased
turn lanes on ramps, the widening of US 21 to seven lanes from the current four with the ability to expand to a
nine-lane cross section. The revised design will also separate the traffic bound for US 21 from the through traffic
on I-40 along a collector/distributor lane which will improve the safety of the interchange. The project did
identify that additional improvements are needed along the US 21 corridor that were beyond the scope of this
project. The 2007-2013 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes two projects (U-2930
and U-2731) which proposes to widen US 21 from US 64 (Davie Avenue) to I-77. Neither project is currently

URS
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 20, 2007
Page 3
funded and the priority of these projects can be evaluated once the proposed project is completed to determine
there individual needs.

Howard Henderson - Recounted the story of his son getting killed on I-40 at the US 21 ramp. He is happy that
something is getting done to the I-40/US 21 interchange, but is/was frustrated regarding the bureaucracy and
time that it has taken. He mention how it took a long time to put flashing light, lighting and signage into place
and how it has been of benefit from a safety standpoint. Until other safety measures are put into place, it is still a
dangerous situation. He recommends putting in lights above the roads and painting the lane that goes through
the US 21 interchange with white arrows.
n re
WO
It was also decided that based on the accelerated schedule for the project that temporary improvements would
not be cost-effective for this area.
Bob Hopkins - Thanked NCDOT and stated that he has lived in the area since 1965 and thinks that
improvements are needed to US 21, especially the intersections. He felt that all of the improvements shown on
the hearing maps are not needed. He was concerned with the Davie Avenue bridge going through new
development and felt that the plans need to be revised with the new bridge placed north of the existing bridge.
nce
WO
The reconstruction of the US 64 (Davie Avenue) bridge is due to the widening of I-77 and the existing horizontal
clearance under the bridge not be adequate for the additional travel lanes proposed on I-77. The new
development was known during the development of the preliminary plans but was not far enough along at the
time the plans were developed to know what the impacts would be. The final design of the project is
coordinating with the developments and the potential exists to close the bridge and reconstruct it at the existing
location.
Michael Bivens - Expressed concerns about the traffic on back roads from the Fort Dobbs area; it intersects
with US 21 and traffic backs up to the Wal-mart intersection. He stated that the improvements need to go further
north on US 21.
Re ante
The project will include substantial improvements to the US 21 interchange including longer ramps, increased
turn lanes on ramps, the widening of US 21 to seven lanes from the current four with the ability to expand to a
nine-lane cross section. The project did identify that additional improvements are needed along the US 21
corridor that were beyond the scope of this project. The 2007-2013 NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) includes two projects (U-2930 and U-2731) which proposes to widen US 21 from US 64 (Davie
Avenue) to I-77. Neither project is currently funded and the priority of these projects can be evaluated once the
proposed project is completed to determine
Chris Shubridge - Looked at the design and is still worried about US 21 intersections and traffic backups and
delays. There are times when traffic from US 21 backs up on I-77.
Re 0n re
The project will include substantial improvements to the US 21 interchange including longer ramps, increased
turn lanes on ramps, the widening of US 21 to seven lanes from the current four with the ability to expand to a
nine-lane cross section. The revised design will also separate the traffic bound for US 21 from the through traffic
on I-40 along a collector/distributor lane which will improve the safety of the interchange.
Doug Nichols - Stated that he travels the area everyday and you have to get in the right lane before you can get
into the left lane at US 21. He suggested that a temporary fix would be to extend the left turn lane back to the

TTRS
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting. Attendees
July 20, 2007
Page 4
freeway.

13e once
It was also decided that based on the accelerated schedule for the project that temporary improvements would
not be cost-effective for this area.
Charles Sipple - Commented about the noise walls and stated that the walls do not go far enough. Stated that
Statesville is growing rapidly and we need to accommodate the growth. He mentioned the growth in Mooresville
and stated that it will take 10-12 years to complete the project, so we need to be careful, understanding, tolerant
and patient.
Be once

The evaluation of noise abatement measures such as noise walls is completed based on the NCDOT Traffic Noire
Abatement Policy and will be updated during final design to include a more detailed analysis and include any new
receptors along the corridor.
The following people submitted written comments
Concerns relating to construction of the12roiect

Comments
Dr. Julie Schopps - Stated that unlimited and unrestricted access is needed to both Davis Regional Medical
Center and Iredell Memorial Hospital, particularly for those doctors who need to travel or cross I-40 and I-77 to
reach these hospitals. Construction work at these areas will delay doctors who are on emergency calls.
Ted Benbow - requested that all necessary safety precautions be exercised during construction to prevent traffic
accidents.
Be once

The construction of the project will maintain 2-lanes of traffic in each direction and will attempt to minimize
disruptions to the traveling public to the extent practical. The maintenance of traffic plan and construction
phasing for the project will incorporate safety features to protect both the motoring public and the construction
workers.
Concerns with US 21 Interchange and Corridor
Comments
Earlene Horne - Stated that it can take 20 minutes to get from Golden Coral to I-40 and wanted to know how
this will improve traffic flow at Glenway Drive?

Diane Dickens - Stated that NCDOT should widen the bridge on Highway 21, although it would mean taking
the eatery adjacent to Highway 21 and part of the Sagebrush parking lot. This improvement would add width to
the bridge and exit and entry ramps on both sides to allow for better traffic.
Roger Bejcek - Expressed concern that there was not much discussion about the I-40/1-lighway 21 interchange,
and that this intersection needs to be changed/improved.
Re once
The project will include substantial improvements to the US 21 interchange including longer ramps, increased
turn lanes on ramps, the widening of US 21 to seven lanes from the current four with the ability to expand to a
nine-lane cross section. The revised design will also separate the traffic bound for US 21 from the through traffic

URS Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 20, 2007
Page 5
The removal of the
:I interchange.
affic signal and
a collector/ distributor lane which will improve the sa~a~ ns b the
simplifying the tr
on I-40 along
two-way ramp in the northwest quadrant will improve traffic ect y at. The 2007-2013 NCDOT
more green time for the exit ramp from I-40. The psoopce did identify hat additional improvements are
allowing
needed along the US 21 corridor that were beyond th projec
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes two projects (U-2930 and U-2731) which proposes to
)ect is widen US ority 21 from US 64 (Davie Avenue) to I-77. Neither prOet d to determine thedxe indtvidual needsf The
- projects can be evaluated once the proposed project is comp
intersection at US 21 and Glenway Road will be modified to contrs fic oe he splis.mAd section to the et HloRoad
with the Glenway Road intersection which will improve the Improvements to the
include a coordinated signal system that will improve the flow of txaTflicp Poog Uc29 It was also dec ded that
der Glenway Drive intersection with US 21 would be eted un
ted schedule for the projectcthatptemporary improvements would not be cost-effective for
based on the accelexa
this area.
Concerns relatin to access to businesses alon Gaither Road
Comments
and Pam Trompower - Commented that the design should consider "arcing" the turn on Gaither Road
David
rather than creating a 90 degree turn at Sagebrush. way 21 Julian West (West-Finch Corporation) - Recommended that at 1-40/ gl and Could consider gThig north
on Highway 21 and west to the private drive between the Sleep Inn Mote would shorten access to Gaither Road, avoid building a new bridge and have less impact on wetlands, as well as
save a lot of money.
Hamiter - Commented that he was very unhappy with many th along usGaith not likely ed cxawill s, including survive. g
W.L.
access to Gaither Road. from the entry ramp to I-40 and ~ Requested that NCDOT send detailed information
14 15, 16, 17, 18, 21
Mary Lou Brinkley (J.A.M.E. Ltd. Partnership)
how the new bridge, Hillside Drive and Summit Drive will effect lots #12, 13, ,
concerning
and 22; TIP Project # U-2930; SR1934.
Julian R. West, Jr. -Was concerned
about the effect the proposed improvements willvhe vebo°n n e West-Finch mtlch ose property shown as Lot #212 on yWOa bgoved,ecurtting of pccesssto°the businesses o os buildings
interstate in front his property ,
. , devaluing his property. Plans also show at He eaccess road to Gaither Road between
requested that NCDOT, please reconsider the plans to close
serious parking problems
which will cause
ramp and locating a new access road to Gaither. He requested that NCDOT consider moving
access to the p
x west by extending Pump Station Road.
&P-0 e
c-
the
The removal of the existing two-way ramp in the northwest quadrant of the US 21/1-40 roner of interchange
for
by the Federal Highway Administration, which requires that interchange ramps have control o
entire length of the ramp. The location of the access road to the businesses along Gaither Ro Tdo~ryare the
evaluated. The potential locations suggeste were all evaluated however due to the close
duet the disruption to traffic flow a the inter change. Brea and
interchange ramps were not considered feas
the control of access in close proximity to the interchange can cause traffic to back up into the interchange
Gaith cts on traffic operations. The intersection with the access ro h and
izld noteall w the
have substantial negative effe
a 90 degree angle because it serves parcels both a quisitionaof sewest veral ofethe parcels within the J.A.M.E Ltd
roadway to be arced. The project will qui
Partnership property and will be further coordinated as the final design plans are developed. The extension of

_h

URS
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 20, 2007
Page 6
Pump Station Road was also considered as a location for the access road, however due to the floodplain and
floodway associated with Fourth Creek and Morrison Creek, the proposed location was substantially less
expensive due to the length of bridge that would be required to extend Pump Station Road.
Concerns relating to Davie Avenue bridge over I-77

Comments
Steve Knight - Was concerned with the design because the SEP development adjacent to the east side of I-77 at
Davie Ave/Simonton Road has had significant grading and improvements with curb and gutter and paved
parking as well as a turn lane on Davie Avenue.
Pat Stewart (United Way of Iredell County) - Stated that the property owners on Lot 202 of the Interchange
Plan show that access to Davie Avenue is being abandoned and relocated, and that there will be no provision for
access to Fourth Creek Drive from new Davie Avenue, as well as limited access for approximately 3/4 of the
property frontage. Requested that NCDOT please consider maintaining access to Fourth Creek Drive from
Davie Avenue.
W.L. Hamiter - Stated he was very unhappy with many of the proposed changes, including the bridge changes
that are proposed for the bridge over Davey Avenue.
J. Todd Ellis - Commented that his company, Stiles, Ellis & Pope (SEP), are currently developing a 31-acre
development called Creekside on the corner of Davie and Simonton Roads, and is positioned adjacent to the
bridge over I-77 at Simonton. Requested that NCDOT verify that a connection will not be made through their
property, nor will there be a new bridge on US 64? SEP is also developing plans to develop a 72-acre tract of land
directly across Davie Road along I-77. He stated that NCDOT personnel indicated that they would need 250 feet
of ROW along this property and requested that NCDOT verify this amount so that we can continue to move
forward with their project.
Re onre
The reconstruction of the US 64 (Davie Avenue) bridge is due to the widening of I-77 and the existing horizontal
clearance under the bridge not be adequate for the additional travel lanes proposed on I-77. The new
development was known during the development of the preliminary plans but was not far enough along at the
time the plans were developed to know what the impacts would be. The final design of the project is
coordinating with the developments and the potential exists to close the bridge and reconstruct it at the existing
location. This decision as well as decisions on access in the vicinity of the bridge will be coordinated closely
during the final design of the project.
Concerns relating to noise walls
Comments

Maynard and Brenda Self - Requested that NCDOT consider extending the-noise wall at the East Broad Street
exit (I-77S) to the Catholic Church because the noise from the interstate is much too loud.
Peter VanDermark - Was oncerned that the new ramp at I-40/I-77 South will be approximately 250 feet from
his property with no buffer. He stated that the noise is already bad; however, this improvement would make it
worse. Also stated that trucks should be prohibited from using jake brakes and a new sound barrier should be
installed in the area of the open field near the ramp.
Linda Dingler - Requested that NCDOT extend the noise barrier from the bridge at E. Broad Street to Salisbury
Road.
Eleanor McMillan - Requested that NCDOT extend the planned acoustic fence on I-77 southbound past the

URS
j'
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 20, 2007
Page 7
Catholic Church to the on-ramp for Salisbury Road.
Jerry Ambrose - Made a comment on behalf of her mother that the proposed improvements to I-77 at exit 50
a will be very close, if not adjacent, to her condominium development. Requested that NCDOT provided the
specific details of how the project will affect the condominium, as well as how the noise will be mitigated.
Be once
The evaluation of noise abatement measures such as noise walls is completed based on the NCDOT Traffic Noise
Abatement Policy and will be updated during final design to include a more detailed analysis and include any new
receptors along the corridor.

Concerns Related to US 64 Interchangg and Corridor
Comments
Bill Sherrill - Commented that there is a need for solid yellow lines from the traffic signal to Peachtree exit at
Davis (Hospital) and US 64 exit and provided a hand drawing on the comment sheet.
Steve Johnson - Stated that traffic is backed up several hundred yards at I-40 and US 64 exit (heading east onto
US 64). Also commented that traffic is also held up at Greenbriar through the traffic signal at Old Mocksville
Road and it would be opportunistic if NCDOT would require the current developers to put in a right-hand turn
lane at Greenbriar and US 64.
Sheri Raymer - Suggested creating an extension of Crawford Road to US 64.

Randy Treacy - Requested that NCDOT consider widening the intersection of Highway 64 and Old Mocksville
Road.
W.L. Hamiter - Stated that he was very unhappy with many of the proposed changes, including removing the
US 64 interchange
Re onse

The removal of the US 64 interchange was required due to FHWA policy not allowing for partial interchange
(interchanges that do not provide for all traffic movements) and due to the close proximity to the I-40/I-77
interchange and the proposed collector/distributor lanes. The intersection of Old Mocksville Road and US 64 is
proposed to be widened under the ultimate solution for the project to include two southbound left turn lanes and
two receiving lanes along US 64. The Division Engineer stated that the development along US 64 would include
a traffic signal which would mitigate Mr. Sherrill's concerns. The extension of Crawford Road to US 64 under the
existing US 64 interchange bridges on I-40 was considered, however due to the difference in elevation this is not
feasible.
Concerns related to improvements beyond the scope of the proposed project
Comments
Steve Knight - Commented that local traffic going between Statesville's two main shopping areas (Wal-Mart at
US 21 to the north and Signal Hill Mall and other shopping area at Broad St. to the southeast) uses the city streets
to avoid interstate traffic, causing problems on these roads. In particular the 5-points intersection at US 21 /
Davie Ave is a problem, especially for trucks having to make an impossibly sharp turn or drive out of the way to
access the interstates. He stated that the traffic is particularly bad during the seasonal shopping peaks and that
NCDOT should Consider creating a 4-way signalized intersection with N. Carolina Avenue and Gateway Drive
(labeled Free Nancy Dr on the map) by shifting N. Carolina Avenue to the south. The hotel parking lot could be
swapped to the north side where the road is now. Left turns out of Gateway Dr are very dangerous and near
accidents occur regularly with so much traffic on US 21. Also requested that NCDOT should consider extending

URS
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 20, 2007
Page 8
Gateway Drive to Fourth Creek Drive to provide an access road that avoids the 5-points intersection. He also
recommended that the State should be purchasing the businesses to allow the widening of US 21 and should
consider extending the dead end of Radio Road along Morrison Creek (behind businesses along Gaither Road) to
tie to the new access road tying to Hillside Lane and dead end Gaither Road by the Chevrolet dealership. This
road could also tie to a recently constructed road at the NC 115/I-40 interchange and provide a long service road
for the north side of I-40. Traffic at the Hwy 115/I-40 interchange is getting bad and that interchange needs to be
improved before it becomes like US 21. This project should be considered sooner to keep ahead of the growth.
David and Pam Trompower - Requested that NCDOT consider connecting Radio Road to Pump Station
Road and to Glenway Drive, which would help traffic flow more smoothly. He also stated that it has been over a
decade that he has endured the potholes, cracked and poorly maintained on- and off-ramps at I-40 and Highway
115-Highway 90-Old Mountain Road. Wanted to know how much longer before NCDOT repairs these ramps
and the poorly maintained Highway 115 from I-40 to Hardees? Wanted to know how much longer does he need
to pay taxes and still have poor roads?
Be on.re
These improvements are considered beyond the scope of the project and should be considered in future planning
initiatives including future TIP Projects in the vicinity of the project as well as any long-range planning for
Statesville or Iredell County.

Concerns related to Radio Road bridge over I-40
Commentr
Steve Knight - Commented that the Western Avenue Baptist Church owns the property on the NE corner of
the Radio Road / Gaither Road intersection and plans to put a high school at this location and the proposed
interstate widening and shifting of the intersection directly impacts this parcel.
Sheri Raymer - Requested that NCDOT consider providing an exit ramp/access at Radio Road from I-40 to
access Gaither Road.

David and Pam Trompower - Commented that NCDOT should build a longer span bridge at Radio Road,
rather than curve the new bridge which will only increase the speed of cars.
W.L. Hamiter - Stated that he was very unhappy with many of the proposed changes, including repositioning
the Radio Road bridge to square up the intersection of Gaither Road and Museum Road.
Philip McGaha - Requested a meeting to discuss the impacts of the planned improvements on the future plans
of the Western Avenue Baptist Church that includes expanding the church facilities at Radio Road and
Museum/Gaither Roads.
Rev. Scott Jackson and Mrs. Lacier Jackson - Requested a meeting with a.,NCDOT ROW representative to
discuss the proposed improvements that will impact their residence.
Judy Hix - Concerned about the widening of I-40 from the Radio Road bridge east and the impact it will have on
their house. Commented that they understand that there will be land acquisition for a ten foot ROW, and
perhaps an additional 20 feet if a sound barrier is constructed, which will be very close to their house. Wanted to
know where the ten feet starts and how thick the barrier will be? Also was concerned about structural damage to
their house during construction and decreased property values and wanted NCDOT to consider taking more land
from the other side of I-40?
Be once

The reconstruction of the Radio Road bridge is due to the widening of I-40 and the existing horizontal clearance

'I
URS Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 20, 2007
1 Page 9

rid e not be adequate for the additional travel lanes pxnonpo td on ~e exis gelofications~~s a c p on as
under the b rid he final design of the
during
well evaluating the possibility of closing the of thee brand idge be coordinated clostiel hutch will occur as
ll as decisions on access in the vicinity ge
are f the plans
project. Coordination bTheeabillii a to fin a construct an interchange at Radio Rod is not possible due to the close
further developed.
to the I-40/US S 21 interchange and the recommendation that interchanges be spaced at a mixvinuxn °
proximity
one mile.
Concerns relatin to direct connection to sho in center on US 21
Co_mmentr
Requested that NCDOT consider a southbound ramp Road. 77 into the Wal-Mart shopping
Steve Knight - q
center or overpass at I-40 to connect the shopping center to Fourth all the shopping traffic at the
Tina Dillow -Requested that NCDOT consider separating Highway 21 from
ho in Center road since this is where most of the congestion is located. Wanted to know why was
Walmart S pp g
this not fixed when the I-40 West exit ramp to US 1 with aextended?
many W.L. of the proposed changes, including not providing a
' Hamiter -Stated that he was very unhappy
ramp to the Walmart area.
Re once
in ~cente and the Ig
The ability to construct a direct access to and from the shopping center has been suggested
snot hopping would create additional interchangeg onnections in an
the development of the project, however is
40/I-77 interchange. Direct access to th narea where the close proximity
of the US 21/I-40 interchange swo~ddn pro possible to The om
ded interchange spacing is one mile fox urban areas which
recommen um
situation.
Comments relatin to ro osed construction schedule
Comments
Steve Knight - Stated that the start and finish of the project should be expedited to solve oe problems.
Phase 1
Ted Benbow -Requested than NCDOT consider improving all of the proposed c
^ !i rather than exposing Statesville to prolonged construction.
Be once construction will
The final design plans are being developed an extremely expedited schedule and the initial
include as much of the proposed design as can be funded.
Comments relatin to concerns with the existin roadwa network
Comments 45 55
at NCDOT consider slowing the traffic at the 1-40/1-7 7 t2 faomeI 40 to slow
Diane Dickens -Requested th
mph and place rumble strips or temporary concrete rom _ow through traffic on I-40Highway down traffic and to protect those in the exit ramp
Re once
The project will improve the existing roadway network and will be designed to C DOT and 40 through traffic
for an interstate route. The proposed design does separate traffic existing to US for the

URS
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
r:
July 20, 2007
Page 10
utilizing a collector/distributor roadway separated by concrete barriers.
Comments related to lane Sowers Road overpass /interchange
Comments
4
Randy Treacy - Requested that NCDOT consider adding exit and entrance ramps at Jane Sowers Road and
I-77.
lie onse
An interchange at Jane Sowers Road was considered during early planning stages and was eliminated due to the
potential to delay the overall project and the limited benefit shown with regard to traffic operations. The project
is currently included in the TIP as project I-2514 and is currently unfunded.
Comments related to I-77 corridor south of East Broad Street

Comment
Sue Walser - Stated that her home backs up on I-77 near Broad Street. Would like NCDOT to please advise her
as to the proposed improvements near her home so that she can determine what her future plans will be?
Rev. Keith and Laura Snoddy - Stated that the proposed improvements include a sound wall that will encroach
onto their property, about 30 feet from their back door, taking 2/3 of their backyard. Stated that the final
improvements will change the lifestyle that their family has been accustomed to for the past 19 years. They are
also concerned about the structural damage that construction will have on their house. Requested a meeting with
NCDOT ROW representative to explain the possibilities or options that they could expect for the future.
James R. and Sandra D. Campbell - Stated that the proposed improvements include a sound wall along the
west side of I-77, south of the Broad Street overpass that will eliminate about 90% of their backyard (329
Earlwood Road). They are assuming that NCDOT will acquire the entire property. Would like some advice from
an NCDOT representative. Also stated that their property is shown incorrectly on the tax maps as the previous
owners M. and S. Harris.
Be once
The widening of I-77 south of East Broad Street is included in the ultimate solution for the project and is not
currently funded. The impacts associated with this section will be coordinated with the property owners as the
right-of-way plans are developed in final design.
Miscellaneous

Comment
Ralph and Pat Dalton - Inquired about how the changes will affect them directly.
& once

The project will not have any direct impact to the property.
Comment
Ted Benbow - Stated that the parcel of land located on the north side of I-40, west side of Radio Road and the
south side of Museum Road is NOT owned by Sam Gaither, but is owned in fee by NCDOT (included survey
plat which have deed references showing that it is owned by NCDOT; the Iredell County tax map is incorrect).
He also own 25 acres on the north side of I-40 at Mile Marker 156 which has 1,329 linear feet. He would like to
lease this land to NCDOT for construction storage site, and may also sell to NCDOT if needed.

URS Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting 1Att
Jy 20, 2007
Page 11

The use of land for
Re on.re
are developed.
the Process and is type ally at the discretion of the
Property owner inforonwill b be ectl advancesefurfinal thexdesign
construction storage is made as the p
contractor constructing the project.
Comment
Jerry Ambrose -Commented on behalf of her mother, that the proposed improvements to I-77 at exit 50 will be
close if not adjacent, to her condominium development be would hke the specific details of how the
vet' as well as how the noise
project will affect the condominium,
Re onse
ini Of East Broad Street is included in the ultimate s solutithe on p°~owners
s
The widening of I-77 to the victY o
not currently funded. The impacts associated with this section will be coordinated property
the right-of-way plans are developed in final design.
Retests
-es t
McGaha (Western Avenue Baptist Church) -Stated that he would hoc request
tries at Radio Road and
nts on their future plat's to expand the c
the impacts of the planned improveme
Museum/Gaither Roads.
once
amille Robbins stated that he has had discussions and that he provided Steve Weston'se) contact information to
J
the church
RWuest
Requested that NCDOT please send him copies of the color maps that were at the Hearing.
Dan Jordan -
Re once
Jamille Robbins will provide copies of the PDF files.
Requ-est
list.
_ Andrew E. Causey - Requested that NCDOT please add his brother to the mailing
Re once
Mr. Causey's brother has been added to the mailing list.
-.2 1 Request
Alan Horne - Requested that NCDOT please forward him information on the project, particularly land
acquisition and any blueprints relative to this project.
Re once
Jamille Robbins will send copies of the of PDF files.
Request
A.M.E. Ltd. Partnership) - Requested that NCDOT please
will effect lots send 13, 14, deta 16,
Mary Lou Brinkley (J•
information concerning how the new bridge, Hillside Drive and Summit Drive

URS Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees

July 20, 2007
Page 12
17, 18, 21 and 22; TIP Project # U-2930; SR1934.

once
Jamille Robbins will respond with information relating to impacts of parcels not shown on hearing map. See
section on Concern rrlating to access to businesses along Gaither Road for further information on impacts
z Resolution
N
Robert Hites, Jr., City Manager, City of Statesville. The City of Statesville has passed a Resolution (16-07)
requesting that NCDOT erect its sound detention walls along the path of improvements to I-77 and I-40 at an
1 early stage of construction.
3
Be once
NCDOT will only construct the noise walls associated with the construction in the first phase and will provide
noise walls required for the ultimate solution during the construction of the ultimate solution. The noise walls
along I-40 will be constructed under the initial phase with the noise walls along I-77, south of US 64, being
constructed during the ultimate phase of construction.
If you have questions or comments regarding this information, please Greg Brew, NCDOT Project Engineer, at
[phone] or Peter Trencansky, URS Project Engineer (Consultant) at [phone]
BKC/pt

Cc: