20191006_I-40/I-77 Interchange improvements (2)_20080916

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number: 09-0065
County: Iredell
Due Date: 10/08/2008
Date Received: 09/12/2008
Project Description: Proposed project is for the improvements to existing I-40/1-77 Interchange in Iredell County
TIP No I-3 819
This Project is emg reviewea as maicatea oeiow
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville Water Coastal Management Water Resources
Mooresville Aquifer Protection Wildlife Environmental Health
Raleigh Land Quality Engineer ? Wildlife - DOT Solid Waste Mgmt
Washington Forest Resources Radiation Protection
Wilmington Land Resources Other
Parks & Recreation
Winston-Salem
Water Quality
? Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality

Manager Sign-Off/Region Date In-House Reviewer/Agency
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed
Insufficient information to complete review
No Comment
Other (specify or attach comments)
If you have any questions, please contact
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]

f? a?
r 1 ??
-S"
1e
7 y
?y
Proposed 1-4011-77 Interchange Area Improvements
Iredell County
Federal Aid Project No IMS-40-2
State Project No 8 1823901
WBS Element No 34192 12
TIP Project No. 1-3819
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Ili
oil
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
D to Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph D
Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Date ?i John FSullivan, Ill, PE
T' Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
A
Proposed 1-4011-77 Interchange Area Improvements
Iredell County

I
Federal Aid Project No IMS-40-2
State Project No 8 1823901
WBS Element No 34192 1 2
TIP Project No. 1-3819
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Documentation Prepared By:
URS CORPORATION - NORTH CAR
July 2008 c'?'p?
r SEAL
27816
Peter N Trencansky PE ., y
k
Project Engineer rROi
Joanna M Harrington
Project Planner
For the.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
s
F
?M
Undrea J Maj r
Project Planning Engineer
w SEAL
M
t M 022909:
mes F Badges, PE 61- 1P°"'4?+"?'"` .,
Project Engineer °`°*#* ? s*°' 0

' Project Environmental Commitments
Proposed 1-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements
Iredell County
Federal Aid Protect No IMS-40-2
State Project No 8 1823901
WBS Element No 34192 1 2
TIP Project No 1-3819
In addition to the Section 404 Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency, North
Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) Guidance for Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions
' of Certification, NCDOT has agreed to the following special commitments
ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT
Wetlands Additional area of wetlands in the southwest quadrant of the 1-40/1-77 interchange
will be bridged to minimize impacts Fill slopes will not encroach into the jurisdictional wetland
boundaries any more than practicable as shown in the preliminary design
Structures over Fourth Creek will accommodate the existing Museum Greenway path
The new and widened structures at SR 1934 (Hillside Lane) extension, 1-40 and 1-77, and their
associated ramps shall be designed to span the existing greenway that follows Fourth Creek
Retaining walls at Pressly Elementary School and Northview Elementary School In order
to minimize the impact to the grounds of these schools, a retaining wall along the proposed
shoulder of 1-40 and 1-77 shall be constructed in accordance with NCDOT construction
standards
' Noise Mitigation A final design noise report will be performed based on the results of the
planning noise study Noise mitigation will be provided as required in accordance with the
NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy

1 1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
Table of Contents
1 0 TYPE OF ACTION 1
20 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1
30 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1
40 ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2
41 Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative 2
42 Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative 2
50 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 2
60 COST ESTIMATES 4
70 PROJECT IMPACTS 4
80 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS 6
8 1 Flood Hazard Elevation 6
8 1 1 Morrison Creek 7
8 1 2 Free Nancy Branch 7
8 1 3 Tributary 2 8
8 14 Tributary 3 8
8 1 5 Fourth Creek 8
81 51 Hillside Lane Crossing 9
81 52 US 21 Encroachment 9
81 53 1-40 Encroachment 9
81 54 1-77 Encroachment 9
82 Summary 10
90 CULTURAL RESOURCES 10
91 Section 4(f) 10
100 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS 11
11 0 JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS 12
111 Wetlands 13
112 Streams 14
11 3 Avoidance and Minimization 14
11 4 Compensatory Mitigation 14
120 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES 15
130 PERMITS 15
140 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 16
141 Agency Coordination 16
142 Public Involvement 17
143 Circulation of the Environmental Assessment 18
144 Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment 18
150 SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 25
160 ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING 25
170 BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 26
List of Tables
Table 1 Estimated Project Impacts and Costs of the Recommended Alternative 4
Table 2 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites in Project Study Area 11
Table 3 Stream Impacts due to Stream Crossings 12
Table 4 Stream Impacts due to Stream Relocations* 13
Table 5 Total Stream Impacts 13
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements i FONSI
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
Table 6 Impacts to USACE Jurisdictional Wetlands
Table 7 Agency Comments Received on the EA
List of Figures
Figure 1 Project Location Map
Figure 2 Project Study Area
Figure 3a and 3b Typical Sections
Figure 4 Four-level Offset Alternative - Recommended Alternative
Figure 5 Flood Hazard Evaluation
Figure 6 Architectural Historic Resources
Figure 7 Hazardous Materials Locations
Figure 8 Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources
List of Appendices
Appendix A Historic Architecture
Appendix B Merger Team Concurrence Forms and Meeting Minutes
Appendix C Public Hearing
Appendix D Agency Comments on Environmental Assessment
13
19
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements a FONSI
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
1.0 TYPE OF ACTION
' This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI)
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the FHWA have determined
this protect will not have any significant impact on the human environment This FONSI is
based on the November 29, 2006 Environmental Assessment (EA), which has been
independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss
1 the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the project and appropriate mitigation
measures It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is not required
' 2.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning this proposal and
assessment
John F Sullivan, III, P E
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
' Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone [phone]
Gregory J Thorpe, Ph D
Environmental Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
' Telephone [phone]
' 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is designated in the 2009-2015 North Carolina Department of
Transportation's (NCDOT's) State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as STIP project
number 1-3819 and is described as "Statesville, modification of interchange area "' The general
location for the project is shown in Figure 1 and the Project Study Area is shown in Figure 2
The primary purposes of the proposed 1-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements include the
following
' • Improve traffic flow along the 1-40 and 1-77 corridors within the study area,
• Improve regional connectivity between Iredell County and points east, west, north
' and south within North Carolina and across the Interstate System
t Frndmg of No Significant Impact 1
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
The primary needs for the proposed 1-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements include the
following
• Traffic operations deficiencies - For the 2005 existing analysis, 15 of 46 analysis
points are operating at LOS E or F, and for the 2030 No-Build analysis, 42 of 46
analysis points are operating at LOS E or F,
• Safety concerns, and
• Diminished ability to operate as a North Carolina Strategic Highway Corridor and
part of the United States Interstate System
4.0 ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
A range of alternatives for the proposed action were evaluated Two build alternatives were
carried forward for further study and are described below
4.1 FOUR-LEVEL OFFSET INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE
The Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative allows for directional movements while allowing a
lower overall elevation compared to the Four-level Stacked Interchange as the fourth level ramp
is offset from the intersection of 1-40/1-77 allowing for it to cross under both 1-40 and 1-77
creating a more compact footprint The compact footprint allows for adequate traffic operations
between the US 21 and 1-77 interchanges along 1-40 The forecast traffic volumes for the loop
in the southwest quadrant were low enough to allow the loop to remain in place with only slight
modifications in order to tie into the wider freeway cross section
This alternative allowed the interchange to operate acceptably under the forecast traffic volumes
and meets the purpose and need for the proposed project, therefore it was carried forward and
studied as a detailed construction alternative
4.2 FOUR-LEVEL TURBINE INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE
The Four-level Turbine Interchange Alternative allows for directional movements while allowing
a lower overall elevation compared to the Four-level Stacked and Four-level Offset Interchanges
because the ramps do not cross the freeways at the intersection of the freeways but rather are
offset from the intersection An advantage to the interchange is that it can be stage constructed
with low interruption to existing traffic patterns
This alternative allowed the interchange to operate acceptably under the forecast traffic volumes
and meets the purpose and need for the proposed project, therefore, it was carried forward and
studied as a detailed construction alternative
5.0 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
Based on data gathered and presented in the Environmental Assessment (EA) the NCDOT
selected the Four-Level Offset Interchange Alternative as the Recommended Alternative
Finding of No Significant Impact 2
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
I Description of the Recommended Alternative
The Four-level Offset Interchange Alternative begins on 1-40 approximately 2,500 feet west of
the SR 2003 (Radio Road) overpass and heads east to the existing interchange with US 21 It
continues to the existing interchange with 1-77 and ends at the existing interchange with
SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road), for a total length of 3 70 miles 1-77 begins 1,680 feet north of
SR 2157 (Salisbury Road) and heads north to the existing interchange with SR 2321 (E Broad
Street) It continues under US 64 to the 1-40 interchange and ends approximately 2,400 feet
south of SR 2171 (Jane Sowers Road) for a total length of 3 24 miles New collector-distributor
(C-D) roadways will be constructed along 1-40 to provide access to and from both the US 21 and
1-77 interchanges The westbound C-D roadway will exit slightly west of where 1-40 crosses
under 1-77, then merge back onto westbound 1-40 approximately 3,460 feet west of US 21 The
eastbound C-D roadway will begin approximately 2,950 feet west of US 21 and continue
through both the US 21 and 1-77 interchanges and merge back into eastbound 1-40
approximately 4,590 feet east of 1-77 Typical sections for the proposed project are shown in
Figure 3a and 3b
The two-level full cloverleaf interchange at 1-40/1-77 will be revised to a four-level offset
1 interchange replacing three of the four loops with directional ramps, as shown in Figure 4 The
four existing one-lane ramps will be shifted outward to accommodate the new two-lane
directional ramps New bridges on 1-40 and 1-77 will be constructed to accommodate the two-
lane directional ramp for northbound 1-77 to westbound 1-40 that is proposed to cross under both
interstates The ramp for eastbound 1-40 to northbound 1-77 as well as westbound 1-40 ramps to
southbound 1-77 will be constructed above the interstate levels One loop will remain for
southbound 1-77 to eastbound 1-40
The interchange at 1-40/US 21 will be maintained as a diamond interchange, but revised to
provide for longer, wider and safer ramps in each quadrant US 21 will be widened from south of
Free Nancy Drive to the existing bridge over Fourth Creek The 1-40 bridge over US 21 will be
constructed to allow for future widening of two additional US 21 lanes under the bridge (STIP
Project U-2930) SR 1934 (Hillside Lane) will be extended to SR 1965 (Gaither Road) to
maintain access to US 21 This road will include a new stream crossing at Fourth Creek
approximately 400 feet downstream of the existing crossing at SR 1933 (Pump Station Road)
The section of SR 2187 (Glenway Drive) that runs parallel to 1-40 will be maintained in place
The section of SR 2187 to the east of the shopping center will be realigned to the west to
accommodate the expansion of the 1-40/1-77 interchange The US 64/1-40 partial interchange
will be removed, including ramp pavement and structures on 1-40 The eastbound ramp terminal
at US 64 (Davie Avenue) will be reconfigured to eliminate the intersection and transition the
four-lane divided section into the existing two lanes At the 1-40 interchange with SR 2158 (Old
Mocksville Road), the westbound entrance ramp and eastbound exit ramp will be realigned to
tie to the interstate widening SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road) will be widened one lane between
the eastbound exit interchange ramp terminal and US 64 The interchange with 1-77 and SR
2321 (E Broad Street) will maintain the current loop and ramp configuration but be realigned to
tie to the interstate widening SR 2321 (E Broad Street) will be widened from Cynthia Street to
' Middleton Street Approximately 1,950 feet of US 64 (Davie Avenue) will be realigned 150 feet
to the south of the current structure with a longer bridge that will span the additional interstate
lanes Approximately 1,900 feet of SR 2322 (Simonton Road) will be realigned to the east due
to the widening of 1-77, tying into the realigned US 64 (Davie Avenue)
A service road will begin at SR 2174 (Crawford Road) and run approximately 2,850 feet to the
west, ending in a cul-de-sac that will provide access to the adjacent property owners
Finding of No Significant Impact 3
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
The Recommended Alternative for the proposed project is shown on Figure 4
6.0 COST ESTIMATES
The total cost of the improvements recommended in this document is $278,815,000 which
includes $263,100,000 for construction, and $15,715,000 for right-of-way acquisition
7.0 PROJECT IMPACTS
Operational impacts include
• Increased traffic capacity resulting from the new facility,
• Increased safety over use of existing routes,
• Reduced travel times, and
• Interchanges designed to accommodate high traffic volumes and improve safety
Impacts to the human and natural environment include
• Impacts to jurisdictional features wetlands (3 82 acres), and streams (4,221
linear feet), and
• Five (5) residential relocations, three (3) business relocations, and one (1) farm
relocation One of the residential relocations was determined as minority or low-
income
The Recommended Alternative will not
• Cause any appreciable change in the regional air quality,
• Affect any recreational areas or public facilities,
• Disproportionately benefit, harm, or impact any social group including the elderly,
handicapped, non-drivers, minority, or low income, or
• Will not impact any federally listed Endangered or Threatened species
Estimated impacts and costs associated with the Recommended Alternative are summarized in
Table 1 The design has been revised since the completion of the EA as the project has moved
into the final design phase The impacts presented in the EA as well as those for the updated
design are included in Table 1
Table 1 Estimated Proiect Imoacts and Costs of the Recommended Alternative
Impact EA Impacts Updated Design
Impacts
Length (miles) 68 68
Estimated Cost
Construction Costs $170,000,000 $263,100,000
Right-of-Way Costs $15,715,000 $15,715,000
Total Costs $185,715,000 $278,815,000
Relocation Impact Summary
Residences (total) 5 5
Owner Occupied 3 3
Tenant Occupied 2 2
Finding of No Significant Impact 4
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
Impact EA Impacts Updated Design
Impacts
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
Schools 3' 3'
Parks and Recreation Facilities 12 12
Churches 23 23
Cemeteries 0 0
Utilities
Electrical Easement Crossings 1 1
Mayor Gas Mains 0 0
Railroad Crossings 0 0
Cultural Resources Impact Summary
No of Archaeological sites 0 0
No of Historic Resources 0 0
Farmland Impact Summary (acres)
Prime and Unique Farmland 27 27
Statewide and Local Important Farmland 16 16
Biotic Community Impact Summary (acres)
Piedmont/Mountain Semipermenant Impoundment 09 09
Low Elevation Seep 1 6 1 6
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest 121 121
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 122 122
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 61 61
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest 01 01
Pastoral/Agricultural Land 495 495
Urban/Disturbed Areas 2078 2078
Jurisdictional Impact Summary
Acres of Wetlands Impacted 319 3 82
Number of Wetland crossings 9 8
Linear Feet of Jurisdictional Streams Impacted by Stream
Crossings 2,428 2,804
Total Linear Feet of Jurisdictional Streams Relocated4 1,476 1,417
Total Linear Feet of Jurisdictional Streams Impacted 3,904 4,221
Protected Species Impact Summary
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergu) No Effect No Effect
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastyl?s nan?flora)5 n/a No Effect
Air Quality Impacts
No of Intersections exceeding Carbon Monoxide NAAQS 0 0
Noise Impacts
Number of Impacted Receptors 120 120
Hazardous Materials Impact Summary
1 Finding of No Significant Impact 5
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
Impact EA Impacts Updated Design
Impacts
No of Impacted Hazardous Materials Sites 63 7
Source URS, 2006
Impacts calculated for EA based on 10 feet beyond the slope limits Impacts for Updated Design calculated based on 25 feet
beyond slope stake limits
' Right-of-Way acquisition only No impact to school usage
2 No new Greenway crossings Existing crossings to remain
3 Right-of-Way acquisition from church property only No impact to use or facilities
a Stream Relocations are existing stream channels that will be impacted by fill slopes and require relocation Utilizing natural stream
design principles when relocating stream will be incorporated where practical
5 The dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) was not a federally listed species at the time the EA was approved It was
added to the list of threatened and endangered species for Iredell County after the EA was signed
8.0 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS
81 FLOOD HAZARD ELEVATION
This section contains information corresponding to the analysis of impacts to floodplains The
Floodplains and Flood Insurance Maps (FIRM) have been updated since the completion of the
EA The following section will evaluate the effects to floodplains as a result of the proposed
project, based on the latest available data
Executive Order 11988, Floodplaln Management (42 CFR 26951) requires the following
• All federal actions must avoid the occupancy and modification of floodplalns and avoid direct
or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative
If an action must be located on the base floodplain, the agency shall take action to reduce
the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare,
and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains
Each agency shall also provide opportunity for early public review of any plans or proposals
for actions in floodplains
It has been determined that, due to the linear nature of the project and existing roadway
configuration, no practicable alternative exists to completely avoid impacts to floodplains
Efforts are being made to minimize the impacts to floodplalns and to diminish the risk to human
safety, health and welfare
Consideration must be given to the floodplain's "natural and beneficial values" which are
discussed in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Unified National Program
for Floodplain Management According to FEMA, surface waters, their floodplains and their
watersheds must be viewed as parts of one ecological system 2 This system exists in a state of
dynamic equilibrium If one of the parts of the system is disturbed, the entire system will readjust
toward a new equilibrium The geological and biological effects of the system's readjustments
toward its new equilibrium are often felt far from the original site of the disturbance and can last
for decades For this reason, if for no other, floodplain development and modification should be
viewed with caution and with careful assessment of the potential adverse impacts on natural
values
Floodplains in their natural or relatively undisturbed state provide three broad sets of natural and
beneficial resources and hence resource values (1) water resources values including natural
Finding of No Significant Impact 6

1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, and groundwater recharge, (2) living resources
values including large and diverse populations of plants and animals, and (3) cultural resource
values including historical, archeological, scientific, recreational, and aesthetic sites in addition
to sites generally highly productive for agriculture, aquaculture, and forestry where these uses
are compatible with natural values 3
The study area is located completely within Iredell County with portions of the study area
located within the City of Statesville Extraterritorial Limits The Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Maps - Community Panel Numbers for the study
1 area include 370135 4735, 370135 4744, 370135 4745, and 370135 4755 for the City of
Statesville and 370313 4735, 370313 4746, 370313 4755 for the unincorporated areas of Iredell
County In April 2007, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development -
Flood Insurance Administration prepared a Preliminary Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
corresponding to the FIRM for the City of Statesville and the unincorporated areas of Iredell
County 4
The project study area contains five stream systems that are designated by name on the FIRM
with their associated floodplains and have been designated as Detailed Studiesa and are
included in the FIS for the City of Statesville and the unincorporated areas of Iredell County
The construction of the proposed improvements would encroach in several areas on the
designated floodplain associated with several local stream systems A description of streams
and encroachments are discussed in the following sections and shown on Figure 5
8.1.1 MORRISON CREEK
Morrison Creek enters the study area northwest of the 1-40 interchange with US 21 and flows
southeasterly until it converges with Fourth Creek Due to the on-ramp to 1-40 westbound being
converted from two-way traffic to one-way traffic, it was necessary to construct a new roadway
to provide access to the businesses along SR 1965 (Gaither Rd ) The new roadway includes a
single bridge spanning dust east of the confluence of Morrison Creek and Fourth Creek The
project will not impact the floodplain or floodway of Morrison Creek
8.1.2 FREE NANCY BRANCH
1 Free Nancy Branch enters the study area southwest of the 1-40 interchange at US 21 and flows
northeasterly until it converges with Fourth Creek The project will not have any direct impact
on Free Nancy Branch, however, the project will require some construction within the
floodplains associated with Free Nancy Branch The required construction is widening existing
1-40 and US 21 to improve the operation of the interchange The total area of the encroachment
upon the floodplain would be 4 5 acres for the recommended alternative Free Nancy Branch
currently enters a culvert west of US 21 and is carried to a point 1,000 feet east of US 21
Therefore, the protect is not likely to further affect the natural and beneficial value of the
floodplain system
a A detailed study is an engineering analysis which identifies 1% annual flood elevations For the North
Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program, this study method entails using the digital elevation data,
supplementing the data with field surveys for channel bathymetry, bridge/culvert opening geometry, and
channel and floodplain characteristics in order to conduct fully detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
and floodplain mapping
I Finding of No Significant Impact 7
1-4011-77 Interchange
As previously noted, the floodplain is extensively developed, with several large stores,
restaurants and hotels located completely within the floodplain The risks associated with the
impact to the floodplain with regard to human safety are moderate due to the amount of existing
development However, the impact as a result of the project is not likely to increase the risk
over what is currently present, that is, the project will have no impact
8.1.3 TRIBUTARY 2
Tributary 2, also identified as Stream S3, is a tributary to Fourth Creek that enters the study
area southwest of the 1-77 interchange with SR 2321 (E Broad Street) and flows northeasterly
under the interchange and parallel to 1-77's northbound lanes until it turns northeasterly and
converges with Fourth Creek In the vicinity of Tributary 2, the project will widen 1-77 and slightly
modify the interchange at SR 2321 A retaining wall along 1-77 is proposed that will minimize
the impact to the stream system and the associated floodplain The project will result in two
encroachments of the floodplain associated with Tributary 2 The first encroachment is where an
existing culvert carries the stream under 1-77, outlets into a channel and crosses SR 2321 under
the overpass bridge The encroachment upon the floodplain is transverse and crosses with a
skew very close to perpendicular The impact to the floodplain will be minimal as the project will
likely only require a slight extension to existing culverts and the amount of fill material in the
floodplain should not substantially increase the flood elevation The second encroachment to
Tributary 2 is longitudinal as the stream runs parallel to the northbound lanes of 1-77 The
impact to the stream system and the floodplain occurs for approximately 2,100 feet with a total
encroachment area of 0 8 acre A longitudinal encroachment is not favorable, however, due to
the location of the existing roadway, the encroachment is unavoidable The use of retaining
walls reduces the effect of the encroachment and allows for the preservation of the floodplain's
natural and beneficial values The total area for both encroachments upon the floodplain is 1 4
acres
The area adjacent to the floodplain is vacant and densely vegetated with adequate storage for
flooding Therefore, the risk to human safety associated with the encroachments is low
8.1.4 TRIBUTARY 3
Tributary 3, also identified as Stream S2, is a tributary to Fourth Creek that begins northeast of
the 1-40/1-77 interchange and flows southwesterly across 1-40 and converges with Fourth Creek
as it crosses US 64 The interchange will be reconfigured in the vicinity of Tributary 3 Three
transverse crossings of the stream system and the associated floodplains will result The
encroachments upon the floodplain are transverse and cross with a skew very close to
perpendicular For one of the crossings the existing culvert under 1-40 will be replaced with a
bridge The existing culvert crossing is undersized causing periodic flooding As such, the
project would have a beneficial effect in the floodplain and will require a floodplain map revision
The total area of the encroachment upon the floodplain for the three crossings is approximately
5 6 acres
8.1.5 FOURTH CREEK
Fourth Creek is the major stream system running through the study area The stream system
begins northwest of US 21 and enters the study area before crossing under Pump Station Road,
converging with Morrison Creek, crossing under US 21 and 1-40, converging with Free Nancy
Branch, crossing under 1-77, converging with Tributary 2 and Tributary 3 and finally exiting the
study area southeast of the 1-40/1-77 interchange Within the study area, all of the crossings of
Fourth Creek will be accomplished using bridges The project includes four floodplain crossings,
Finding of No Significant Impact 8
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
at Hillside Lane extension below the existing Pump Station Road crossing, US 21, 1-40 (includes
ramps to US 21 interchange), and 1-77 (includes ramps to 1-40 and a temporary structure for
maintenance of traffic during construction) The floodplain encroachment impacts will be
minimized as the crossings are being upgraded to account for higher flows due to urban
development within the study area The ability to pass larger flood volumes will allow for more
of the floodway to return to a more natural state as the roadway fill has a lesser impedance to
the flow
There is an existing risk of flooding in this floodplain due to existing development The project is
not expected to further increase risk to human life from flooding
8 1.5.1 Hillside Lane Crossing
There is a small encroachment on the floodplain as the Hillside Lane extension crosses Fourth
Creek with a bridge spanning a majority of the floodplain at this location The extension is
required due to the need for an improved roadway to service SR 1965 (Gaither Road) following
the elimination of the two-way ramp to US 21 The existing crossing at Pump Station Road dust
upstream is accomplished using a 19-foot wide by 60-foot long bridge, while the new bridge
connecting Hillside Lane and Gaither Road will be 36 feet wide by 356 feet long The new
structure will provide for improved flood passage The existing bridge on Pump Station Road
will not be disturbed and will remain in service as it provides the only access to Statesville's
water treatment plant located at the end of Pump Station Road The total area of the
encroachment upon the floodplain for the crossing is approximately 0 1 acres
8.1.5.2 US 21 Encroachment
The encroachment on the floodplain as Fourth Creek crosses US 21 will not be changed as a
result of the project The existing bridge, which is 72 feet wide by 200 feet long, over Fourth
Creek will not be disturbed and will remain in service
8 1.5.3 1-40 Encroachment
The encroachment on the floodplain as Fourth Creek crosses 1-40 will be modified from the
existing configuration as the ramps associated with the US 21 interchange must be lengthened
to provide adequate storage for safe operation of the ramp terminals at US 21 As a result of
the lengthening of the ramps the width of the structures will be wider than the existing bridges to
accommodate the wider cross-section on 1-40 and the interchange ramps The length of the
bridges will be increased from 150 feet to 235 feet, providing additional floodplain passage The
new structures will provide for improved flood passage, however, they are not long enough to
completely eliminate the encroachment upon the floodplain The total area of encroachment as
a result of the 1-40 crossing is approximately 14 0 acres for the recommended alternative
1 8.1.5 4 1-77 Encroachment
The encroachment on the floodplains as 1-77 crosses Fourth Creek will also be modified from
the existing configuration due to the ramps associated with the 1-40 interchange to the north of
the crossing The reasons for the additional encroachment are due to the size of the proposed
1-40/1-77 interchange alternatives and because the ramp ties to the interstate must occur further
to the south of 1-40 to accommodate the larger interchange alternatives To accomplish fully
directional movements, the interchange footprint becomes larger and thus increases the
floodplain encroachment Fourth Creek will have bridge crossings on both the 1-40 to 1-77
entrance ramp and as it crosses 1-77 The length of the bridge as Fourth Creek crosses under
1-77 will be increased from 160 feet to 195 feet to accommodate a revised profile and provide for
Finding of No Significant Impact 9
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
the planned greenway that will cross under 1-77 at this location A temporary bridge for the
southbound lanes of 1-77 will be required to maintain traffic during construction The bridge will
be adjacent to the existing 1-77 structure The total area of encroachment as a result of the
crossings at 1-77 and the 1-77 ramps is approximately 3 3 acres for the design
8.2 SUMMARY
The overall effect of the project as a result of the encroachment on floodplains are anticipated to
be minor and are not significant, as the project will increase the bridge lengths for most
crossings allowing for increased passage of water The encroachments on the floodplain will
also not present an increased danger to human life as a result of the construction, nor will it
promote development within the floodplain
The recommended alternative includes structures crossing floodplains that are included in
FEMA detailed studies Impacts to these floodplains / floodways will be analyzed, mapped and a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will be requested The CLOMR will be submitted
to FEMA for review and approval prior to construction The analysis will detail the proposed
structure opening, roadway embankment encroachments and any hydraulic changes that would
occur within the floodplain Upon approval and after construction is complete, as-built plans will
be submitted with documentation for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to FEMA Once this is
approved, the FEMA maps will be revised and reissued by FEMA For structures that are not in
a FEMA detailed study or structures that are lengthened but cause no significant impact to the
floodplain, no map revision is required
9.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800 Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings
No historic resources were discovered while preparing the EA, however, while the EA was being
finalized the North Carolina Department of Transportation assessed the National Register
eligibility of the McKee House, an early nineteenth-century dwelling that stands approximately
0 8 miles northeast of the intersection of the two interstates In a report to NCDOT, dated March
26, 2007, it was recommended that the house as well as a small area surrounding the house be
eligible for the National Register listing under Criterion C as shown in Figure 6 It was
determined that the historic property was not within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the
project Therefore, the historic resource will not be affected by the proposed 1-40/1-77
interchange improvements
A copy of the report to NCDOT on the McKee House is included in Appendix A
9.1 SECTION 4(F)
Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, codified in federal law at 49 U S C §303, declares that
"[i]t is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve
the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and
waterfowl refuges, and historic sites "
Finding of No Significant Impact 10
1 1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
Section 4(f) specifies that the USDOT "may approve a transportation program or project
requiring publicly-owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge
of national, state or local significance, or land of a historic site of national, state or local
significance (as determined by the Federal, state or local officials having jurisdiction over the
park, area, refuge, or site) only if [1] there is no prudent or feasible alternative to using that land
and [2] the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park,
l recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use" (49 U S C
303, Section 3 10)
Three potential Section 4(f) resources were identified in the project study area and were
subsequently evaluated for Section 4(f) applicability These resources include Pressly
Elementary School, Northview Elementary School, and a greenway owned by the City of
Statesville that traverses the protect area It was concluded that Section 4(f) did not apply to the
elementary schools and that the project had no effects on the use of the greenway Thus, the
proposed project will have no effect to Section 4(f) resources
10.0 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS
Hazardous waste is defined by the USEPA as any waste material, or combination of waste
materials that pose a hazard to human health, welfare, or the environment Materials classified
as hazardous can be in the form of solids, sludges, liquids, or gases, and are characterized as
reactive, toxic, infectious, explosive, flammable, corrosive, or radioactive Examples of
hazardous waste sites include landfills, dumps, pits, lagoons, salvage areas, retail operations
and storage tanks
In April 2005, a search of available environmental records was conducted to identify potential
hazardous materials sites in the study area Results of the search were reported and mapped
in the EDR DataMap Corridor Study Report (EDR Report) 5 A Geotechnical Pre-Scoping
Report (Geotechnical Report) was conducted in September 2007 to provide an early
identification of geoenvironmental issues that may impact the planning, design or construction of
the project The results of an examination of the EDR Report for accuracy and use of GIS to
identify any known environmentally impacting sites within the study area not identified in the
EDR Report are presented in the Geotechnical Report Based on the study, four active
underground storage tanks (USTs), two former UST facilities, and one facility with a ground
water incident number (GWI) were found within the proposed project corridor (Figure 7) These
1 sites are shown in Table 2 It is anticipated that low to non-existent monetary and scheduling
impacts will result from these sites No other geoenvironmental concerns were identified 6

Table 2. Potential Hazardous Materials Sites in Project Study Area
Site No Site Name and Address
1 Petro Express #31
131 Turnersburg Rd
Statesville, NC 28625
2 Wilco #349
122 Turnersburg Rd
Statesville, NC 28625
3 Priscila's
731 Sullivan Rd
Statesville, NC 28625
4 Delux Ice Cream Bar
Finding of No Significant Impact 11
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
Site No Site'Name and Address
716 Sullivan Rd
Statesville, NC 28625
5 Broad Street Shell
1502 E Broad Street
Statesville, NC 28625
6 Royal Express
1501-B East Broad Street
Statesville, NC 28625
7 Starbucks Coffee
1501 East Broad Street
Statesville, NC 28625
Source Wainaina, Njoroge W , PE , State Geotechrncal Engineer, North Carolina Department of Transportation
"Geotechrncal Pre-Scoping Report " Memorandum to Teresa Hart, P E , Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, North Carolina Department of Transportation 1 November 2007
11.0 JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
The jurisdictional findings were updated for the Recommended Alternative due to design
revisions as a result of the final design plan preparation The impacts to the jurisdictional
resources are shown in Tables 3 through 6, and Figure 8 shows the locations of the impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and streams based on the slope stake limits
Table 3 Stream Imnacts due to Stream Crossings
Stream Four-level Offset Alternative
Stream
Label Stream
Classification
Stream Name EA
Impacts New Design
Impacts (If) Number of
Crossings
S1 Perennial Fourth Creek 0 0 8
S2 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 0 0 3
S3 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 145 199 3
S6 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 500 1085 2
S9 Intermittent UT to Fourth Creek 0 176 1
S12 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 590 0 1
S16 Intermittent UT to Fourth Creek 601 541 1
S18 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 89 122 1
S19 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 80 109 1
S20 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 69 44 1
S22 Intermittent UT to Fourth Creek 237 235 1
S23 Intermittent UT to Fourth Creek 0 71 1
S24 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 117 192 1
JS* Perennial UT to Gregory Branch 0 30 1
Total 2,428 2,804 26
* Stream 'JS' was outside of the original study area and has not been field delineated yet The information for this
stream is subject to change based on field delineations
Fmdmg of No Significant Impact 12
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
Tahle 4 Stream Imnacts due to Stream Relocations*

Stream Label Stream
Classification Stream Name EA Impacts (If) New Design
Impacts (If)
S11 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 269 247
S17 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 565 565
S20 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 616 578
S21 Perennial UT to Fourth Creek 0 27
S23 Intermittent UT to Fourth Creek 26 0
Total 1,476 1,417
*Stream Relocations are existing stream channels that will be impacted by fill slopes and require relocation Utilizing
natural stream design principles when relocating stream will incorporated where practical
Tahle 5 Total Stream Imnacts
Type EA Impacts (If) New Design Impacts (If)
Stream Crossing 2,428 2,804
Stream Relocation* 1,476 1,417
TOTAL 3,904 4,221
*Stream Relocations are existing stream channels that will be impacted by fill slopes and require relocation Utilizing
natural stream design principles when relocating stream will incorporated where practical
Tahla R_ Imnar_ts to HSACE Jurisdictional Wetlands

Wetland Wetland
Area
(acres)
Rrvenne/
Non-Rnrenne
Classification
NCDWQ
Rating
EA Impacts -
10 offset (If) , New Design Impacts
- 25' offset (if)
W6 0 60 Non-Rivenne PF01 23 0 00 0 02
W7 0 87 Riverine PF01 40 0 51 0 87
W8 3 87 Rivenne PF01 56 0 10 0 00
W9 0 08 Non-Rivenne PF01 23 0 00 <0 01
W12 3 74 Rivenne PF01 38 0 00 017
W14 1 44 Non-Rivenne PF01 21 0 00 <0 01
W15 14 72 Rivenne PEM1/PF01 92 1 81 2 41
W16 017 Non-Riverine PF01 19 017 0 00
W17 0 29 Non-Rivenne PF01 16 0 04 0 05
W20 0 09 Non-Rivenne PF01 16 0 09 0 09
W24 0 52 Rivenne PF01 46 0 14 0 18
W25 0 22 Rivenne PF01 69 0 02 0 03
WSL 0 21 Rivenne PF01 15 0 21 0 00
Total Impacts 3 19 3 82
11.1 WETLANDS
The Recommended Alternative (Four Level Offset Alternative) will impact 3 82 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands The majority of impacts will occur to a wetland system in the
southwestern quadrant of the interchange, W15 (Figure 8) This wetland is the highest quality
wetland in the project study area (NCDWQ rating of 92) and is being spanned by the proposed
bridge over Fourth Creek
Finding of No Significant Impact 13
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
112 STREAMS
The Recommended Alternative (Four Level Offset Alternative) will have 26 stream crossings,
impacting a total of 4,221 linear feet of jurisdictional streams
11.3 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 In order to minimize the impacts to wetland W15, which
has the highest NCDWQ wetland rating (92) in the natural resources study area, the bridge
proposed to span Fourth Creek for each alternative is being lengthened beyond what is needed
hydraulically and will span an additional length of this wetland area that would have been
impacted by roadway fill
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
• 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
11.4 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
Mitigation has been defined in NEPA regulations to include efforts which a) avoid, b) minimize,
c) rectify, d) eliminate, or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the environment Avoidance
and minimization must be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation can be discussed
Based on the nature of this project, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the
proposed construction in jurisdictional areas
The projected impacts for the Recommended Alternative are 3 82 acres of wetlands and 4,221
linear feet of streams On-site mitigation is being pursued and potential sites have been
identified and will be presented to the Merger Team at subsequent meeting However due to
the limited on-site opportunities, additional compensatory mitigation for this project will be
provided by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), as outlined in the tri-
party Memorandum of Agreement between the US Army Corps of Engineers, NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, and the NC Department of Transportation dated July 23,
2003
Finding of No Significant Impact 14
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
12.0 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Reviewing the most recent list of federally endangered and threatened species indicates two (2)
species as occurring in Iredell County (list date January 2008) These species are the bog turtle
(Clemmys muhlenbergn) and the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora)
' Boa turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergu)
The bog turtle is listed by the USFWS as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T/SA),
and by the state as Threatened Species designated as T/SA are listed as threatened due to
their similarity of appearance with other rare species, and are listed to provide protection to
these other rare species According to the USFWS, T/SA species are not biologically
endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation In addition, biological
conclusions are not required for T/SA species The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) lists the species as Threatened, without the Similarity of Appearance designation
NCNHP coverages were reviewed as well as physical files at the NCNHP office, and no known
documented occurrences of federally listed Threatened or Endangered species were identified
within one mile of the study area No occurrences or available habitat for the bog turtle was
located in the natural resource study area during field reviews
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora)
Field surveys were conducted for this species March 27, April 2, and April 9, 2008 The entire
project area was surveyed for potential habitat, with areas identified as potential habitat
surveyed for the plant by walking visual surveys While multiple areas of potential habitat
existed within the project study area, most of those areas provided poor habitat No individuals
of this species were found, therefore it was determined that this project will have no effect on
the dwarf-flowered heartleaf A check of the NCNHP database on April 16, 2008 indicated no
known occurrences of dwarf-flowered heartleaf within 1 0 mile of the study area
Additionally, two Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are listed for Iredell County, Allegheny
woodrat (Neotoma magister) and Prairie birdsfoot-trefoil (Lotus urnfoliolatus var hellen)
Neither FSC has habitat located in the project study area and will not be affected by the
proposed project
13.0 PERMITS
Construction activities associated with the Recommended Alternative will result in several
activities requiring environmental regulatory permits from state and federal agencies A list of
these permits, organized by issuing agency, is provided below NCDOT will maintain close
coordination with federal and state environmental regulatory and resource agencies throughout
the entire process The NCDOT will obtain all necessary permits prior to construction During
project construction, the NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices and will comply
with all permit conditions Any additional measures that will minimize environmental impacts that
are agreed upon during consultations with resource agencies will be implemented
' United State Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 Individual Permit (dredging or filling in U S waters or wetlands)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Section 401 Certification (Water Quality)
I Finding of No Significant Impact 15
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
North Carolina Division of Land Resources
Erosion and Sedimentation Permit
North Carolina Division of Forest Resources
Burning Permit
14.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A NEPA/Section 404 merger process was developed under an agreement between the NCDOT,
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the USACE and other state and federal
environmental resource and regulatory agencies
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team meetings are a formal means for early involvement in the
project development process for state and federal environmental resource and regulatory
agencies that have an interest in the issuance of USACE dredge and fill permits for wetland and
stream impacts under the terms of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act A representative of the
SHPO also participates in these meetings
The NEPA/Section 404 merger process is a streamlining effort that helps to avoid duplication of
effort between the two processes The USACE must meet the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in order to issue a dredge and fill permit under the Clean
Water Act The NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team meetings provide an opportunity for
participants to formally concur with key decisions in the NCDOT's and the FHWA's National
Environmental Policy Act impact assessment process so that those decisions do not need to be
revisited during application for a USACE's permit
14.1 AGENCY COORDINATION
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Meetings
The general purpose of NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team meetings is to obtain agency
comments on the on-going planning and environmental studies The following NEPA/Section
404 Merger Team meetings were held
The Initial NEPA/Section 404 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
NEPA/Section 404 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
Finding of No Significant Impact 16
1 1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
The EA was approved on November 29, 2006, and the first concurrence meeting (Concurrence
Points 2A and 4A) was held on May 13, 2008 resulting in the signing of the Concurrence form
for both Concurrence Points Meeting minutes and concurrence forms from the Concurrence
Point Nos 2A and 4A meeting are included in Appendix B
14.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A public involvement program was developed and will be maintained throughout the protect
pursuant to Part 1506 6 of NEPA (Public Involvement Regulations for Implementing the
' Procedural Provision of NEPA) In general, the public involvement program to date has
included development of a mailing list, a protect newsletter, a meeting with the local officials, a
Citizens Informational Workshop, a toll-free telephone number for direct citizen inquiries, and a
Public Hearing
In accordance with 23 U S C 128, the North Carolina Department of Transportation certifies
that a public hearing for the subject protect has been held and the social, economic, and
' environmental impacts, consistency with local community planning goals and objectives, and
comments from individuals have been considered in the selection of the recommended
alternative for the protect
The Public Hearing for the 1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvement protect was held on May 21, 2007
at the Statesville Civic Center 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
protect 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 protect handout
A total of 301 participants signed in at the Public Hearing NCDOT also received 37 comment
sheets, emails, or letters regarding the protect, and eight people spoke on record A summary of
verbal and written comments made during the Hearing is presented in Appendix C
An executive summary of the main issues concerning the protect is as follows
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 1-40 interchange) and persistent congestion along the
corridor The proposed protect will improve the 1-40/US 21 interchange as well as provide
improved access control along portions of the corridor Substantial improvements along the
1 corridor were determined to be beyond the scope of the proposed protect and two future STIP
Protects (U-2930 and U-2731) will widen US 21 and improve the traffic operations along the
corridor
1 Concerns related to the reconstruction of grade separated crossings of Radio Road over 1-40
and US 64 (Davie Avenue) over 1-77 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 protect
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 1-40 Current guidelines do not
allow non-interstate access The proposed configuration was determined to be the preferred
solution
Finding of No Significant Impact 17
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
Concerns relating to the effects of noise at multiple residential locations were expressed by
attendees Due to growth along the 1-40 and 1-77 corridors, additional noise analysis will be
performed during final design to determine the reasonableness and feasibility of providing
additional noise abatement measures
A post-hearing meeting was held on May 27, 2007 to discuss the comments expressed at or
following the Public Hearing on STIP Project 1-3819, 1-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements
14.3 CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment was approved on November 29, 2006 by the Federal Highway
Administration and the North Carolina Depart of Transportation The approved EA was
circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies for review and comments An
asterisk (*) indicates a written response was received from the agency Copies of the
correspondence are included in Appendix D of this document
Federal Agencies
Department of Health and Human Service, Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of the Interior
Department of Agriculture
Federal Aviation Administration
Regional Offices
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U S Army Corps of Engineers
*Environmental Protection Agency
U S Fish and Wildlife Service
State Agencies
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
*North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
*North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
North Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
Local Governments
Mayor of Statesville
Statesville City Manager
City of Statesville Planning Department
Chair, Statesville City Council
Iredell County Planning Department
Iredell County Manager
Chair, Iredell County Commissioners
Lake Norman MPO
14.4 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from a number of agency
personnel and are summarized in Table 6 Agency review letters are included in Appendix D
Finding of No Significant Impact 18
c
Q)
N
OO
0)
C
CU
N.
U
i
O
C E 0 w
Q m
°D
c U)
c
U' 0 'n
-u O c a) w$ U c m W
c6 H co E CD
a) ° O -? L c U
U C C m 2-2 O N o o
U 0 m 0 0 Z a)= C Z

C 0)0 6 mz E?
w
' C
c6 L V) W 'o m >,
--0 0o C cL.o
Q _7
O aEQ2Z
F- (D
U Z
U
0 0 O_
2) -0 0-0 OU.--.? C'
°
'o 3 N Q z a >' O
O
N 0 -0
0 LLI
.L.,
z
Z
in 2
C
O
m

°)
° i U
O >, E C 0))
D _ a o °) Q
-0 >
Q= W. _0 O
a)
m
_ w (n C m 3 2L c? Y UQ ° ='mp? u0i
O 0) a 0) 0 a)

C D y
a 0 0

L

o 0) N o
3: 0) =
0
0-0

U)

" m
_m ? a) c=o
ww
ma
c
a)
?°
`
' -C
c
.40 ;- o0
?0aa a) i?E
°
a;o )
?
a
)
?L p? c ao ° 0 0
-
0o m? E o
Q? o
to N Q cUn C c O) E 3
m
?
°
° m`
CL 0 X 7
t: 2
a) E
o

N am

-- ? o g
Hw U
-
.0
U) (n 0 z co 0 M M- C) -. a 0

--
E° c co 0 `o)z m
m co O U caw ?
?
0 a) E a) y C E 0)2)m -QNO
m -0 0- p OUP N aC m»-
C
_ m M c oU
a) m
L+ ?
- c o Cfn 'o D aa) cU via cn= Em o
c 3
"
f
N m
.0
= c a)
E0 E?? m
c m

O
?? 0 0 0 O
0 m
C L
cn _ (D a) U U Z
0 L m E a)
°
° m 0 d H ...
a s
16 75 ?? ??
aY E Ez aW
a °
C
W `) 3 m o EC 0
cp 0 O N O a) 0) a) C 0) U

z w U? 0. ?mw<z '

m
U Y
0 M O C w0 2z
CL c ?w?z

C1 o in
U c O
c
-0 C `0 a)
v
7 > U
7 Q
U
i E
0 a0 o a Da cn c
Q a> >
w o
0 E
U L
CC: C U C m
° p 0 p N C a) (n a) 0
0 L L
- co E C C a)
.or E° c6 Q O y0 N
a) m O
0 E Fn O Y .0 N '0
CD L Sr m m 3 " N C U L OU C
N O U
0
-0 O 0 CD L O 3
0) =
= M Z6
L 3 H C 0 co
aZ
E 2
)
0 C:
U E c
0 (n
0
C 3
N _
(n C?
3
m
U 0(
U
m
D1 O Q) L o
co
0 `?
U m C
O L E
0
cn U U
C
C
m
°(D a) m 0
o
TnE E
C
_ mQ O N
m
) c Ch O U) m
c
oo
-0 `
z ca . Q- Dmf- °
o
cnm

0 Em a
LL U0
c a
a) Zmm
0) d
.
V) 0
°
YEt
i:- V)
c
c0E a)
i "0 0 Q
D) U m
mc
i
-6
° 0
Q
>?? c 0 L
U
°a=° C m jC 0) E 7 0
00000
3
o n
-°
s
o
U w N C-0 °- o E o
Q
.0.0 co V)
0 3 N C cl >
m m j U N a m
--0 E E cc (n
d is -
w? c° O O Ecc
- a) m? m E 0
C
m
m ? o 0- v c
o w? m m 0 m E E? c?
U 0
0 cr
° 0 cl a)?
°
??U E?m? _ 0
c
c
c3 CD M 0 m
rnE0
?aL 0
E
6)
wMa)CO?0a)
E
O cu w c a c (p
m Uo o O ° `
O O
U) -O '? cn C C
Co a)
> _
cp V) w co -0 c Q
o m
0 0
V ° U E E
16 CD a o m
U C
cn p 0 c
E V5 Fu
CU -p C a) d Q °

>
N L p m m Co Q

L C- cn O Q C c m U y

m 0
!n m co
c>a
-0 E C 0 0)

0 U
Cl)
`n omO ICJ'
0
0
?
`n E a`ni

C'o 0
0 M 0 C:
CD C
m 3" m m L

a co (D
? 0 m
D E m?
E
0
c
-
E ?
r
)
w(>? o
:3
Q 0 0
E N (D (D C 0 m U) CL g
)
O
C C 0 .
>
0
C) a) V5 0-- O m
c
O
" O
U y> w c
C 0 0 .L.. U
cn 0
O n. N U C ?p
U ) C
0 m 0 D U)
L
co a)
C C> 3 L Q E
0
E
c c O

j
C
cn 0 Z

Y
c6 N C E c O O 0
0
O
c m 0
-Op `a 0 E w 0 E
°

cn E'0 0 O
=
-
m
W c
- O m ca
0

w
a) o C-n C-1) S: :S
cu
CD =3
0- a) Co .0 0)

(n a) m cu
3
E >

0 >, -0 c CD
O ti E `- .. D L O
- °) C
' C m a -0 m
E° ag m
m
(D
'oE E
io U= M L as
a)3E "
m
c
a) YLCL(n
a
a) o E 0) C o m 0
>'
m o
C C ° C D
0 t o
C y C in ?O
a) (n m
m
O 3 a) C O a)
U)
L
p
LL
L) E
O
> =
O O O C
5:.M
0) 0 c
O
Q o c
rn O N
a)
Q O
L V O D
a 0) U E c c c
N 0=
a) a) a 0 2 cn O C 0 m?
-0 5 7 0 o-0 V'a°? o c
•- C co 0 0 c6 m
(D 7 M
0 m-8 C N U
O
O
w N E
L
in
= N, 5 N
E
C a) L E U a)
w
Z m
Z
C E C' U= N C
mN 3'0W
L
L
M
.
. Q0
Q .
, Zn
C
O
(D
E O L r N co
E Z -C
O
0
Z
ti
d
0
0)
O
O
c?
p a) U C
m O
2i U C -C
-p a m
c c n
co
0)
a) (1) N
cn U cn
U
c i m
N2
E
4) -2t, C: U CU 'D
a)
0-
C:
w a
E Q C a
Q N 0 O
N
nE -
c
Cm
o e
U w cu E C U
-~ m CD a

O a
U U) a)
cn ca L CL
a) Q
U) C "a

CU -0 a) U cn

a) -0
c`p O
O ° m as W e
m c cUi m

a
N Gs
U c
M ? f°
a)?
BO cu 2
=a Q
3 m E?
s -o -
C O
?N
c c c(D
0) Ea) OOO
U-
c U
U
E cu (u L)

> E

a a
a 0 CD
a> ?mw
U U a
c
a
a
a
a
a
}% U= C
O m° Q
z W U a) O CD a)
w a)
w a)
w U

O
O
C =
c U U C Q) _ U
U= m O
c O
c O
c O
C c
c C U) m 2 a
w CL > C C C C C
E ECU _
c`° ESmO E E E E E
E EmL)) °o`n 60E`t E E E E E
U U E a Q CL (D U- m Ua- U U U U U
E

E
-

m

n o
°
a
c
m
O r m
2 (n >
Y
°
O U?
U) .U-. w a)o
`-u (D U)
m
c6 U
Ua 75 °' o

to O m -Z °

° E o c° 0 g

a m U N
3 a) a)
-
C a) m a) U
o
U
m
V L
0 3?
a)
a
n a
i °-° oa
E O U m
Q m `? ani O 5 w U ?? L V m c a
- ac C
c
Co E
m 3
> o o c c o p
N U
Qa
C = oa
a) C _ F- CL
U Cl ?Q a
a a) - U T c t
o
m
U m
n -ffi U U g `
z
O L3:
m
O
N C' m m E m
-
' .?. c s C
U c c m U
in
a) C
E 3: C c
E U
w m
c
` O L
a m
= U V Z' c C=
U
(6
' ?
m
y
U) U O ?
m `, m
o 0 O
c
°
?
? ` C
U
w U-
?
ma C
'0 w a)
U
a) -
p C
U
a
a) U 7
CLr- L Q ,? O a E
C

-E 0 (D
ca m
n
L-
(D
in
NUm
- a
,
0
m
? p
75 0
0 ? ? ?
.0 cn
?C a)
7 ?
U
E
c6 o

o a U

Ea ?m?
0
U °- 0
m >, a

Q a
n C UU)
"a U- a, 0)
0) O O U L -°-

U m
° c
o m
n ?a?v
i
E M c
a V) E m
w .... += cn
E 7 C
o
CL --0 c
E c o
CN° 3 nU
mE `
m
n
1-5 c°- a) X$ a
maE m m
cO cn m
E=mm
c° c
oa)c f0cnc ccna) -
m ?cnam?2
)U o Ea)°
a)? UU0cU=
3c
a
+r Ow
`? Fn C ()

E wtim
U> E g
0 Y
U d U
°c°0
D o 0 o ac ° c a)
w C U _
3 °
C ?o°
E
?cp m c o
m
C
G7 U O
O)
m O
N°c
0 CU
ncU)
mac L)
°
N U L
aUcnYEo
C
03:° c
C
o°T O]
a 0 U
oaf Cc C
a
O CO
C a U
`
C C E m
(n
`
U -
a= d
E N E U C? U m
E
p a) C a r
U U U ?'
a m U (6 d -_
U Q) U >
N CD
a) -O O M U L
E
O -
a
° m
a)
c
m 0
?' O m
a U >
m
o> c a) Q m C
p UL U C a)
m n m?
Qca w C? _U °
c o)- -L 3
V v
Q) N a) c
)
a) N c a) w c
t6 O O a) c) L N O N "D m E a) .O m t: 7 C
E Q E a) c °U a C

(D -0 O C N 7

N
? f6 m

U 3 U

mo m O c 0)
L
m
Y CD C U cr m

--

a c E ???
co a) ?C>
c
U ??
?_?
-C U C O O ??pU
cn a) U m°
j E
m 3 : Mm L)
w 3 in E
Q)
d cr to 7 3 d o
c m

U a) c) L_
"O
7

O U a)
v
O
m? a 0 U
a
E c a) >, a
m
O U ,C (n U
"a
> in t5
m
U O
2

c O co

c
75
a

N E°
O

io W Z
m
U
c a

- a O

a L U
m
U
U
TN
> (D .
o d m .a C Q

c
o a w c

a) m T ca U m
n 0

U 0
0
O L -

U y a
> C
C
c
p E a a) L.L U
c o o
o
CL c c
v m > 0
° o c
a .
3?? as c U C 0 , o a? is U m m- ..

E
`
?
-
C O ?? o f
C p T a) p
7
n c
a) m c O a c a) a)Tm aci
X
E>
O` M?
C U c
(n E a)
O a E
cn
n.0
U
O a) a) O a)

U a) °

7 C
O U m Y

Z a)
U > Q

°
p_ x U a C

-0 c M W a)
U U CD U M L> (D

?
a a
, >
a)

C
m U

(D w 0
CL

a) a)
U
O
c y C °`
U a O ?
U
U c U
U L) n a)
c
?V- M cncc I c a) ?
0
o
a) = Gn a) at ?
co O M ?
E T U
r mwY = N a
U)
0 0
a ° u) > U a
cn o O a
c L L
H a)C O U a) ?L? x
m C
° U C
UCH a O
r a) C
° c U° m
Oa oa ° °
m a U
° m U°
O o-m c o U
m a) cn m O S m U
p 0)c ma m? > na)
° U c a) m E E E
m
o m a? v o?
° a C(n a) m
a) m
m m
Y
= L n
LL U cn n o

pL. 3 c p> °-

Q np U _° a n N

ZM c c L 7- C L N U

U o c 3 CL aai

(n U 0 °' cO

CO c O L

H ncn -
E
co N ->O co
m 3U m Sin o
r
C

E Z Lo co co m ° N co
O
V
W
t
C
O
M
a?
v
d
N
C
d
E
O
U
v
C
m
Q
ti
d
N
C?1
N
1
i
' W
t
O
O
d
V
d
N
d
O
' U
V
d
ti
d
H
N
0
QI
c
N
r
i
0
? o
c
c O)
(n
C
CO
O O

c o m
m ° -c
d
o CO
'
o °
v! °
a) c
C L
M U
v Y
N U
(6 fL ` O
O `
0 a
0 N
t5
O L N Q
c 3 ate) 0
0
c 0
c W 'o
.0 m 0
c a) T
.0 o
c 0
C
j:!
a) 7E
CD

0
a)

a)

N a)

CD

a)
E E E
a) E U)
E = E E
U U M U m E m U U
c
O (n
p a)
c cn

a)

o = m
`p
°-p m O

s `0 Z E? d 3
m
(n c_

f6
°Uv
m N C
5 Y m U m X4;0
m a) ?m Y
Q) Y V L (D 0 a)
a) L C ..m°"
om
Q p 7 E 0 N L h: ?pO
C O
°' a) ° m U` L
i >i a L^
? (n - O N cn
OLL 3 C .C CU a N a) -p L O Q
m
? E c
m U O
E
n o
U
) O c v
m? N m °
?? C
° a)
a)
m ?' M ao -a) c E cmn
a) x c
N a) m O
° 0
m
M
y
? o a
cb m` U E ) a
)
- 3
m° U ?
-p V a) m E °- O) -mp = O
C E c -
C C
L
C to > in
m N a) Z
?»- a) y-
??
U a)
m O a) w m
L
° ? C ?p (p O° ?i C 7
m
S
' m
M
° c m m
3 ° p
w m d= E
-0 c
a) O)
3 m U
c)
c
s
2(n
O O)
O
3g
° 0
`
c a) 0° a)
m O
a X C
m
E
(n ° 6? a
) -0
O
v) c a) v) 7
O
L E U) 0 or m C.
L m
fn
° > ° (n E a
)
(n C
m o a) a) C U 0' CO CD U N
a) a)
C E

O N O m m C >, a) O N M
a) 0) 'O m m
:E m 0 0.0,6
0= O m m m N L ,?

V) C
E "O
_
-0
- 0)
Y
c m V5
N U N Y C
7 0 c(0 6 0 m-
0-0 4) N a) in D.0
m O .0 U5 U
'O 0
4; m N a c (n U
M O
O Qy :3 m c( c? Y E
a,
c
O) m p C to 01 L a (6 C m Y c C 0 U O> a) m
-2 .p+ 3 0) Y M U
-o 7 -O

O
C (n E 0 C CD
0) >
m > N N U

U O m ? ?

3 =3 c 0 7
y N M E 0
V) C a) E a D m
p p a) a) m a a) 2 U
C "O B a)
3 a) L U L O
U
(n
c

O
O a cu d?
O
C E 5c (n
a) a) L
O m
c a) - U) E -o
-
O _
3:
C L 0 7 m$ O C
°

a) a)
W S a
n ° m m a) C U
? a) 'a O
a O a j E
N 'p p (n c (n =
m O a C m a) min O
a) O C U (n m
C c (n L C O O m
a) 3: m 0-0 m a) O ?
?
(nn
O = m E`o m a) .
(n E r- M ?m U):5 U C C,a) a) m m o c v) U ? 0)7 M- N o
3 (n a) - °) m c M CD
U Q1 0 m t5 C C m 7 p a L m N - °> L a) m a °` p (n
o as E c0 -0? `o ma a)
i c c N a) o E Oc a?cri m
a m p C
0-0 a) m 7
o p L
?Y q° m 0 a) C

(D
c? a) a) n ca
c a) a) p
0 3 ?? m m m- >i d) E
°`
-O
Qm yL C L (6 U L

0
3
°
L
° d N

m o
C N C• (Ln 0 U 6 5 (n CL M
-7
a) m 7 0
0
N Q) m m `° , 0 E
(
n ?
U) 'o >
a) c C
N
E
m3m°- w
m? (n vi
v)
s ic C
=
-m N°
o-
m m
O -
?
2
(na)ccm?mcm° cm
L "-
° a) a)
a) m O m m
-
E 0
° a
- o)
M
°
V) ° a) C E
N F cm
Z N w m m 3 a) N
a) ° 0
O
a) C
C E
2 p .?

cn a) O a
L O' O)
(n (D to 'p
L o w
C m m

U "O CD cn
m p C
a) p c ()

N U O L C
d
a) 0 - 7 C O m
U L c

a)
a) > a
C c a)
` E '6 a) D c 'O
75
>i "p ° L 7
O
O U

a)
(n
m m N
m E 0
O p a) .0-
O O -p 2 (n cn m
(n .+
7 U p
(n U> .J ) a)
m j? a
) a) a
i (n L w O m m p E O_ CO -O _
O O a) 7 E m=-0-0 a)
a p
m N a LID
C a
Q.
° a C > Y

O L U Y p a)

a-
a) L
O a)

w ?. c a)
70 a)
.0 .r U Oa)

(n O L c C C w N c

O) LM O M
a) m p (n

O
a)
U
C> Q
m v
i >
T '
6
O) m
°
m
O o .O "O c 0
.0
a) c N C O? U c
e
c
O
a
u
i E-0 d
m
N' m
-° C
O °- O
C
L O C > c C
Q) -
-° ° N g c
>
° a>) N N L ,
E- L °?
a-5 -0 m N `)
:3 (D m
O O C a
) c)
C
N °'
O UO
n ' -°- L
E
o 7 m
E
CD
N
C -
d m- O m O
(Mn O O
-6 a-a L C
m (n E a) U) L
a5 3 to ?
'- E a mE ° (
+
t
a)
a) a i O> c
dm -a - a) -a -O a ) a) a (n
r
C

E O 't (n cfl co
rn
N
EZ
O
U
m
N
O
0
U
"O u m N
Q {L" D CO
0 co
m -
N V O m Op

co 04
E O N H
?' O 0
N

n
C co
3(n a a m r
a ° a) EQ L
a) C
o
- a) to -p c
W
C c V) O E N O C
O
(nj
"p fo O N m t- .?..U
?W c `
Q N
C
= O
O 0= O "

O Y

CD O
O) p
O
c n? cU p d
O
o
E U ca CD
U a)
?
C
c
0

m

'0 - L
-
U
Lo (D u)
E
"
c
d t5
C
6 C
d co
C a) S
O
w a) O 'O o
L
O a O
(o E Cfl °U Q CT
EL Q-)
0 CD 0OQ v)'O C
-0 L O O Q
L) a?i a?i a?i 0 cn N V`ni 3 0 a 4)
>
co 0
C c .0 ate) C C C U
N U H c
o r
T2 N O O O O co
(D a)
> a) a) a)
` C
a O U
N N
N
E E i
U) E E E E Q) E
mN a) m °Z °a E

O W CD
°
O
O
O Q a) O) C1 21 L
d N N (D Co a) p
0
U
O U m U U U C
Q a)U)2 Y.L.. U U
(D ?

V rn
O
E - ?
C
O co

-O
a)
Y
C O
2 a) T
-
cn
a)
aaa)) ° co
a) C: c`o E c
Co a) 0)
t5 9

" c cu E o m
0 .2:? U)
co
U to N

U L
CD
L

E 0 co

°
7 L)
C -p
in o
O L a) 0

C. `?
E

w
d Y m
m O (n a) (D

Y c

CD

N ?_ ' -

3

CD o a>
Q C

CD U)
>

O

r_

C j C
V.0
(°o >
a)
U OU C
o c E
C C d Y
° -a
O
a°i s C -
-p

c L) a)
Co o E
'0 C
L m a) C
H (n o
0 io d
0
C L.
N C) .m..
N
° O
a y c a O
r-
L X C a)
E
L
U to O a) Z
Y C a; a)
C6 E
ca
C 0 L> - a
C 7 L CD
O C
- a) -
f°o 0w >,L
L In m
C
d
L C O CD
L D -p U U C4
-0 L)
U m- o 0
cu C1 CO -O
O
m a) co co a) (o N 0 C
O (n O
Co
L N m -p co t5 O
2 E C Z Y X
U O O CD ) U)
? C O
a) M-0 CD m U)
n 2 O)
~ O E m
co ° a)< co

Co co N

00
io Y
a) a) C
C(D p O
CL L O C L C
"C
0 (A

> a)
L O U v)

CU
j E Co co c m a)

N m m c

L O

N a)
Q (n

C O E 2 T Q L

)
7 0 U ,
O L E OU `
0) (D
Y 0 CL CD
U Q
-D V 2
0)
C
o o N v
O) O
c L O
° r N
-o c> }?
? C
c 3 m () C1
>
o C L 7 to co
co cr L
-0
m o E
0),R m
a)- o 7 0
° E o r d L a)
°) co m ° O) E
cri C

c
c CL
?Cp? c
??> m
?L) CD a-
r "oa) N-p c
?mcnco )
3Uin (nC Y
O-
0 m a) > _ =
0L?a C m
C
C
co
C
(n
-L-- C Q
-
cn O
(n
L U N
E (6 O
L C w

'
U) (6 -p

=
C=
=$
CO
C) fo L a) N
"

N
CD
N a)
+L
(D Eo a) >,

m L p

c)
au')u 00 U)

u) pv? p C L

EEs O O
>,
?>-C6a L a)

(tenaa))a)

ti ti ?-
O w
q) Cn
Cl) Lci

U
a O) (n cz
'O (/) O Co E U N C° co "00 On
` a C T
C c r- V (n L
d N a O
C U

C: a) C L
O O
) CD C U) O
cl) L O ?r a) m p
L
E co O O
a) a) a) _?
o.
Y U
CD o m
C
to
co
cn
(n cu )
o_ U
a) Lo o ?-
n a)

m c O
a
O
>
E a) W U)

.0
U
O C
w
E m w
m
a) O E
O Co O C p
0.

a) C
a) 5
c E a

- 0-0
ID O__ a)

E
C) (D CO CL 0 O

c m
0
O
a) ?i U m
(n a)
Lm O O
Z Y m mz
cC a)
?w Co 7
(o a) >
"
- w ~
E LU
° a) (6 O
U O ..
a)
>a)c- c E
o M_
EL OO
cnZ
t C C_
3c ° a,a
cmE mC
EOp o c -° coo
c
0
C6
E O U)
as °
m wC
n U

' ? Em m a)2
m3-fm a) m
a
wmo?'
- U O 'O c(na)
O a)

W opE?
<A C L a)m
Q) Q C o
a
s
U) O O a) T
Q (D (
L C ?-

p
c D f
)w
C O O ?
C) a- M° w
E ° E (p C X

a)
>
LEL° LY
oa)
? CD
pf6U)>
°
F uU) CL
Calm o
OEU o O_?
o i O L
Er- oa)a) N
L
o co m cu
'0 m a?
i a) a
) m C
C CD and

a)
L CO a)?LCy

E C M C = m

C to 2 w E U

a) X=? O

cn m? ?Y C a)

a) a)
o

-
min (n c o o m m o m
m
m 2-0
? 5 __ rn E V
c-
1 o -po
a)
L >° o c o
E f U) CCw C1 m
°
a) co
0
-0 (n C co mLm
O U Z C
en
O
U O
Y> Y (n
O
5
CD -@
c O L
(
n C
c
O E > a)wm
CD
U) O O Y
E
a)
70" C 7 6 V a
.8 E E 0 o 2 O a C
> Q ?, of
co co co m X C L1 a Q C CCo °- O_ a) U
°
a) ° aU) ° ov a) ° ° a) Qc ?C
= i?b co °
a
- ° o
r CZ 0 0
E 0 a(n
O
i
0
?
m ma E »-(DC`) cnmZY <
Q m m 3 2 U S
oZ c
- U
U a
o
Y
a
c
o
m m

E Z
N N N N N N
U
L
N

0 Z
W
d
t
C
O
d
d
V
NNd
1.f.
fn
C
d
O
V
d
a
Q
d
l
C
N
O0
N
C
m
U
i
N
4)
rn
c
O
Q.
N
d
w
N
G
d C
m U
w
G
E o
EZ
O
C.)
a)
N
N
a)
m
a)
L
O
m
c
c
O
U
7 ?
y O
N
Co
O U
O
E
a
c
00
m
N (D
C
E m
'C w
m C
O
C U co
(p O U
LOa 0) a)
'O a co E Y c U Y
N O a) c m a)
d m 0 N U a) C- 0 0
a) EL - cr-C
co
m m 0 C
E 3 C
O j E O C) -aa t- -coo L
N C cn LL 7 m N_
-0- o Co mE ? -
c') (n cu
O U O a) ui X E L O
Cl) m0_ M 0 'O CU N 0 ~
0
0.0C? C)0 0-a-Z
C ,>, Z 7 .L..
co - -0 0 :5 76 6
(9 7 O c 0 w U O)
Via) NLmC CC
mmC E 0 a =0
3? °) E 5' O (n aCD 0 u) 0 Ucm???-M0U3
c N-L
a) co
0 "a -0
a
H co
U C cO 0 0.00 0 m m
(o C N O) o 3 > o 0
> ca a) U >
N u L '0 C Z mCo Y
a) m Ow N O
O U C (D m a) 0
N'0 r, a)
acre a`)) m c
O MO tO a - ?o a) (n a) LL CL >, > ?Co Co a) ?
"t
C13
yam- m 55 3 L 0
F- Co ? N 0 - m m a)
O N
3 Q o - U 3 m.D 9
LO
O _
N m
D r
L 7
E C C
0 O
U
Z CD a)
O Z.0
c aa)) >,
) m
c
o co
C U
a) to m
aeon
a L
m
to _T
O C_
O co
c a 0-
a) y)
E w io
OQ ?
a) a)
a) T
a) ?
? C m
W j
=U
O 4) to
.O N
75 -
cn
a) w O
m O m a)
O 3 T C a) O) N
O> a)aOmtnED
C o)> O m -O O Q
C_ t6 4) Q1 C a)
"O U c p) (`o L a)
a 2w 5mC
-O a L
En co - a) 0 co a`)
?mc(nmEw'OO
ca L m U O E O
N 3 O C)? O m CL -
.r
C C U o 0 0 m
CD - -0 Q)
_O C m 0 U 0 +-'
aE m `
C N N N a) >? O
O L H a? O
L =3 L
3 0 c co C
Co a) 0 m m" m U
(n MD = - N
c a) c
3 m - a a) j
0 T m 0 2 0 0 0
L O O a
Q m O
a) a) (D n " O
>Lw c 3 0.0
a O O co
L (n
(D Ca) L a) m
U) " Co 0
a) Co to a) 0
= 7a) OL O)N' 7
(o to 0 0> L X O V
to O L co co ?O a) U
O O N c - (n
2 N O O' c O c
U E CD L m a) O m 2)O a U CL U a) U`
` OEUEmO`00
a Z 3 m m -O .?
M
T
a
7
N
LL1
U
m
c
a
m
U
N
a
m
c
0
io
a)
.Q
N
U
O
0-
O
c 0 a) a) -o
O_ O O C C
t N v C m
O
C i O y O a) ? to - (n
O O CL -Fu r- 2: =3
0 m O y
-?2 E O C m U N
a) 2W
>+ N a) C C C O
c a) m t C 'C E 0 0' c N
O _C c E m c" O U C CL N
In E m a) C C Co L O 4) y
'0 0-
Cm U-O 0 c 0 0 O)0
° ()-0 4-) O? ?? N `°-o
?EOmZc? C -OOc
EL m0>' Sao E c c
a) N N U C O a m a) +-'
O Q1 aco 0NO-a a)O
C a) a a) a) 3: O)
"o 0-0EUVa>ia c
S O U a) 2 75 O '- N A Y
0 3 L N a 0 75 a) > m > O m
m
C G E L io _Tz D
U) C 0 a O u) 0 0 E C E Y C
.c E
m- '0cE Om
CD -
c: CO
C U C (o a U N-0 0= C a) E.
m C, t5
'n 0 CD
cm >
c?O-EE00 a
)-0 a) 0-0
E -0 c°)o o coo ? in - m o a
c 0 Co C Q w a) c c
>mE Em 00(DLc00i?
O - a) F 0 m c X
0 4?
-0
m0
cn=3 70oa)
> m O 0-O m O O O
EUa)3ca)m?U?a?>m?
L= Z -0 E OL O)i C
Co O 'O 0 (6 U 3 N ?«_
c:Em (n-O O E E =o E O m O
c o C a,0 o2 0 Q-o o E
Co Ca) Co a) U) a) m to E c 0
U W 'o to ` U U a) ?S O
-6EO?`?U=mUO?0Zvmi
OU OU C C `C N 12 a U cco 3 S. a)
? a) O o uOi?C7 ?Z E'S -y

rl-
O
O
C)
N CD
N 0
N C
m a)
C E
O
U
U
co L
O ?
m 4
y w m
a
O ) a)
? = U
C -
(6 m N
acU
ca)=
o E m
CU O
> M r
C ?p
Zw`-M
L C C CM
O j
m ?
C M F
N m
"O O U m
(o ?(nM
U -0 m (D
a) Erg
Cj
N
H
3 m co
c
(D 0
C O ? ?
EAU
.0 r-
0
-r- Q- 0
3m ? Z
C o L
X ? w
0 a) co
E3?

M
N
0
U
U
O
C ?i C
(0
cn N
o C_
- (6
C
?
d U
C
N (6

a)

C
0
0) 76
U
E

a)

.+ a)

C
U) a) o c
0 ° C (n N 'O

U) C L O p 0)
) CU L-0
d "6 U L
C p (6 (6
aI a) U
(
C2 a 7
C: -F,
`
o ° 0-
Oo o >
O a)
a? U ?
m W o
0 a)
0 3
m?
m (D
m: C
a
m
(D c
CD C
L

3m L
Nt
CD '
a) +
aa)ia)o
aci
(nE Em E E> a)
° E
E
m E o°
U w o
U > m
o
U E CL U
?O
0 y N o
> N m a)ca
O Q) O Q C °o =-
rn p

Z

O to N tp

= O L m p
CD
cn to
N L E O O o
O'D
E
a°) -
C° ? 0Y
V) Q EF =_ E
O a) m U ca c U E
d w w O cn
p C (D
>
N
aEQ) EUa Lij :?Q a) `
.rccnnv7 )00 NE>>
N(n- M E ??C N C U(6(n >,W U M0 MaN?

(n F-
2 (U6
3
O
a)
in N
O E (U >
U
m
Q LO a) - -p
E
c (p
d a N E O L
UV
o o (n a)
O Q
L C
mo
i
'T
o? dC 2
>
a? y> ?
!n > in O o
0
aa?o yZ )
s
O y

C) C O (p
`m U) U O
` a) o c N ()
N w a) 3 (n o a3 O
in i6 >' N
M E'0 c c o? °-) (o 2 C? oa ? c
o E c QU)
a)c Oyu
who -aW
ow a)a)?OU
o
U OOOpOEC
c
? y VW
(
o
C 0=Ea75 `t a Uc
Q ?
y
o?Z U) ay > ?
a)U0'oF-m0 L
F-a`)?
a
G1 m E> o
` o >
U ? (n
0
> oCJ m o Y Vi a)
N o
(n
C m D0 w m
a
o ?p p a)
p
U C
L U o°
p LLL E
U a w
,? w p
m e E --? ->> U
M > p
E a s Co N p
(n Y
r
.+
c p O Z "p a) Z-DL O
a
)~
O E E _LD m E
a) E c m o U) ?> c er
-__
?
I` -0 Q) LO L a N ? U +D - ° C U 0 a a 6 a)
p ? "° *k

°

om3

?m a)
o
= N
co
(n
o
6
U
o
w a)
a O
E
- a) ca

?(caoE
a)
c
\j c
E
ca
> ?
U
Zo a
)
E'
o>
L ai?occ
U aE > '25
oa o N 1- (D
?Q(nL E m--c0(n
E E o g ?
oL U) c
L
)
m o 5 W O
a ?
?Lc 0 U)
L
o
o?i a)
> Om a;
O c
)
m
o > .+
o
m
° y
as
°
m o
n
a)
>
c E c >

Q

° o =o
W N o
a)
°
° a)
(no m a)
>
U) ?
N O o
'
coc c
o? o
M 3:
N W
C

a) O

coo
o c

aoU°? ,
}
m w a)
s- >,-a-
? M
c
o
E?Qcn Ca)U?
m-° c
Oa M

Boa>a)
-°
(n
Q o-
cn a
mcE O (?? c
a > MLO.0 o
N (n >
U-) N O
a)
N W E oL as
o E
m
o
?
0 M
0 0
C C "? ?
03c
Q c E L o?(n°L

a)
c m t5
C
c L ifl
o?(ncm(na
L
p p
Fn 0 ao?
a)
s
CD 7s E a os O
U a% m m (
O
a° aZ a) (n (
) a)
a aa)) CD aE 'ia o) CD E a
a) > E E
o
a
o
W- N (n
Z mW o
WrM E 3 vo)o
C W
W E-6 O amp Fn
zot O O
y+
= 6
C
cN
O m
C
E Z c
L .- N M (n
O
0 >
w
W
d
t
C
O
m
N
>
d
V
d
N
d
E
O
U
v
c
d
a
Q
d
r
F V'S ,
1 1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
15.0 SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL
' ASSESSMENT
A historic resource (The McKee House) was identified following the circulation of the EA
' Following analysis it was determined that the structure as well as a small portion of the property
surrounding the structure were eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,
however the project will not affect the property due it being outside the Area of Potential Effect
(APE)
An evaluation of the service road located to the northeast of the 1-40/1-77 interchange was
requested by the Merger Team members at the Concurrence Point 2A/4A meeting NCDOT
' evaluated the following three potential alternatives
An alignment that crossed to the north of the wetland system, but through two
stream systems, named the green alternative
• An alignment that crossed the southern portion of the wetland system with a
bridge crossing of the wetland, named the red alternative
• An alternative to purchase the property that would no longer have access
Based on the evaluation, NCDOT selected the green alternative as the preferred alternative
because it provided access to both of the landlocked parcels in the vicinity of the service road
Following the circulation of the EA, the final design portion of the project was undertaken and
included a revision to the vertical profile on 1-40 to eliminate a flooding problem created by the
roadway being located within the 100-year floodplain The impacts to jurisdictional features we
updated to reflect the design changes and the application of a 25-foot buffer from the slope
stakes limits as is currently the standard method for quantifying impacts (the EA is based on a
10-foot buffer)
An updated floodplain analysis was completed based on the recently updated Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRM) for the city of Statesville and the Unincorporated Areas of Iredell County
The EA included an evaluation of the overall study area for hazardous materials, which has
been updated to reflect the likely impacts associated with the construction of the recommended
' alternative
A new federally protected species, Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), was added to
the listing for Iredell County following the circulation of EA Based on field surveys conducted
by NCDOT it was determined that this project will have no effect on the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf
' The construction cost estimate for the proposed project was updated to reflect the design
revisions stated above
' 16.0 ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING
Executive Order 11990 established a national policy to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse
' impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands
wherever there is a practicable alternative
I Finding of No Significant Impact 25 Draft
1-4011-77 Interchange Improvements
NCDOT and the Merger Team for the proposed project have developed avoidance and
minimization measures throughout the project Avoidance and minimization efforts discussed at
the Concurrence Point 4A meeting included lengthening bridge crossings to minimize impacts to
wetlands and utilizing retaining walls where appropriate to reduce or eliminate impacts There
are 3 82 acres of jurisdictional wetlands impacts anticipated as a result of the project With the
exception of not building the project, there are no feasible means of avoiding the taking
Avoidance and minimization measures have been implemented throughout the planning and
preliminary design of the project and NCDOT will continue to minimize impacts on wetlands
through the use of Best Management Practices during final design and construction
It has been determined there is no practical alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands
and that the proposed action includes all practical measures to minimize harm to these
jurisdictional features which may result from such use
17.0 BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a detailed study of the proposed project as documented in the Environmental
Assessment (EA) and upon comments received from federal, state, and local agencies and the
public, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal
Highway Administration that this project will not have a significant impact upon the human or
natural environment The project is not controversial from an environmental standpoint No
significant impacts to natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are anticipated Every
effort has been made to avoid and/or minimize wetlands, streams and riparian buffers Potential
on-site mitigation opportunities exist but are limited, consequently, most of the mitigation
requirements will be provided by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program No significant
impact on air or water quality is expected and no effects on federally listed endangered or
threatened species are anticipated The proposed project is consistent with local plans and will
not disrupt any communities In view of the above evaluation, it has been determined a Finding
of No Significant Impact is applicable for this project Therefore, neither an Environmental
Impact Statement nor further environmental analysis will be required
I North Carolina Department of Transportation State Transportation Improvement Program, 2009-
2015 Available http //www ncdot org/PLANNING/development/tip/TIP/Trans/pdf/div12 pdf
2 Federal Emergency Management Agency Unified National Program for Floodplain
Management March 1986 Available http //www fema goy/pdf/fima/femal00 pdf
3 Federal Emergency Management Agency Unified National Program for Floodplain
Management March 1986 Available http //www fema gov/pdf/fema/fema100 pdf
4 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance
Administration Flood Insurance Study, City of Iredeli County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas April 2007
5 Environmental Data Resources, Incorporated EDR Data Map Corridor Study, 1-40/1-77
Interchange Improvements Project, Statesville, NC 7 April 2005
6 Wainaina, Njoroge W, PE , State Geotechnical Engineer, North Carolina Department of
Transportation "Geotechrncal Pre-Scoping Report " Memorandum to Teresa Hart, P E , Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina Department of Transportation 1 November 2007
Finding of No Significant Impact 26 Draft

Wilkes
Alexander
Yadkin
Da
Iredell
Conover
Conow
Catawba
Lincoln

R o w a n Salisbury
0 Counties
a D 0 Iredell County
0 2.5 5 10
Miles 1-4011-77 Interchange Area Improvements
Legend N TIP Number 1-3819
W?E Iredell County, NC
Interstate Municipal Boundary (("`
FF Figure 1
US Highway County Boundary Project Location Map
State Highway * Airport Date. June 2008
-i-? Railroad Sources' Iredell County. NC, ESRI, Inc: NCDOT, and URS.
Map for reference only.
i
U)
N
v
W
01
CO
w
O"
a

U
fD 0
CL O
CD
CD.
O to
C

rr

`.
A

O
d cn

N O N
Q y
4 0 0
d
U)
O 0
1

O 01 OD .
O
<
N Z1 a
N

CL 0
O
n
N

N r

D C

[D
N n
I
I
I
3

'-
? 0
L
CS
cn
T7 r o
cn
C
p
n

a
z ` N c) C) m CD fD z y
0 o w m __ m 0 21 =c =
n
6
Z
(? to (7 30
0 0 V/
N W 7
03
Q
N
C
7
n. m
IM O 1 N a N -CID
to
- m a Q D D zC
v
<
X

cn
CD
fD
CD
3
N
_ r
'-° -- - S Chipt

- .
dR
z cn
o
cn ?

c7
o - V)

(D
\U) w rn w CO (n
--i a)
;o X0
Cl)
> o 0 °' _ cD
D = a =r v,
a a W w
CD
0
23
!R

CD

;

L7 _0
-4
W
< \
r \ N a / a O

CL
<. fD

m O

CD

v
3
- cn
_

' ?p
% 0 N

-
- CD

z
--
m
m

X 3

- w
x m
- a o X
o
CD I - a v -

CD '? - - -
7

cn
(D '?.._
CID

cn - -
m -' i

i

a ?
Cl)
4 -
N --'1-
fD W cn
m N
N (n m Cl) N Cl)
N ?p
N ? N N 3
cD d j
T7
W < ; CID
a
O
cn - - -r
'l
m m = = m m ® = m = m = m m m m

O
A
?
y
G] p
A

C
Zy
Al
O
O
Z ?
h
? b
I,m
HINGE. POINT -

r FOR CUTS
0 A
m qm _

f w

O
Fo
u
o s INGE POINT
i,. to C FOR FILLS
N

L?

I

co H
? bd r'zJ
i ;:? ? iA

ti
6 o bd

A ci:
N y

'
"
?
I ?
x
I
I o H
I? ° N
f,?
N
_
H N i
x 00

L ?? Ql
ry
? N
I
i
t
j
J
til
r
r

O H
S H
o 7
?
d t-' H
- o

t
I

N

H ??
rn

A
:N
F, N

t7l
M t7'

q > L71
(n n
H ?3
?o N w O
O xo
J? zd
d H

A ?-]
I'TJ
ili?? } I, H

Jd NI
[i

H S

O
_ o " 1 S,i,NJ ilOd
SNIOd HDNIH -
z _
L

? 0
v ?
r
,
A
O f
A
O
h
o
A ?

Z C
h
b
G1
O

d ?
O M
AI
? ?p

HINGE POINT
y FOR CUTS
A
?

? IO
H -
O

I POINT
SILLS 1
'
N
b
? ?
Ill
N c
m
a
_
-
b
r
I ?
N ? L

m 14MEN N
4-
W H 00 00

IA
L3?
H
N
F.? r r
CD
H - -

J ? I
n,
??
F-3
`
0 i

00
N

I Iil? c H
s N
n -
Hu N
m FOR
LS
-
b
r
a ,? H
~ OD
? w
.
0 0
HIN?CEPOINT
-

o
A FOR CUTS H
L z ?
Yp -
r M
1 F
N
CO
Z ?
COA
r
?
O ?
0 3?
t?
H
0
H
J
p? O m
9 C

V

? N N v
-o
N '
M
o
o
°_
'a

d3a * f
Z

0

I
tL

z
? `
a
2 O 3
-1 <D :
Z
n
-?

m
o j ?
0 fC
3
n?
CD W
.'

.o0Ar
\O D
7
Z 9jON w r O W 0)
m ao -
N
0

a O
C
c
A
cn fD
CD
7
?
.
pr
O b
r .n° 0 0
c1 G] b A A
r C tjh ° b O 9 yC
00 A r y r L
O O? .O. l° C h~
- _ b A ? r 0
INGE PT?-
HFOR CU?( I y o ?b 3
oA HINGE POINf?
FOR CUTS
wm < o f ,n,?b HINGE POIN1F oa to m
FOR CUTS
m < i ? O
m n
HINGE POI m _ r £
FOR FILLS y H
C
HINGE POINT ?
y d r7 FOR FILLS A
HINGE POINT b
N t" C `O'- W H I FOR FILLS P _ r
o b-I ° c r r• H I I-I
> k k r t-? 1?1-rr-11 ro
-r ?' ro v ? L-J ?Iti H y F-`
cf)
n N L~ , 1 O
tjJ
y b 'o s N
y
HO + r ?1?
F-3 ° ?, HId A, z y:9
c ° H
HINGE POINT
m O - b
FOR FILLS ?
y HINGE POINT _ ro O L?
?-1 FOR FILLS I O
y <
m r
<N °q HINGE POINT
w>' < ° FOR CUTS
??°DHINGE POINT ? } N ,-: 'Yp? z
A??•;? L FOR CUTS
?I ? C O Y ?' O UC
? 1 O
?A mrF O G] ? l9 A
2' Ll N?,A O U r N
O ?
N
G] ? O
A
O
d

3om A
O
O ? N
O ry
a
v+ c
1
v

c V
?ma=
D N 7
~
0
o 0 m CD
CD n

?'10 % s z

O
7I CD Z y

C) e
r
°jy?ti s?, -c
o fQ
- o
2 C
CD
m cf)
° 'a
p

co) CD c?
D
w
° n W
n n o
4r9nO O
7 z
p N r
m y t7 tD
o 0

CD
c 3
A m
In 3
M
y

jl
N
v
W
CJ1
cf)
m
N
Q
0
O
m
O.

i
I _
L
.. cn
i
co
v
(D
7
w
m
O
<'
CD
c
3
m
N
1
\ I
1
c1
-- D
a 7 0
1 ?
?- cn -
i-
?r
m
m
cn
n l
v
` Old Mock'
d
o
a a)
- \ m
0
\?d cn / m
® cS N m
=7 z v' 0
OD °
CL m
(D p a
C)
O -?
j
a o
a m'
O
0
o w e _
-I t I
I V

N
N O
N I I I
I
? n m° °
v
0
TI
C? +
Z1 o
fA
C !
7 ?
cD _ .?.

z
G
T
v °
o °' v
m cl)
= °
v, m o
? av°
Zy

o
a'
m
0
2
v
r
(D c
7 -n
- c
3 (a
C)
o
z v < pp a v CD CD CD
0_ (D
c N
O 5 O ni ?° 3 D-(D
D
M
? N a D a p? ?ami

m (D
D CD (D
v 3 y

.. Z 00 -
, 3
??

n
_
CD
CD

D ?

a
(D 3

7
N
D C O
m
A T
O
O 0
D
N O
- ° 1 I I 1?. <

-
V
n
m
0 0
o T
m -l
e -n
°c (n
m :LJ r (n C j -u
m 3. 1
fD
O

fD
S iv
cn o m -?-
' m
a A m
2 =
s m
d 0 0
y Q f7
z < p
°- °w _
f° f 'm 2 fD Z
Z O O O o °' CL N -n = C 3
o m cn Z CL CL ID 0 c-
N
o
o
m
Q
0mN
="D

cn
CL
" N 7

d

?waCDi
A

m O
L a> m a C
CO -
Z
a
F m o: 0 co
d
a o m Do

c ;; 7
CD <
X
cn a
? (D
7
f C'•
M 41
off..
N
fD - ?
? a N
? (D
O O
? c
z
n
z
n
0
0
m
a
cn
T
O o

I I I I
0 44
V
+ _
N) 2
N) ?l 0t

O c? ?] (n C m ^?'
(D
Ln
C O (fl
?
v
O
?_ y
(D (D
?;
N
3 C
C. S
_ n
v a O (C _ N C
_ o
o
0 v N
O o 03 a
CL Q 7 (C
to
oD?? t
C
D

Z
Cl)
Q
?
0
C
.?
`<
C.
?.-OCD
((DD
..
41 c? a D `?wy

m
D CD
7 Cl-
m
v
(y(o
Z
(D < to o co

3
m C o

a
0 <
Q
N 3
3
N
I
T----- ML

cf)
o ,

I ?

U
z
(D n
CL
(D C7
0
0
c m
T U)
JS 1 a I D
ID
rn
*k R?
i

i

Old &

_lr?j
go
co

o
I }II
I
D

CD r- o

-4

N I O
4
?m°o
= t y
?
O
. 3
7
m p ?n
cl) _
N ._
CD O f'D =j <D
m _ v (D 2
m v
m
y g o
?
Q?n
C o
? m
< 3
m -66.
v n°?
n
o = cn
s Q
o 0T r
m oo
i?-n
•< 3 m mZy

n
o C
C
G
j
d
=
C:
(n
C
CD
a
() cnID < C n3
O Cr ID
a
m Q 7 < m D r- (D V wm

A
m
D (D a
°?
m
v
CQ CD `G 2) G• n t0 -O

a 3 CD
O 41 O
G
cm

X CD

7
a cn

9 CD
m
pl fD
7
N
ono
o m -n _
`° -'m
o N L I ® I I I I fD
C?'f
V

?aN I _
< V

N _
7
m n m
o o
N
C
C
'
' (n C Z M
O O ,*

;
O
?? Ul y
Q N
Q
N 7
?'
O
N
= C
n
' ID
C f1
Q < (D CD
G
m

'
m
v
a
O
s

m
(n
CD
fD Z 4)
0 m 7 p w W c r " CCD TI = c
z O !^
o'
Z
67 o o n?
C
O 'o o < o a
D
CD 5 (n cc
(DD O c o 3
C c
0 N V/ 3 a
m 7 m 0 ?
cn
o D ?'
v
m m m n :r 00
v cD q
w?
m m 3 m o. n 7 0
e

a p
c
'
(D ( D CD o
a

c
CD
v
C a
fn
m
c CL N
-CD CD
m N
U)

Appendix A
Historic Architecture

' March 26, 2007
Ms Mary Pope Furr
Historic Architecture Supervisor
Human Environment Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1583
Subject: National Register Assessment of the McKee House within the Area of Potential
Effect of Proposed I-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements, Iredell County
(TIP Protect No. I-3819, Federal Air Project No. IMS-40-2, State Project No.
8.1823901, WBS Element No. 34192.1.2)
Dear Ms Furr
The proposed action that prompted this letter is the modification of the I-40/I-77 interchange
' area in the vicinity of Statesville in Iredell County As part of the project's environmental
review, URS Corporation - North Carolina (URS) prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA) in November 2006 While the EA was being finalized, the North Carolina Department of
' Transportation asked URS to assess the National Register eligibility of the McKee House, an
early nineteenth-century dwelling that stands approximately 0 8 miles northeast of the
intersection of the two interstates URS Senior Architectural Historian Marvin A Brown
' inventoried, researched, and assessed the resource during the weeks of December 11 and
December 18, 2006 He subsequently prepared this letter report, which recommends that the
house is eligible for the National Register listing under Criterion C within a boundary of 7 25
' acres
Assessment
The McKee House is located near the center of a 292 33-acre tract of land (Figure 1) This
tract, which is partially wooded and partially cleared and cultivated, includes six additional
standing resources To the house's west are a shed, a livestock barn, and a large dairy barn To
its east are a small frame house and a garage To its south near the southern end of the tract-
on the edge of one of the property's three farm ponds-is an additional small frame house
(Figure 1)
According to family accounts in secondary sources, the McKee House was built by William
McKee (1745-1820) sometime between 1813 and 1818, near the end of his life William had
t
URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
Morrisville NC 27560
' Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
www urscorp corn

Page 2 of 16
come to North Carolina in 1760 from Pennsylvania with his twice-widowed mother, Margaret
McKee Potts, who built the original, no-longer-extant, log house on the property Following
William's death in 1820, his son-John Henry McKee-inherited the house and plantation
The next year, John mamed Mary Tirzah McKnight (Genealogical Society of Iredell County
1980 387-88, Sharpe 1913) (The age of William McKee when the house was reportedly
constructed, coupled with the dates of his son John's ascension to ownership of the estate and
marriage, suggests that perhaps John built the house Family histories consistently ascribe its
construction to his father, however )
The house is said to have been "built of brick made on the place, `tramped with oxen and
molded by hand "' It became the center of a plantation that included large barns, a "cluster of
log cabins" for the slaves, and a slave cemetery (Genealogical Society of Iredell County
1980 387) The 40 slaves John McKee owned in 1850 (or 1860) made him one of the ten
largest slave owners in Iredell County near the onset of the Civil War (Keever 1976 130)
The property remained in the McKee family until "well into" the twentieth century, although it
was not occupied by the family during all or most of that century A county map notes its
ownership in 1917 by Dr Frank Sharpe, William's grandson (Genealogical Society of Iredell
County 1980 387-88, Kinney 1917) The original log house stood on the property until the
early twentieth century Its loss and the loss of the interior of the brick plantation house are
intertwined, as William McKee's great-granddaughter, Katherine Nooe Knox noted in 1980
(Genealogical Society of Iredell County 1980 387)
I clearly remember the family log cabin which was a marvel of construction Later when the
family left the plantation, the logs were burnt for firewood by the tenants These same tenants
smoked meat in the attic of the brick house That caused a fire that burned the entire interior of
the fine old building on Mar 13, 1913 The interior was later built back
By the mid-1970s, the McKee House was owned by Herbert Hawthorne of Statesville (Iredell
County American Revolution Bicentennial Commission 1976 37, Little-Stokes 1977) In 2003
Peppercorn Management LLC acquired the house and its 292+-acre parcel (Iredell County
Deed Book 1514/Page 2449)
The principal block of the McKee House is a two-story, gable-end, masonry building with a
vernacular three-room Quaker plan (Plates 1 through 4) All four of its walls-as well as its
pair of step-shouldered, exterior-end chimneys-are built of Flemish bond raised on a
fieldstone foundation Its south-facing front elevation is three bays wide and it is two bays
deep Flat brick arches top the bays of all four elevations, but for the front entry, which is
surmounted by a three-light transom A wide ghost mark of less-weathered brick indicates the
presence of a porch that once wrapped around the front and side elevations, extending from the

Page 3 of 16
lintels of the first-story bays to the sills of the second-story windows (In all likelihood the
original porch looked much like the porch that still shades Cedar Grove, a National Register-
listed, Quaker-plan house built in 1825 in nearby Burke County (Cotton 1987 168, Black &
Black 1988) ) Affixed to the rear of the principal block is a one-story wing with a gable-end
roof and interior chimney stack Its one-over-five common bond and flat brick arches suggest
that it was an early addition To the rear and west side of this block is a small, shed-roofed,
later-added, frame addition
Only the brick walls and fieldstone foundation of the principal block's exterior are original, the
' 1913 fire must have effectively reduced the house to a shell The front door and all of the
windows postdate the fire, as do the three-bay-wide front porch, the boxed eaves and their
wooden dentils, and the front fagade gable The bays of the brick ell also postdate the fire, as
does its frame addition The house's only original interior elements are its brick partition walls,
which mark its Quaker plan and hearth placements (Plates 5, 6, and 7) On the right (east) is
one large room, into which the front and rear doors open and from which the stair rises On the
1 left are back-to-back rooms with corner hearths that share the west chimney The only interior
feature that appears to predate the fire is a one-panel door, flat on one side and barely raised on
the other, beneath the stair It too was in all likelihood not original to the house, as its form
suggests an 1850s' date of assembly
The remainder of the buildings on the property postdate 1913 as well The house and garage to
' the east appear to date from the 1930s or 1940s (Plates 8 and 9) The shed, dairy barn, and
collapsing livestock barn to the west appear to date from the 1940s or 1950s (Plates 10 through
13) The house to the south was likely not erected before the 1990s (Plate 14)
' Recommendation
' The McKee House is one of a relatively small surviving group of Quaker-plan, brick houses
laid in Flemish bond that were erected in North Carolina's western Piedmont in the late
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (see Black & Black 1988, Brown and York 1986,
Cotton 1987, Survey and Planning Unit 1971 and 1973) Following her comprehensive
inventory of the historic architecture of Iredell County in the late 1970s, Ruth Little-Stokes
identified the dwelling as one of only four surviving antebellum brick houses in the county
' (Little-Stokes 1978 47) The McKee House is believed to be eligible for National Register
listing under Register Criterion C as a rare surviving representative of a brick, Quaker-plan,
antebellum dwelling in Iredell County It is recommended that its area of significance is
architecture, that its period of significance is the 1810s, its decade of construction, and that the
extent of its significance is local It is believed that it retains sufficient overall integrity to
support this significance Still located on, in Little-Stoke's words, a "lovely site on a rise above
a creek [with] ancient cedars and elms around," it is believed to retain its integrity of location,

Page 4 of 16
setting, feeling, and association With its Flemish bond walls and Quaker-plan intact, it is
believed to retain sufficient integrity of design, materials, and workmanship to support local
architectural significance under Criterion C (in spite of the loss of its original exterior and
interior woodwork)
As the house is closely framed by twentieth-century resources built more than a century after
its construction, its recommended National Register boundaries are relatively tightly
constricted within its large tract, which includes the house yard, woods, and part of a cultivated
field (Plates 15 through 18) (Figure 2) They include the house and the noncontributing shed to
its west were the shed excluded, the boundaries would not provide a sufficient setting for the
house They exclude the two barns farther to the west and the house and garage to the east On
the south (to the house's front) the boundaries extend across a cultivated field to the edge of a
wood line On the north they extend behind the house through woods to a narrow watercourse
The boundaries encompass approximately 7 25 acres Neither I-77 nor I-40 is visible from
within the recommended boundaries Indeed, the two mterstates are hidden from the view of
virtually the entire tract due to the rolling lay of the land
Bibliography
Black & Black
1988 A Research Report The McDowell House, Quaker Meadows, Burke County, N C
Located at the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Raleigh NC
Brown, Marvin A and Maurice C York
1986 Our Enduring Past A Survey of 235 Years of Life and Architecture in Lincoln
County, North Carolina Lincoln County Historic Properties Commission and the
North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Lmcolnton NC
Cotton, J Randall
1987 Historic Burke An Architectural Inventory of Burke County, North Carolina
Historic Burke Foundation, Inc
Genealogical Society of Iredell County
1980 The Heritage oflredell County Statesville NC
Iredell County American Revolution Bicentennial Commission
1976 Iredell County Landmarks A Pictorial History oflredell County ,
Iredell County deed books and tax maps Iredell County Courthouse, Statesville NC
1
I
L
17, 71,7 2--1 Page 5 of 16
Keever, Homer M
1976 Iredell Piedmont County Iredell County Bicentennial Commission
Kinney, N R
1917 "Map of Iredell County " George F Cram Company, Chicago Copy located on wall
of Iredell County Register of Deeds Office, Statesville NC
Little-Stokes, Ruth
1977 Historic Sites Survey form for the McKee House, Iredell County NC Located at the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Raleigh NC
1978 An Inventory of Historic Architecture, Iredell County, North Carolina Iredell
County and Division of Archives & History
Sharpe, Sarah Jane McKee
1913 "A Daughter of Old Iredell " In The [Statesville] Landmark, April 1, 1913
Photocopy located in McKee Family vertical file, Iredell County Public Library,
Statesville NC
Survey and Planning Unit
1971 National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form for "Pleasant
Valley," Burke County NC Located at the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office, Raleigh NC
1973 National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form for "Quaker
Meadows," Burke County NC Located at the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office, Raleigh NC
1

.E ?
Conclusion
Page 6 of 16
The McKee House is recommended as eligible for National Register listing under Register
Criterion C as a rare surviving representative of a brick, Quaker-plan, antebellum dwelling in
Iredell County Its boundaries are recommended as a rectangle centered on the house that
encompasses 7 25 acres
Respectfully submitted
URS Corporation - North Carolina
Marvin A Brown
Senior Architectural Historian
MAB bkc
Enclosures
cc Jeff Koontz, PE
Peter Trencansky, PE
t
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
r
? 77
y

i

Page 7 of 16
AN
T .?
?Z
Plate 1: South front end and west side elevations of McKee House
.s
i
E
%
Al
40
Plate 2: South front and east side elevations of McKee House

?ry,r
kl f
t`.? (• I /car
?'?.M cy hlr 46
Page 8 of 16

?3 n rE31x
r x.`11- s f77i7*7: ar r n? `?fr1
p ?' s
°;r 4
r 1
?s
t k 'r

?-;
Plate 3: East side and north rear elevations of Mc-Kee House
k ,?5 ., ?'s^sr+. r at•r,Y t G?:. ?'?rf?:R, ? ,?, r..l?..f _ _ ';

?
L'1 i
? ` 1 ?Z
-
? i r r _
j
1A I r,
rt ` ?.
? .. 11'
__ 17
-.•
? ? ? r? ?) r
?
l
?
i-W+ r. 1 f L ?
I2R l
' Y. t
EK
1
?n

0
t

1 14

Plate 4: Detail of Flemish bond brickwork and fieldstone foundation of McKee House

t
t
r
r
t
r
_ ?Ia Page 10 of 16
r
r'r
Plate 6: East downstairs principal room of McKee House with entry to ell at left and
twentieth-century stair at right
II ? -
s i
E[ +? $t j:? Y.a r
J I
ti , ; ? Mks
' Plate 7: East upstairs principal room of McKee House
Page II of 16

k.? ?. i

r
y ? yR
yea , r
Plate 8: Looking northwest at deteriorated twentieth-century house and garage to east
of McKee House
? . r i. .. art "? ?: ? +`,,T ('??ri
t r ^ < ?`
_ %
M1
_ R hn
Plate 9: Looking west from deteriorated twentieth-century house toward McKee House
in distance

I JJ ?.

Page 12 of 16
4kk
r I
Plate 10: Looking west from rear ell of McKee House toward three twentieth-century
outbuildings NN -
4'a
1
N
E
Plate 11: Looking west at shed to west of McKee House; dairy barn at left
7 - I

-ok

Page 13 of 16
i
t

Plate 12: Looking southwest at dairy barn to west of McKee House
5
h Y f r lr+ J, ?? k " I
# Fn
13; p ?1 ?• J. ?7 Y w,?' t= g a
< I
?!-?1 a t:?? i ?}7I sue; ? A??k, 71 S
t
Plate 13: Looking west at ruinous livestock barn to west of McKee House

t

t
+f c.'1 rr
Y
Plate 14: Looking east at late twentieth-century house to south of McKee House

E
_
f, T f?? ?. I mo- ? r

1
ti

Plate 15: Looking northwest at McKee House and shed
Page 14 of 16
7
7

Page 15 of 16

?Y pp 11%?.. k.
Plate 16: Looking west at McKee House and barns from twentieth-century house; 1-77
invisible behind hill in background
r
-or
yo"
Aw-
' s E '
u
` a
Plate 17: Looking northwest at McKee House; outbuildings at left (west) obscured by
trees, and house and garage located just outside of frame at right (east); 1-77 hidden by
hill in distance
k
Page 16 of 16
hj-
} r jj
a. r
Plate 18: Looking southwest from second story of McKee House across porch roof;
junction of 1-40 and 1-77 in distance obscured by elevation of land

j ..s
i
r
i
f.
w
s'J
w
Plate 5: Southeast downstairs front room of McKee House from
principal room; note corner hearth and twentieth-century door,
mantel, and woodwork
Page 9 of 16

r Appendix B
Merger Team Concurrence Forms and
Meeting Minutes

Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No 2A - Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review
and
Concurrence Point No 4A -Avoidance and Minimization
1-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements
Iredell County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project No IMS-40-2
WBS Element No 34192 1 2
TIP Project No. 1-3819
Approximate lengths of bridges for the preferred alternative are included in the following
table and are referenced to the attached figure dated May 13, 2008

D Resource
I Stream ID, Name & Class
Wetland ID, Type & Rating
Width (ft) Bridge
Length
1 S1 (Fourth Creek), Perennial N/A 36 356
3 S1 (Fourth Creek), Perennial N/A 36 225
4 S1 (Fourth Creek), Perennial N/A 219 235
5 S1 (Fourth Creek), Perennial N/A 29 219
6 j
15
22 '
27 I S1 (Fourth Creek), Perennial I N/A
WSL, Riverne, 15
W 15, Riverine, 92
W20, Non-Riverine, 16 72 variable`
7 1 S1 (Fourth Creek), Perennial N/A 40 162
8 S1 (Fourth Creek), Perennial N/A 142-150 195
g S2 (Tributary 3), Perennial W6, Non-Riverine, 23 55-65 228
10 S2 (Tributary 3), Perennial N/A 200 190
11 S2 (Tributary 3), Perennial W 12, Riverine, 38 58 202
13 S3 (Tributary 2), Perennial N/A 103 300
The Project Team has concurred on this date of May 13, 2008 with the approximate bridge
lengths proposed for the preferred alternative The Project Team also concurred on
May 13, 2008 that Avoidance and Minimization efforts to jurisdictional features and other
important resources were complete for the preferred alternative with the following
commitments that will be discussed at Concurrence Point 4B
• Resource ID 21 will be evaluated to further minimize impacts including studying
relocating the service road to the north, to the south (including bridging the wetland)
or purchasing the affected property
USACE NCDOT (/ p
USEPA FWS `
i-
NCDWO NCWRC
FHWA C _???.... _ SHPO ! 2c, 4,.c.O
7Z -

a

4,l -T

North Carolina Le end
Department of Transportation N
~a ?? µoe °" c?ptl x RESOURCE ID NUMBER w e
y _ JURISDICTIONAL STREAM
o ?J S $
A ?' O
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND z o' o' soo' floor
f?"' aE TA??S F EDGE OF PAVEMENT 100,
PROPOSED BRIDGE
1-40/1-77 Interchange Improvements CONCRETE BARRIER Figure 1
Iredell County
TIP Project No 1-3819 May 13, 2008 Bridging Locations

URS
MEMORANDUM
To Concurrence Point 2A/4A Merger Meeting Attendees
From Peter Trencansky, PE
Project Engineer
Date May 13, 2008
Subject Meeting Mmutes to 2A/4A Meeting
I-40/I-77 Interchange Improvements
Project No I-3819
WBS No 3419212
Federal Aid No IMS-40-2
I Attendees
Kathy Matthews - United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Steve Lund - US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
David Wainwright - North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Marella Buncick - United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Marla Chambers - North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
Renee Gledhill-Earley - State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Jill Stark - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Ron Lucas - FHWA
Teresa Hart, PE - North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Project Development and
Environmental Analysis (PDEA)
Undrea Major - NCDOT, PDEA
James Bridges, PE - NCDOT, PDEA
Krtstuna Solberg - NCDOT, PDEA
Erin Cheely - NCDOT, PDEA
Carla Dagnino - NCDOT, PDEA
Dan Grissom - NCDOT, Division 12
M L Holder - NCDOT, Division 12
Michael Orr - NCDOT, Transportation Planning Branch (TPB)
David Keilson - NCDOT, TPB
Marshall Clawson, PE - NCDOT, Hydraulics Unit
Robert J Stroup, PE - NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Clayton Walston - NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Karen McCauley, PE - NCDOT, Roadway Design Unit
Herb Turner - KO & Associates
David Waller - KO & Associates
Peter Trencansky, PE - URS Corporation
Joanna Harrington - URS Corporation
A Concurrence Point 2A/4A meeting was held on May 13, 2008 in the NCDOT Transportation
Building boardroom at 1 00 pm The primary purpose of this meeting was to achieve Merger Project
Team Concurrence on Points 2A (Bridging and Alignment Review) and 4A (Avoidance and
URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
Morrisville NC 27560
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
Concurrence Point 2A/4A
May 13, 2008
Page 2
Minimization) for the proposed I-40/I-77 Interchange improvements The meeting was the first merger
meeting of this project
Undrea Major of NCDOT began the meeting by starring introductions and explaining the purpose of
the meeting He then turned the presentation over to Peter Trencansky of URS Corporation Mr
Trencansky began the presentation by giving a brief history of the project The design of the project has
changed since the signing of the EA in 2006 due to the raising of the grade along I-40 to elevate the
roadway above the 100-year flood elevation Mr Trencansky explained the purpose and need of the
project, which is heavily concentrated on traffic deficiencies Safety is also an issue, as there are closely
spaced interchange and multiple weaving movements due to the cloverleaf interchange, wrong-way
entries onto the interstate, and fatal accidents
Mr Trencansky explained the range of alternatives that were considered for the project, including
several wetland avoidance alternatives that were evaluated due to the high quality system in the
southwestern quadrant of the interchange The two detailed study alternatives were the four-level
turbine interchange and the four-level offset interchange, with the four-level offset alternative being
selected as the recommended alternative
Renee Gledhill-Earley of SHPO asked about the service road located to the north of the I-40/I-77
interchange in the northeastern area of the project Marla Chambers of WRC stated that there may be
secondary and cumulative impacts to the stream and wetland in this area due to attracting development
Kathy Mathews of the EPA also felt there was concern for indirect and cumulative impacts because it
will cause the property owner to have to cross the wetland to gain access to the service road Mr
Trencansky explained that there is no additional access to this area due to the service road, and the road
will actually be farther from the interstate, probably making it less desirable for development Ms
Chambers stated that there needs to be further evaluation of the area to determine if there can be less of
an impact, and David Wainwright of DWQ stated that it will be difficult to get this project permitted
since the service road deadends at a wetland It was decided that the impacts associated with the service
road would be discussed in more detailed later in the meeting
Mr Trencansky then went over the impacts to each resource ID identified in the hydraulic table and
attached maps He explained that the impacts to streams and wetlands have increased from the EA
impacts due to the new NCDOT directive to calculate impacts based on a 25-foot buffer from the slope
stakes line as opposed to the 10-foot buffer used for the EA He explained that Wetland 15, with a 92
rating, is the highest quaht, system in the project study area The area has been bridged as much as
design would allow, and impacts have increased slightly since the EA due to the raising of the I-40 and
I-77 grades He also explained that all bridges in this area span the entire floodway
Mr Trencanskv explained that the stream that feeds Wetland 15 is impacted and will be relocated
outside of the fill slope Ms Mathews asked where the stream location would be, because she is
concerned that the relocation could drain the wetland Marshall Clawson of NCDOT explained that the
relocation would be at the same elevation, just moved over Mr Trencansky added that this would be
analyzed more at Concurrence Point 4B Steve Lund of the USACE asked about the total impacts of
this wetland, and Mr Trencansky noted that the impacts total 2 41 acres
Erin Cheely of NCDOT asked Mr Trencansky if the impacts at site 23 could change due to the culvert
planned at this site, and Mr Trencansky stated that impacts are probably already encapsulated due to the
25-foot buffer
Mr Trencansky stated that sites 9 through 11 will span the entire floodway, and site 25 only has 2 square
Concurrence Point 2A/4A
May 13, 2008
Page 3
1 feet of impact These impacts may be avoided during final design
Mr Trencanskv then discussed site 14 During the initial phase of construction, a "flyunder" will be
constructed The current plan is to bring US 21 traffic north and have a connection to the flyunder to
separate traffic to US 21 from the interstate traffic This will maximize safety and traffic operations
This design will probably have an impact on the entire wetland at site 14, as well as the stream Figure
10 shows a change in design that will be made to make the impacts of the final design consistent with
the design and impacts from the preliminary design There will be further avoidance and minimization
once the design revision takes place, which will probably reduce the impacts from 1,470 linear feet to
approximately 1,000 linear feet
Ms Chambers asked about lane widening Mr Trencansky explained that I-40 and I-77 will be going
from 4 lanes to B lanes, with this widening attributing to most of the impacts to streams and wetlands
Mr Trencansky stated that Figure 9 includes impacts not included in the EA (Tributary to Gregory
Creek) This will probably be a short extension of a culvert
Mr Trencanskv noted that concerns among agency members at this meeting seem to be more about
avoidance and minimization The bridge lengths will probably not change Therefore, he suggested that
the team agree that Conncurrence Point 2A has been accomplished and continue with a more in-depth
discussion of avoidance and minimization, to try and reach concurrence Mr Major addressed site 21 at
the service road, which was discussed earlier in the meeting, and the hearing map was projected on the
screen
Ms Mathews addressed concern for areas that are labeled as stream relocation that are actually culverts,
specifically at site 19 This area is also a 303(d) watershed, and stressed that there needs to be innovative
stormwater control so that water quality issues will not be significant Mr Wainwright agreed that the
water quality must not get worse, and a more detailed discussion needs to be held at Concurrence Points
4B and 4C
Jill Stark with FHWA asked if the stream at site 14 was a candidate for a retaining wall Mr Trencansky
explained that due to the new design on Figure 10, the crossing will be relatively perpendicular This
eliminates a parallel impact, so a retaimng wall would not work
The discussion returned to the service road on Figure 8 Ron Lucas of FHWA proposed that the
service road be lengthened to reach the southwestern parcel Then the property would not be forced to
cross the wetland Mr Clawson stated that this could increase stream impacts
Ms Mathews asked if there needed to be paved access to the parcel Mr Trencansky stated that the
' need for access is based on history and coordination with the property owner It was suggested that the
proposed alignment of the service road be shifted north, and Mr Trencansky stated that there may need
to be a small group meeting with the property owners if the access is revised
Ms Chambers stressed that NCDOT needs to take responsibility for the wetland in this area, and
consider redesigning or moving the service road
James Bridges of NCDOT asked the team if there was agreement to have NCDOT Roadway Design
workup a revision north of the current design location for the service road Dan Grissom suggested
cutting off access and paying for the property Mr Trencansky stated that it would be worth it for
NCDOT to find out the price of the property, as it may be more expensive to go this route Mike

Concurrence Point 2A/4A
May 13, 2008
Page 4
Holder of NCDOT explained that it may be more effective to buy the property, since a developer will
most likely buy the property back and not want a service road at that location He also suggested that
providing access on the west side of the wetland, as opposed to the east side, would allow the wetland to
be bridged The road would then turn south before the stream, eliminating any stream impacts, and the
wetland would be bridged at its narrowest point
It was agreed that there would be concurrence on avoidance and minimization if a commitment was
added to the signature sheet in reference to the service road site Therefore, a commitment to present
the best option at this site at the Concurrence 4B meeting was included in the concurrence signature
sheet as follows
• Resource ID 21 will be evaluated to further minimize impacts including studying relocating the
service road to the north, to the south (including bridging the wetland) or purchasing the
affected property
The concurrence form for points 2A and 4A were then signed by all Merger Team members, with the
exception of Renee Gledhill-Earley who had to leave the meeting early NCDOT will coordinate with
Ms Gledhill-Earley to attain her signature on the concurrence form
The meeting was then adjourned
i Appendix C-1
Public Hearing Handout
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P?
1-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements
1
WBS Number 34192.1.2
TIP PROJECT I-3819
I Iredell County
Combined Public Hearing
Statesville Civic Center
300 South Center Street
Statesville
Pre-Hearing Open House 4:00 p.m. - 6.30 p.m.
Formal Presentation 7 00 p.m.
March 21, 2007
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
This project proposes to widen I-40 and I-77 to eight-lanes (in the vicinity of the interchange) and,
as a result, improve the I-40/I-77 interchange from the current two-level full cloverleaf interchange
to a four-level offset interchange by replacing three of the four existing ramps with directional
ramps The purpose of the project is to improve traffic flow along the I-40 and I-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
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Today's hearing is an important step in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
(NCDOT) procedure for making you, the public, a part of the project development process The
purpose of the hearing is to obtain public input on the location and design of the proposed
project
Planning and environmental studies on this highway project are provided in the environmental
report - the Environmental Assessment (EA) Copies of this report and today's hearing map
displaying the location and design have been available for public review at the City of
Statesville, City Manager's Office, 301 South Center Street, Statesville, 28677 and at the
NCDOT District Engineer's Office located at 124 Prison Camp Road, Statesville, 28625
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Now that the opportunity is here, you are encouraged to participate by making your comments
and/or questions a part of the public record This may be done by having them recorded at the
Formal Public Hearing or by writing them on the attached comment sheet Several
representatives of the North Carolina Department of Transportation are present They will talk
with you, explain the design to you and answer your questions You may write your comments or
questions on the attached comment sheet and leave it with one of the representatives or mail
them by June 20, 2007 to the following address
Mr Jamille Robbins
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Email larobbins;a dot state nc, us
Everyone present is urged to participate in the proceedings It is important, however, that THE
OPINIONS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED REGARDLESS OF HOW
DIFFERENT THEY MAY BE FROM YOUR OWN. Accordingly, debates, as such, are out
of place at public hearings Also, the public hearing is not to be used as a POPULAR
REFERENDUM to determine the location and/or design by a majority vote of those present
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?
i
\\ A post-hearing meeting will be conducted after the comment period has
' 0 ended NCDOT staff representing Planning, Design, Traffic, Division,
r Right of Way, Public Involvement & Community Studies and others
r j who play a role in the development of a project will attend this meeting
The project will also be reviewed with federal agencies such as the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as well as state agencies such as the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources When appropriate, local government officials will attend
All spoken and written issues are discussed at this meeting Most issues are resolved at the post-
hearing meeting The NCDOT considers safety, costs, traffic service, social impacts and public
comments in making decisions Complex issues may require additional study and may be
reviewed by higher management, Board of Transportation Members and/or the Secretary of
Transportation
Minutes of the post-hearing meeting are prepared and a summary is available to the public You
may request this document on the attached comment sheet
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This proposed project is a Federal-Aid Highway Project and thus will be constructed under the
State-Federal Aid Highway Program Financing of this project will be 90% Federal Funds and
10% State Funds The Board of Transportation is responsible for the selection and scheduling of
projects on the Federal Aid System, their location, design and maintenance cost after
construction FHWA is responsible for the review and approval of the previously mentioned
activities to ensure that each Federal Aid Project is designed, constructed and maintained to
Federal Aid Standards
NEED FOR THE PROJECT
Existing I-40 and I-77 have a number of roadway configurations that create driving conditions
that are a safety concern, particularly when traffic volumes are at their peak The ramps at
I-40/US 21 are shorter in length than desirable standards Weaving problems associated with the
four back-to-back loops of a cloverleaf interchange are safety concern at the I-40/1-77
interchange The distance for vehicles to accelerate onto the interstate while vehicles are
decelerating to exit the interstate is inadequate The current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on
1-40, within the study area, ranges from 33,600 to 64,000 vehicles per day (vpd) while traffic on
1-77, within the study area, ranges from 40,600 to 64,200 vpd By 2030, traffic volumes on I-40
and I-77 are expected to increase in the range of 58,800 to 99,400 vpd and 71,000 to 108,800
vpd, respectively Without the proposed project, the projected deficiencies will increase the
potential for accidents, create significant traffic delays, and contribute to the inefficient operation
of motor vehicles in the local area
Also, I-40 and I-77 are designated as North Carolina Strategic Highway Corridors (SHC) The
primary purpose of the SHC initiative is to provide a network of high-speed, safe, reliable
highways throughout the state in an effort to foster economic prosperity through the quick and
efficient movement of goods and people The existing and projected traffic volumes along 1-40
and I-77 diminish the interchange's ability to serve as a high-speed interchange between the
designated Strategic Highway Corridors
Tonight's public hearing will present the design and modifications that have occurred since the
August 23, 2004 Citizens Informational Workshop
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The NCDOT, Division of Highways, proposes to widen I-40 and I-77 to eight-lanes (in the
vicinity of the interchange) and, as a result, improve the I-40/I-77 interchange from the current
two-level full cloverleaf interchange to a four-level offset interchange by replacing three of the
four existing ramps with directional ramps The four existing one-lane ramps will be shifted
outward to allow for the new two-lane directional ramps The improvements on I-40 will begin
dust west of SR 2003 (Radio Road) continuing east to SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road)
Improvements to I-77 begin dust north of SR 2157 (Salisbury Road) to and heads north SR 2171
(Jane Sowers Road) New collector-distributor (C-D) roadways will be constructed along I-40 to
provide access to and from both US 21 and I-77 interchanges C-D roadways will be built to
facilitate the separation of through traffic from local (exiting-entering) traffic
INITIAL IMPROVEMENTS
? The initial modifications to the 1-40/I-77 interchange will replace two of the four loops with
directional ramps The existing westbound I-40 to southbound I-77 as well as existing
northbound I-77 to westbound I-40 will be removed New bridges will be constructed to
accommodate the two-lane directional ramp for northbound 1-77 to westbound I-40 to cross
under both interstates The ramp for westbound I-40 to southbound I-77 will be constructed
above the interstate levels The ramps for northbound I-77 to eastbound I-40 as well as the
southbound I-77 ramp to westbound I-40 will be shifted outward from its current
configuration
? The westbound C-D roadway will be constructed, beginning slightly west of where I-40
crosses under I-77, then merging back onto westbound I-40 about 3,500 feet west of US 21
? SR 2003 (Radio Road) will be realigned to the west and new bridge constructed over I-40
The existing overpass will be removed Radio Road will then tie into a new/realigned
intersection on the north side of I-40 with Museum Road and SR 1965 (Gaither Road)
? The interchange at I-40/US 21 will be maintained as a diamond interchange, but revised to
provide for longer, wider and safer ramps in each quadrant US 21 will be widened from the
south of Free Nancy Drive to the existing bridge over Fourth Creek The I-40 bridge over US
21 will be constructed to allow for future widening of two additional US 21 lanes under the
bridge (TIP Project U-2930) SR 1934 (Hillside Lane) will be extended to Gaither Road to
maintain access to US 21 This roadway will include a new stream crossing over Fourth
Creek
? The intersection of SR 2187 (Glenway Drive) and Summit Avenue will be modified slightly
to provide for better alignment The section of Glenway Drive that runs parallel to I-40 will
be maintained in place The section of Glenway Drive to the east of the shopping center will
be realigned to the west to allow for the expansion of the I-40/1-77 interchange
? The US 64/1-40 partial interchange will be removed, including ramp pavement and structures
on I-40 The eastbound ramp terminal at US 64 (Davie Avenue) will be reconfigured to
eliminate the intersection and transition the four-lane divided section into the existing two
lanes
? US 64 (Davie Avenue) will be realigned 150 feet to the south of the current structure with a
longer bridge to accommodate the additional 1-77 lanes SR 2322 (Simonton Road) will be
realigned to the east due to the I-77 widening, tying into the realigned US 64 (Davie
Avenue)
? A service road will be constructed off of SR 2174 (Crawford Road), ending in a cul-de-sac
that will provide access to the adjacent property owners
FINAL IMPROVEMENTS
? The final modifications to the I-40/1-77 interchange will replace the eastbound I-40 to
northbound I-77 loop as well as the eastbound I-40 to southbound 1-77 ramp with two-lane
directional ramps, constructed above the interstate level
' ? The eastbound C-D roadway will be constructed, beginning about 3,000 feet west of US 21
continuing through both the US 21 and I-77 interchanges and merging back into eastbound
1-40 about 4,600 feet east of I-77
? At the I-40/SR 2158 (Old Mocksville Road) interchange, the westbound entrance ramp and
eastbound exit ramp will be realigned to tie to the interstate widening An additional lane will
be added to Old Mocksville Road between the eastbound exit interchange ramp terminal and
US 64
? The interchange with I-77 and SR 2321 (East Broad Street) will maintain the current loop
and ramp configuration but be realigned to tie into the I-77 widening East Broad Street will
' be widened from Cynthia Street to Middleton Street
PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION
Length I-40 Improvements - 3 6 miles
I-77 Improvements - 3 2 miles
Typical Section: See Figures
Right of Way: Varies from 200 feet to 280 feet
Access Control: I-40, I-77, and at Interchanges
Full Control of Access
No Private Driveway connections will be allowed
US 21, East Broad Street, and Old Mocksville Road
No Control of Access; However, Access Management measures will be used
Relocatees: See Table S-1 - Summary of Environmental Impacts
Estimated Cost: Initial Improvements Final Improvements
Right of Way Cost $ 11,000,000 $ 15,715,000
Construction Cost $ 92,000,000 $ 170,000,000
Total $ 103,000,000 $ 185,715,000
Tentative
Schedule: The tentative schedule is shown below. A number of factors can affect a
project schedule, so schedules are subject to change.
Initial Improvements
Right of Way Acquisition - December 2008
Construction - September 2010
Final Improvements
Right of Way Acquisition - Post Year
Construction - Post Year
RIGHT-OF-WAY PROCEDURES
After decisions are made regarding the final design, the proposed right-of-way limits will be
staked in the ground If you are an affected property owner, a Right-of-Way Agent will contact
you and arrange a meeting The agent will explain the plans and advise you as to how the project
will affect you The agent will inform you of your rights as a property owner If permanent
right-of-way is required, professionals who are familiar with real estate values will evaluate or
appraise your property The evaluations or appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and
accuracy and then the Right-of-Way Agent will make a written offer to you The current market
value of the property at its highest and best use when appraised will be offered as compensation
The Department of Transportation must
1 Treat all owners and tenants equally
2 Fully explain the owner's rights
3 Pay dust compensation in exchange for property rights
4 Furnish relocation advisory assistance
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
If you are a relocatee, that is, if your residence or business is to be acquired as part of the project,
additional assistance in the form of advice and compensation is available You will also be
provided with assistance on locations of comparable housing and/or commercial establishments,
' moving procedures, and moving aid Moving expenses may be paid for you Additional
monetary compensation is available to help homeowners cope with mortgage increases,
increased value of comparable homes, closing costs, etc A similar program is available to assist
business owners The Right-of-Way Agent can explain this assistance in greater detail
NOTE: PAMPHLETS SUMMARIZING RIGHT OF WAY AND
RELOCATION PROCEDURES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE
SIGN-IN TABLE.
COMMENT SHEET
I-40/1-77 Interchange Area Improvements
Combined Public Hearing - May 21, 2007
TIP Project No I-3819 Iredell County WBS No 34192 12
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
Comments may be mailed by June 20,2007:
Mr Jamille A Robbins
Senior Public Involvement Officer
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Phone [phone] FAX [phone]
Email larobbins(ddot state nc us
' Appendix C-2
Public Hearing Summary of Comments
r
URS
1
M E M 0 R A N D U M
To Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
From Peter Trencansky, PE /
Project Engineer
Date July 25, 2008
Subject- Meeting Minutes to Post-Hearing Meeting
I-40/I-77 Interchange Improvements
Project No I-3819
WBS No 3419212
' 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 in and the Formal Hearing began
at 7 00 p in 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 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
r
Jay Bennett Roadway Design Unit
Scott Blevms 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 Dmre, Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 25, 2008
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 to ramps 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 I-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
K .r onse
The construction of the project will maintain 2-lanes of traffic in each direction and will attempt to nitr rmze
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 the construction of 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
Michael Bivens - Expressed concerns about the traffic on back roads from the Fort Dobbs area, roadways to
the north of the interchange intersect 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
Chris Shubridge - Looked at the design and is still worried about US 21 intersections and traffic backups and
delays There are tunes when traffic from US 21 backs up on I-77
I tMRS
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 25, 2008
Page 3
Re onse
The project will include 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 It has been determined that additional
improvements are needed along the US 21 corridor, however, these improvements are beyond the scope of this
project The 2009-2015 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes two projects (U-2930
and U-2731) which will provide improvements to the US 21 corridor Neither project is currently funded
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 he is frustrated regarding the bureaucracy and time
that it has taken He mentioned how it took a long time to put flashing lights, lighting and signage into place and
how it has been of benefit from a safety standpoint Until other safety measures are put into place, he feels 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
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
freeway
RL once
The interim I-3819 project will improve the I-40/US 21 interchange It was decided that temporary measures
would not be implemented due to the accelerated schedule for the project
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
M development and felt that the plans need to be revised with the new bridge placed north of the existing bridge
Re onse
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 being 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 During the next phase of design it will be
determined if the roadway can be closed with the new bridge being constructed in the location of the existing
bridge in order to minimize impacts to development
Charles Sipple - Commented about the noise walls and stated that the walls do not go far enough He 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
n re
&.00
The evaluation of noise abatement measures will be completed based on the NCDOT Trafe Nolse Abatement Policy
and will be updated during final design to include a more detailed analysis and include any new receptors along
?J
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 25, 2008 I
Page 4
the corridor
The following people submitted written comments
Concerns relating to construction of the project
Comments
Dr Julie Sehopps - 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
Re onse
The construction of the project will maintain 2-lanes of traffic along the interstates in each direction and will
attempt to rmr maze 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?
The intersection at US 21 and Glenway Road will be modified to consolidate the split intersection to Sunset Hill
Road with the Glenway Road intersection which will improve the traffic operations Additionally the corridor will
include a coordinated signal system that will improve the flow of traffic along the corridor Improvements to the
Glenway Drive intersection with US 21 would be completed under TIP Project U-2930
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 Bejeek - Expressed concern that there was not much discussion about the I-40/Highway 21 interchange,
and that this intersection needs to be changed/improved
Res orase
The project will include 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 removal of the two-way ramp in
the northwest quadrant will improve traffic operations by simplifying the traffic signal and allowing more green
time for the exit ramp from I-40 It has been determined that additional improvements are needed along the US
21 corridor, however, these improvements are beyond the scope of tills project The 2009-2015 NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes two projects (U-2930 and U-2731) which will provide
improvements to the US 21 corridor Neither project is currently funded

Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 25, 2008
Page 5
Concerns relating to access to businesses along Gaither Road
Comments
David and Pam Trompower - Commented that the design should consider "arcing" the turn on Gaither Road
rather than creating a 90 degree turn at Sagebrush
Julian West (West-Finch Corporation) - Recommended that I-40/Highway 21 be routed to go north on
Highway 21 and west to the private drive between the Sleep Inn Motel and Chili's restaurant This design 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
W L Hamiter - Commented that he was very unhappy with many of the proposed changes, including closing
access to Gaither Road from the entry ramp to I-40 and stated that the businesses along Gaither will not likely
survive
' Mary Lou Brinkley (J A M E Ltd Partnership) - Requested that NCDOT send detailed information
concerning how the new bridge, Hillside Drive and Summit Drive will effect lots #12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21
and 22, TIP Project # U-2930, SR1934
' Julian R West, Jr - Was concerned about the effect the proposed improvements will have on the West-Finch
property shown as Lot #212 on your drawings The proposed plans show that the west bound ramp to the
interstate in front of his property would be removed, cutting off access to the businesses on Gaither Road and
' devaluing his property Plans also show that a new access road to Gaither Road between two of his buildings,
which will cause serious parking problems He requested that NCDOT reconsider the plans to close access to the
ramp and locating a new access road to Gaither He requested that NCDOT consider moving it west by
extending Pump Station Road
Re once
The removal of the existing two-way ramp in the northwest quadrant of the US 21/I-40 interchange is required
' by the Federal Highway Administration, which requires that interchange ramps have control of access for the
entire length of the ramp The location of the access road to the businesses along Gaither Road was carefully
evaluated 'Ihe potential locations suggested were all evaluated, however, due to the close proximity to the
1 interchange, ramps were not considered feasible due to the disruption to traffic flow at the interchange Breaking
the control of access in close proximity to the interchange can cause traffic to back up into the interchange and
have substantial negative effects on traffic operations The intersection with the access road and Gaither Road is
at a 90 degree angle because it serves parcels to both the east and west of the roadway, which would not allow the
roadway to be arced The project will require acquisition of several of the parcels within the J AM E Ltd
Partnership property and will be further coordinated as the final design plans are developed The extension of
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
t 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

URS
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 25, 2008 '
Page 6
access to Fourth Creek Drive from new Davie Avenue, as well as limited access for approximately 3/4 of the

property frontage It was requested that NCDOT 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 1-77 at Simonton He requested that NCDOT verify that a connection will not be made through the
property, and that there will not 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 1-77 He stated that NCDOT personnel indicated that they would '
need 250 feet of right of way along this property and requested that NCDOT verify this amount so that they
could continue to move forward with their project
Re once '
The reconstruction of the US 64 (Davie Avenue) bridge is due to the widening of 1-77 and the existing horizontal
clearance under the bridge not be adequate for the additional travel lanes proposed on 1-77 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 (1-77S) to the Catholic Church because the noise from the interstate is much too loud '
Peter VanDermark - Was concerned 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 He 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 Dingier - Requested that NCDOT extend the noise barrier from the bridge at E Broad Street to Salisbury
R
d

oa '
Eleanor McMillan - Requested that NCDOT extend the planned acoustic fence on 1-77 southbound past the
Catholic Church to the on-ramp for Salisbury Road '
Jerry Ambrose - Made a comment on behalf of her mother that the proposed improvements to 1-77 at exit 50
will be very close, if not adjacent, to her condominium development She requested that NCDOT provide the
specific details of how the project will affect the condominium, as well as how the noise will be mitigated '

ce
won
The evaluation of noise abatement measures such as noise walls is completed based on the NCDOT Traffic Norse

Abatement Policy and will be updated during final design to include a more detailed analysis and include any new '
receptors along the corridor

URS
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeang Attendees
July 25, 2008
Page 7
Concerns Related to US 64 Interchange 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) He 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 partial interchanges
(interchanges that do not provide for all traffic movements) and due to the close proximity to the I-40/I-77
' interchange 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
developer is being required to include a traffic signal at US 64 and Peachtree Road 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
e accidents occur regularly with so much traffic on US 21 Mr Knight also requested that NCDOT should
consider extending Gateway Drive to Fourth Creek Drive to provide an access road that avoids the 5-points
intersection He stated 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

Memorandum/Post-Heanng Meeting Attendees
July 25, 2008
Page 8
decade that he has endured the potholes, cracked and poorly maintained on- and off-ramps at I-40 and Highway
115-1-bgh-,vay 90-Old Mountain Road He wanted to know how much longer before NCDOT repairs these
ramps and the poorly maintained I-lighway 115 from I-40 to Hardees?
Re 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 NCDOT maintenance staff will be made aware of the maintenance concerns
Concerns related to Radio Road bridge over I-40
Comments
Steve Knight - Commented that the Western Avenue Baptist Church owns the property on the northeast corner
of the Radio Road / Gaither Road intersection and plans to put a high school at this location 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 right of way
representative to discuss the proposed improvements that will impact their residence
Judy Hix - Expressed concerns 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 right
of way, and perhaps an additional 20 feet if a sound barrier is constructed, which will be very close to their house
She wanted to know where the ten feet starts and how thick the barrier will be? Also she 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?
Re once
The reconstruction of the Radio Road bridge is due to the widening of I-40 and the existing horizontal clearance
under the bridge not being adequate for the additional travel lanes proposed on I-40 During the final design of
the project NCDOT will evaluate the possibility of closing the bridge and reconstructing it at the existing
location This decision, as well as decisions on access in the vicinity of the bridge will be evaluated further during
the final design of the project Coordination between NCDOT and Western Avenue Baptist church
representatives will occur as the plans are further developed The ability to construct an interchange at Radio
Road is not possible due to the close proximity to the I-40/US 21 interchange It is not anticipated that the
proposed construction will cause structural damage to any of the houses outside the proposed construction limits
I tw

Memorandum/Post-Hearmg Meeting Attendees
July 25, 2008
Page 9
Concerns relating to direct connection to shopping center on US 21
Comments
Steve Knight - Requested that NCDOT consider a southbound ramp from I-77 into the Wal-Mart shopping
center or overpass at I-40 to connect the shopping center to Fourth Creek Road
Tina Dillow - Requested that NCDOT consider separating Highway 21 from all the shopping traffic at the
Walmart Shopping Center road since this is where most of the congestion is located He wanted to know why
was this not fixed when the I-40 West exit ramp to US 21 was extended?
W L. Hamiter - Stated that he was unhappy with many of the proposed changes, including not providing a ramp
to the Walmart area
Re once
' The ability to construct a direct access to and from the shopping center has been suggested several tunes during
the development of the project, however is not feasible due to the close location of the shopping center and the I-
40/I-77 interchange Direct access to the shopping center would create additional interchange connections in an
' area where the close proximity of the US 21/I-40 interchange is already problematic The minimum
recommended interchange spacing is one mile for urban areas which would not be possible to attain for this
situation
' Comments relating to proposed construction schedule
Comments
1 Steve Knight - Stated that the start and fuush of the project should be expedited to solve the problems
Ted Benbow - Requested than NCDOT consider improving all of the proposed changes to I-40/I-77 in Phase 1
rather than exposing Statesville to prolonged construction
' Res once
The final design plans are being developed on an accelerated schedule and the project will include as much of the
proposed initial design as can be funded
' Comments relating to concerns with the existing roadway network
Comments
Diane Dickens - Requested that NCDOT consider slowing the traffic at the 1-40/I-77 interchange to 45 or 55
mph and place rumble strips or temporary concrete barriers on the exit ramp onto Highway 21 from I-40 to slow
down traffic and to protect those in the exit ramp from flow through traffic on I-40
Re onse
The project will improve the existing roadway network and will be designed to current design standards for an
' interstate route The proposed design does separate traffic existing to US 21 for the I-40 through traffic utilizing
a collector/distributor roadway separated by concrete barriers
Comments related to Jane Sowers Road overpass /interchange
' Comments
Randy Treacy - Requested that NCDOT consider adding exit and entrance ramps at Jane Sowers Road and
' I-77
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 25, 2008
Page 10
ise
WO
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 included in the TIP as project I-2514 and is currently unfunded
Comments related to I-77 corridor south of East Broad Street
Comments
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 He 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 He requested a meeting
with NCDOT right of way representative to explain the possible options that they would have regarding the
future impacts to their property
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 The would like some advice
from an NCDOT representative They also stated that their property is shown incorrectly on the tax maps as the
previous owners M and S Hams
Ke onse
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 the initial section will be coordinated with the property owners as
the right-of-way plans are developed in final design It is not anticipated that the proposed or future construction
will cause structural damage to any of the houses outside the proposed construction limits
Miscellaneous
Comment
Ralph and Pat Dalton - Inquired about how the changes will affect them directly
Ke 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 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 of
frontage on I-40 He would like to lease this land to NCDOT for construction storage site, and may also sell to
NCDOT if needed
Res once
Property owner information will be updated, and right of way and easement needs will be determined as the right
of way plans are developed
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 25, 2008
Page 11

Comment
Jerry Ambrose - Commented on behalf of her mother, that the proposed improvements to I-77 at exit 50 will be
very close, if not adjacent, to her condominium development She would like the specific details of how the
project will affect the condominium, as well as how the noise will be mitigated
Re onse
' The widetung of I-77 in the vicinity 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
' Requests
Request
' Philip McGaha (Western Avenue Baptist Church) - Stated that he would like to request a meeting to discuss
the impacts of the planned improvements on their future plans to expand the church facilities at Radio Road and
Museum/Gaither Roads
' Re onse
NCDOT will make arrangements to meet with representatives of Western Ave Baptist Church
' Re nest
Andrew E Causey - Requested that NCDOT add his brother to the mailing list
Res onse
' Mr Causey's brother has been added to the mailing list
Request
Alan Horne - Requested that NCDOT forward him information on the project, particularly land acquisition and
any blueprints relative to this project
1 Dan Jordan - Requested that NCDOT send him copies of the color maps that were at the Hearing
&.00
nse
Information will be provided
1 Request
Mary Lou Brinkley (J A M E Ltd Partnership) - Requested that NCDOT send her detailed information
' concerning how the new bridge, Hillside Drive and Summit Drive will effect lots #12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21
and 22, TIP Project # U-2930, SR1934
Res onse
' Information will be provided
Resolution
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 1-77 and I-40 at an
early stage of construction
.e
S
Memorandum/Post-Hearing Meeting Attendees
July 25, 2008
Page 12
13e on re
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
Approved By
NCDOT
cc Attendees A Mt A 'te?4eTr
STA. - T,o w")A {, ?cS ??J ?.7G 1
0
0
' Appendix D
Agency Comments on

Environmental Assessment
C
e "` SWg?
auw
North Carolina
Department of Administration
' Michael F Easley, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary
March 1, 2007
Mr Gregory Thorpe
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environ Anal
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr Thorpe
Re SCH File # 07-E-4220-0248, EA, Proposed project is for the improvements to existing
m I-40/1-77 Interchange TIP No I-3819
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
m under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act According to G S 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
m environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review
m If and further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review
m Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call
Sincerely,
Ms Chrys Baggett
m Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
m cc Region F
m
m
m t11ading Address Telephone [phone] Location Address
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Courier 451-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail Chrys BaggettCncmad net
m An Equal Opportunity/AJfirmative Action Employer
_E

r
x V
`
f
>F
Yi vN?i`'t
> +F ya,Ai
rf fr
?Y
(
`
u

H
t ak `k? .r _ ,- r
h r? ?ry.! t !?? F ?Y?.7
x? i T f?
f
y
>
_ i ?
f^7'r
+x.
if
?
'., •, a
161W AL
Y
w . 1?w1??.Yy{`
f
?? _
M1 > , Y z t °' "
v
> - ^
x ,
, r
rf 'c
North. Caroli a ?a ftm 6nt
.DQ o Envlro r>ment and Natural Resource
Michael F Easley
Governor M =
,
WiiGai?aG. Ross Jr., Secretary

t
r v
'
= f
NIRMOR"MUR
'
t
u ` `t ` k r ~
` F
TO, Ch-nrs Bagget t
State' Clearinghouse
l` ,y z
FROM: Melba`"McGee ?
`L
i?
.
"
Fr
ect Re-
rI64r C
di
t
o3
,
oor
na
or
RE: r 07-0248 RA 1-40/1-77 Improvements an Iredell County
DATE. : ebruart ,13, `2.007 '
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviexied the t
proposed project '
r -.
several' areas -ixeed further clarification as, noted in, the attached

comments from _the N C Wildlife Resources Commission andl tf a-bi ision Of '
Water Quality- We ask that ,the Depart ;gent of Tratisportatioa work tintht our
commentzrig agencies%to assure that thiir-concerns are adeiuately addressed
prior to Pir_alxzing- project plans xddress.Lnq t1hese' ecmme=its during the

review crocezs_ andjor aur;ng the merger process will a-r'oad delays `at the ,
permit phase
Thank- you for the opportunity to comment on, th".s project
h
Attac
ten t s

~
?
'
d t _ t
i t ., ` 1, v 'L w
51.? # t xl ?Ir n S^.wS ?-s?.rs ,. -.
f
.. ,.
?
i1',?a t y11^ J
s s a
p >
`
f
y
'
?
?
t+?
5
T
?y
s„
?...:? ? > ,
, . i ..
?"
?
= s . 1 t "
F s' i ?:
?.? t s'?
.. i
'`r •, tt
?n4N„ ?Y t' J'ytx .%?+} t _
?^/?.01 ( Mail t j^??,,Y? ^S p V=??r ?? y??Y?j?syr?lk??
16
Y l` ,?'JgiT ?LC?IGti'Ea?l??fa IYWSia?? 7: atblina -27
r Phone, 919=233-49$4;?> 9:-
M9-?, ', 346D:t ? =?vir?uwe 'ts o ? ?7yty
''
'
' '
9
'
4 ?"' ??
•,
`
n" `
4.
-,.
? ,
f
.• ?? _ i'7` n f x? . ?w?ecir 6 G r y ?r ??y>s z,?„
c>`t
,'
_`
„? i f .+r i sC J WfidV ."t? ° !f =T?.G
`c'J3
k ?t ?Sr i^?`
j= ^t
+
`"
,
i•
?
?
ltd
?
f
? t
?
,- _ r
y
4 a
s
>
A
i
.-.,Pp
ti
a.rwt
'w ...
fra
aaiLn93T(.N ?IGICR? `?jl??!mC?MF;r' ?"?L" E
y
?
Y `i .. ` ? ! ? .3_ ,? r 1 A_t ! l4 M ?.M •??' S?jns.SVµoJ" tr h+ ?a? j °y't rti.
?
`` ''
` ? ?^ .. a N ` - y , :, y "ivilChac'7 ?r`FBSIC\: fioytrncsr - ..
Q G J .„. - ` ,_ ..- '.." r __r <z rr ° xR' ,F ' Y`k a? s-.'• w _
m - y w_ T _ _ w ?L1t`1iliauitRoss Jr -sw
r I.cmA Cnirsh?i a UCpdrEmcnlroF is+umrment and Mites! Fasourors
.y M - _ _ ,- vy ; >' ` " ?Alatr w ictar P L D va w
Division of aii! "QLdlrh
4 N s µf l y A Y µ l`' ' -' £ ' rv to ?. _y?KM1_ y .,+f+_ ' _
January 31, 2007
MEMORANDUM.
To Melba McGee "
m From Polly Lesplnasse, ,Division of Water Quality, Mooresville RegloniCOffiice =
Subject: Comments owthe Environmental Assessment Related to the Proposeii 1-4011-77
m ImpTOVements,'iredell County, VilBS E#errient 34192. -'2, Federal Aid Project No. IMS-40-2,
State Project No. 8:1823901, TIP 1-3819, DENR Project Number 07-0248,fDue Date
42112/2007 r
?r
This office has reviewed the referenced documenf dated November 2005. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401I,Water Quality Certification for activities that impact
m Waters of the US, including wetlands It is our un'der'standing that the project as presented will result in
impacts to lunsdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The IJWQ offers the following comments
based on review of the aforementioned document.
Specific Comments:
A) Fourth Creek is a Class C, 303(d) waters of tFie State. Fourth Creek is on the 303(4) list for impaired
m use for aquatic life due to turbidity, fecal coliform and 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 -6f nutrient runoff to
Fourth Creek DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the stone water runoff
through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater
Best Management Practices
m General Comments-
B) The environmental document should continue to provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the
m proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding,rnapping if mitigation is necessary as
required by 15A NCAC 2H_0506(h), # is preferable to present a conceptual cif not finalized) mitigation
plan with the environmental docuinentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 409 Water Quality Certification i ;
m C) Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from stoma water runoff These alternatives should include "road designs that
m allow for treatment bf the storm water runoff through best management praactices es detailed in the
most recent version of NCDWQ Stcirmwater Best Managemei7t Pracfrces,=such a- grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc_ -
- * 1 :V?O`3hCamllna
Nom Carohaa Division of %xerQuaini 610 Eag Center Averttte, 5uiie301
Internet' h2oenr sib nc Vlcmrrslir, iwC 5115 _ Fay" ' hl 663-404A
s v ?x
iY'r yf
„ r ' ` `?' .-_ ` a r'S'rl txxkjfi±,,^l. `5+ is ' ;r`*M1 y,r Y F
An Equal OmonsmiFftAffirzr Gyre Awn E»Moyer -50°a#iecgcietf141°5 PoSi Cbcftn r Paper %
Y Y, M+
7-7
i ? t3 , x
s? ^? ue<F t J ? `tr.r
Page 2 Y y H `4z o v yo t sa+ ,,' ' R VU r
D)
F)
G)
Prior io an issuance of the 441-Water tl'i alttjr,Cei#ification, thehNCOOTrsres?peGtfutly;reminded that
they will need ta_demonstrate- tt?e'auoidance ahd°rninir?tzatio6 afximcJ Ao'wetlands<(and streams) to "
the maximum exten practical. -to accordahce,wv -,Ile,e virarimentait',Manageinint Commission's
Rules (15A NCAG 2405©6th?),Im'iigation'Oi( be requireafonmpacfs of greater than 1''acre-to
wetlands' ' Ii-th"ve?tthatimi€iga#ionJs recjgred,,the"rn`ttigatort plan shouiri?e ?as?gned to replace
apprapriate'tost furictisms'andi rralues. ==Tt?e TtC'Ecosystecrt Eni?ancement Prograrn may be available for
use as wetland mitcgaftori.
In accordancewith the Environmental Management Commission's Rules-115A NCAC 2H 0506(h)),
mitigation w}ll be required for impacts of'greatern than'150`linear feet to ally single perennial stream In
the event that mitigation is required, ttiemitigatio plan' should be desrgneci tb replace appropriate Ios#
functions and values : The NC Ecosystem Enhancement ProgratR maybe a`rallabie for use at stream
< LYr
Future documentation, including the'401 W ter Quality Certification Application; shouldreonbnuR to
include an itemized listirig'of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping
DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this protect. NCDOT
should address these concerns<by descnbf g the potential impacts that may`occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts
H) An analysis of curnutative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this'project is required The
type and,detail of analysis should conform to the 'NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the '
assessment of ser.6ndary.and cumulative impacts dated April i 0, 2044 ;
application,gy the l,CDO Pandwritfen,u mpurrence hDM the4. 4L;
- + .?1F'r?k?:'0
c - '}"fw-s r_ '_4ryrt .ry =:+?:,tl' .rLki?tiy
t-g
;'r=c firON- (,s
.xx u"Ad** I r; -.713'i sx 4"?T I 3 ?• a?1.:<a M1.ti ` i
f ` +-
_•_ '? .? +t- Fu'fi •. "ti:?7- _ M1'tti to t?cFz _e :.r<,i.:.ri.:,?,.,? ' ?'?d?"?t#; "...?rt `_%?:;_y." ,w..4 "`-•"?
1) NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including bdt"noflimited-to, bridging, fill, excavation
and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the finial
impact calculations These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise,
also need to be included as Part of the 401 Mater Quality Certification>Application '
J) Where streams must be crossed, the dwd prefers'bridges be used in heu'of culverts - However,-we
realize that economic c6nsideratiansYoften require-the use of culverts.. Please,be advised that culverts
should'be countersunk to allow unimp68e8,passage by-fish and othersquatic'organisms Moreover, in
areas where high quality wetlands or,-streams are `impacted', a bridge may prove preferable- When
applicable, DOT, should not install the Bridge bents in the creek, to the inaximum extent practicable
K) Sediment and erosion, control measures' should not be placed in wetlands or streams-
L) Borrowiwaste areas should avoid wetlarids'to the maximum extent practical impacts to wetlands in
boriowfwaste areasrwilt need ti be presented ih,the<401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation on, M) The 401 Water ,Quality Cert'ifsAcatian,appllicatic'n will, need to specifically addressthe proposed methods
for stormwater mariagemerif- *Wd,speafcalty, stormwatershould not,be,permitted to discharge
- directly into streams or.sur6ic`,waiters.
N) Eased an the informationspresented'in the`d6cument,-the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Individual Permit (1P) `application to the Carps of Engineers and
corresponding 401 dater ;Qwal'rty Cei r' nation. °Please be advised that a 401 Water,Quality Certification
requires satisfactory ptc?t+~ction af?vaate aiity;to ensttre,that water gaality standards are met and no
wetland or Weam ?i.ises ari f st ' sFtrisl peii lit a?athar¢afionpwill require 'the siitinxittal of a formal
,rF fax
rtt?
o)
P)
s.
a a,
A A,
t
- " ? ?c?' . ? < `..?: ?s4 -a"`? ??...>i- „?f -r! ^???tisn, rya'=dr<cif?'z,, rye'.. y x's;.., ,?i_..<?a' :;<
' ,..,, .. R - -yt ? ^' , ? : ? ?,'.=?' ; , ? t ` ,'? ?. m - ? r 3 t ;r„?r''",.na• y;Y ; ,_' J ..?'r `' ?t _ ` '?`'` '
Page 3
15
-
please 6e aware'tliat ar%Y a ri?va vinlC~ba ? ` Y r ^
kY pP. 6onttnger)t on appr`opna# .avatdariceFa d inirnmtzatt4r%of µ
wetland and streaiis irhpacts totthe iOaximur_extent3pir cHbaL ttieFtlevelonmentofan.acceptaljle= 'y "
sf6rrnwatermanagement plan-, and the incld?ion" ofa, "pp?xzi a`y
fate"irt>€igatiorY plans where apprbpriafe'
B>-idge supp©rts°-(bents)>should notube>placed in'the,stream when possible:
-- = n „? -
llVthertev fpossible,,the'DWC?,prefers span ig'stnr res_: spanning str'uctur'es usuailydo not,r?quire
a _
w work writhrti the strdarn or grtit iiig of the s aft nks grid dv rit3f requi_. re'stceam?ctiarinsl realignment
w. s
The hoirzontalFandtrertical t;tearancsrprovldecld5rridges aflovt+fri'hrsrhr,aic,`vuillyfe passage,
.
beneath-the `structure: xdo,ndt,'I loclc`fishFO r assage- andreio`fiot-block ifaviga#iori by'canoeists anti boaters
rYtr { ., c ,? x <
'Bridge-deck ?drains should not discharge directly into-the stream. ,Sto'mwater should'be directed across
the bridge and `piL•-treated ,through^,sit"'a rp p-nat? means (grassed swsles, pr"ormed se' our holes,
vegetated buffers,-etc) before e`rttering the'stream, Please refer to the-most current version of
NibDWQ 5tormwatBF Best Management Practices _
a 4 .. r > , it r ,c
if concrete is used during consfructi'N a'dry' work area should be maintained to prevent direct coritact
between aunng 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 - - "
T)
U)
V)
W),
Af temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be,graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. -Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabitizerthe soil and
appropriate native woddy4species should be planted. ,When using temporary?structures the area should
be cleared but-not'grirblied -Oearing=the area, -%Ah chain saws,`?rhowers,bush-hogs,,or other
mechanized equipment"and leaving the'sfumps and ro ot rnat intact allows tlie?area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimize`s.soil disturbance - x >
Placement of culverts And othef structuresin waters; strrea'ms,,and-wetlands shall be placed below the
elevation of the strearmed,by one'foot_for all culverts with a-diameter greater`than 48 inches, and 20
percent of the cu[veitdiarneter for culverts having a diameter less Phan 48 inches, to allow low flow
"passage of water and aquatic life Design and placement of culveris`and other structures including
temporary erosion canfrolmeasures shall not, be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-
equilibnum of wetlands vr.streambeds'or banks, adjacent to or upstream and` down stream of the above
structures The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is,be-irig maintained if
requested in writing by,bwQ. iftl,is conditi&wis unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting
features encountered> during-cohstruction;~please contact the, DWO for guidance on hour io proceed and
#o determine whether or+not a permit rriaifieationAvuili be^required ;'ti -
If multiple ptpes or barrels arere -,_edt -_ sliduld bie designed to mii nic natural-stream cross section
as"closely=as possibl<e in614i0l°ii%g pipes oibBirrSIs,atf1? pram elevation aridiorsilisinrhere appropriate
Vlfideriin the stre6m1channe" f `shdr?id be avaidecl, 5treain ch'artnei-widentiig at the inlet or outlet end of
structures typicalijrdecreaseswatrveloctty.causingfsedirrrent deposition that requires increased
maintertarice`and disrupts boric life assa'ge:
'lffoundation-test'.b?rings-arepecessa yit sh'oilld belied}rit1he-doct?tneht.-Gegtechnical work-Lis'
approved cinder General 401i er'bf<icafio&kuitiber 3494INa_tionm ide?Pefrrilt Nii 6 jQr,Survey Aciivibes
Fr`^
Sedtritentand ero8sroA-contri?f stires?66fFrc eXnt` #o,probect wafertesc i es must"be;implemented and
maintairt'ea in ac rdance,vM- xthe'eriaas-t?+cent,uersiori of r4brth bai6 ina Sediifienf and-Erosron Control
Planning and Design Mariualand,the rosf recent versio_n-offiiCS00Q25Ue--,,'
i h
i -'rC ^ t y ^,,r "Y xt y r i ;ter .o ..`,,` ry 1+d5,a h, 1
,,3Sfl""M'k"?L 3
Y.cYr !!33 %Q`! "t rt?-5<i '`r+ rr :> x
? y , r »"" d.c - -- , -,M?r,?`^r-G_. ? ,s5S<?( a'S?' °i?i! r?l`vsv w " i "s{c ??;,
a.. <;: is F4 iY< ^•i.i+' Fx (i7 5 " .fn'a 1 ,fee ?r'ixl?<.`rf Vx+'/
A- ' '{ M- { rSni "v511 3 4r
< - r Y]S+r : __ ., r r;.XY :1r! .. .. F r _a`M -
,
irr
fF}1 _ <

u
Page 4 `X) All-work in or adjacent to streamtwaters,should be canducted,ir i a dry work afea_ .AAppiroved BMP
rneaures frrstii theric3st current vei?ion,of NCDOT G©i isfceicfion and Maintenaic Acfivitie`s" mariuat '
such as sand6agsx rock,ber Jan d other diversi6nstructures'shQUfdbe,used Wprevent '
-excavation in flowirigYvJater.
Y) heavy equipment should be'operated from the, bank-rather than in stream` channels in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other.pollutants_into streams. This equipmen#
should be Inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination, of surface waterskfrom' leaking
fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids,'or,other toxic materials
Z) Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placers in the streafnbed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage;_ Bioeng'ineenng'b6uiders onstruptures should be properly designed, '
sized and installed
AA) Ripanan vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum,extent possible
Riparian vegetation-must,be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the '
growing season following completion of construction r
The NCDWQ appreciatesrthe opportunity to provide comments on your project' Should you, have any questions
or require any additional information, please contact Polly Lespinasse at (704)= 683-1699 '
cc Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office '
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers, NC'Witdtife Resources Commission
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service '
Sonia Gregory, DWQ Central Regional Office
File Copy =
w
-
.vim " r t_ r?lv uu{!,s??nr'ssr" N
r {Fr r r ,.v .. - 4 i !st t` i!'Ij lttl. + ~ J} y^ enl ^-.1+ `4 5
g,
_. l`k` i ??: r s?7yy;uF..yj•t .? ?}c%x??.#,?t,?.:?i?!`s;?-`r''L'?^=M"'r = a:.
""" " ®
? IA IAOR
?
v ? Ni s _/? a
x ? v 1
? u to r n l
1 -r •xZ??
+? m _! _"' _ x/ ? r
z i
?v'y l
f' S
? ? ±
;f
J
r n
l
'
s `T -, t t (E? ° J: f< -=L~ _ `
' .-1 ' •f J-': r
Nnrax
v u
>J r_4 .. YF ?z..r
L
ry
t T ?..? Y_f `r> ,ty-?. t ?
et
Y 3
-
< r> 41? J 4
_ n
> _ - > x
2 v

c : of _
} L ni x it ? x .. ? f ? trt t vl'< .,±4` ` r _ ' t l ..
9 North ?ar-ohi a ?$ w,?`Res€?urc?s' ?ar?l?iissxion' ?2
Richard B, Hamilton,Execiiti`v- Direetor,
TO. Melba McGee, Environmental` Coordinator
Office of Legislative and,1nt6rgovcrnmentaf Affairs,,DENR°
FROM_ Marla,Chambers, l estern NCDOT Permit Coordinator ,L&u -
Habitat Consenration Program, NCNVRC
DA FE February 12, 2007
SUBJECT Revietiv 4the Environmental Assessment of NCDQT's proposed improvements
to the eYisung I-401I-77,interchange area, States?rille Iredell'Cotmty TIP No i
3819 Project No 07-0245, due February 12, 20007: 'y
, x n ( ? y 4
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) ha: submitted for revieur an
Environmental Assessment (EA) document for the subject proaec? ; -Staff' biologists with the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ('NCWRC) have, revie--Nred the information
provided These cornments are proti ided in accordance Nvith th6 prbNrisions of the National
Environmental Palic; :pct` (42 U S C. 4332(2)(c))-and the Fish and Vildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat 401, as amended,16 U S C 661-667d)
The NCDOT proposds t, make improvements to.thd evistind i=40fl-77 interchange area , The
two, intersecting roadways, are, among the'most hea-, iIN traveled interstate bighways-in North
Carolina The study -area _iricludesx the four adjacent inter`chariges,. one- iii each',directtoi
Proposed stcarn. impacts ran ;e ifroni 3,738 to 3,904 linear feet for the two altesriatives, l A76 feet
of which are planned as stream, relocations. Expea d wetland impacts -range from 3.19 to 3 65
acres The le-,,el, Iaced this roiect in the Mer ter 01 process; however.
despite efforts by the US Army; Corps of Engineersthe' NCDOT and Fe seal `Highways
A uustration kill not place the project in the Nler&r 01 process' 4A sta e-r , Q
Direct impacts are ex.-pected to Fourth, Creek -and numerous unearned tributaries (UT's) to?Tourtii
Creek, all Class C waters and<nrl tM-;303(4) list,af impaired'watgrs. -ft- ppc:ars that nine Vretlniid -
areas will be impacted, including-a large high-€lualit?r`i;-ctland=(NC'Divisioia of mater Quality
rating 92) in the sotitb-,vest quadrant of,the 1-40/1=77 mteichan?be..'Wp commend NCDOT' on '
6 i iKY _ , 3 z
Mailimg Address: Division of i;pand Fisheries'-•, 1721 Mail,Serviee Center'v!,, lei? C w 69,E ttl r .
Teiep6. '(919) 0"7-02'? *" Ea .' 31, y {1 -0U?1 [? ?v ,'. - r
r r '
. .. 7? u/ _ Yr it 4 > y..w ?L..Y a t51,?µ'p c "i
'sir``..'#
? °'F r?J° ^pe''i x MA--,
pf,r r x , -
.,t , z E , A art F ;. > Oka ?s a5 i ..r >< ?'n.' ^e La
t ?. f.?? <? Y'y?a rf i? +t7
_ `.?r...`.. ? _'Y,:a»1? n-sa lF-- ? ?.itN*r..t.i
' S? a4= t\ ' , "" ?l1 3.. F" YJa r Jin
140 &J-777 Imercha ge 2_" '' ` - ebruan`i 007` r "
Fa.;* Cretk & UT's Trtcddl C.a
efforts to minimize` im acts :to aua ac ,habitats-and flbod Zain's; such-`` as _iisin 'd at ° 11
,?
Fourth Creek erf?ssin s;=designini;, g-4 hZ- ' to s an a oodwa??$, atxd' itsiii are
taininzwall?<
-It #pears that NCDOT,N il1,alsarWi& fot the e. siisrg;a itatuxetl"greez£?vav i the e
are hopeful that,' idditional,- minimization, of i acts ,can hb_ a ,'achieved; ' espeGlall to -aquatic
n o ces M e sect iv s ,a t ,of the interchainge, e,` oo
.D Ton this vvithiii the 1Vlerger process.
Numerous studies have shoN'10 that when 10-15% of a watershed is?conyerted to iinpennous
surfaces, there isxa serious decline 'iii -the health of "receiving waters `(Schiielerg 1994)- aiid 'they
quality of fish habitat andiuetlands are negatively-impacted (booth'°1991','Tiy ur,1993). 'The-
project area is rapidly dzvelopinli .The water quality has been degradeii and stream crossings are
being upgraded -to -account `for higher'flows due to -urban developmenx. Some' natural and
agricultural areas still exist, therefore potential f6f fuzther development. is high. 'Crossing designs
should use a build-out scenario for the area to -determine adequate sizes for the -structures
Secondary, aril cumulative impacts,are`a serious concern, We strongly recommend that NCDOT
and local authorities work: together to,minimize coiistruction and, development itn acts through
strong se an erosion contra s and stoniiv_rater management , ,, pedal efforts should be
ma a to reveiit r degradation of area streams a _ v o improve ; t eir water qu i ti
Impervious surfaces should be`limited and=floodplains sho etpresene -in a nature state,
Measures to mitigate secondary -and cumulative' impacts can' tie- found in the` Guidance
Memorandum to-Address and lvlitigate Secoaddry and Cumulative Impacts` to Aquatic and
Terrestrial Vorildlife Resources and Water Quality,(1 ONR.C 2000', :We also encourage NCDOT
rind local authorities to use love tmpact development techniques _to manage stormwater quantity
ormation) a encourage t e use o non-im eevious materials to construct sidewalks, parking
lots,-and other facilities, and the use of retrofits for existing development.
Thank you for the opportunity to rev iew and comment on this project IE ;tou hay e any questions
re_arding these comments, please contact me at (704) 545 3)3-11.
Literature Cited ;
Booth, D. 1991. Urbanization and the natural drainage, system-impacts. solutions, and
prognoses Northwest EnN ironmeintal Journal f 7(l)-93-1 18` h
NCV RC (North'Carohna Waldlife Resources Commission).," 2402.` Guidance Memorandum to
Address and Mitigate-Secondary and Cumulative liripacts to Aquatic aid Terrestrial
Wildlife Resources , and" `NTater 'Quality ` NCWkC, y Raleigh - Available
lute IkkNivv. newildlife.o4p€O7- ildlifeSpeciesConlpg7c;'iinpacts giif, ((February
2003) - r
t , „ y N Schueler, Tom. 1994 1 he Importance of Imper,nousness Wateisshed Protection Techniques
1'3 (pp10o-111}: - -
?
?
?
t

M ry
`
1
r ,
7W
n
;
c
? !
t.
' ? , ? _
- . { -• ° r ?
[,r
M„"?}'4,??'LY?€?ufia7 a[tFl ??l ?
^ -ki
? .... ii
t
'n?'.?i{! :'? wv,{?
4f x
, J
.i
. } 1
f
`s
,t
_+ ' s
y
yy

,;::' %? r
.t. t
TP :.
iS= ?r 4 ' .s
. rr7?t y: Jrd-r
6
4'
. w't°i w3+ii~tr'F [< i't h
r f
.
,
et 5
-
,
t
p
,.

1 r s ' i7"" `?7 v6>? "S> a?lM1
Y? x

t
13
1-40 1-77 lriterchanire r Y , ; k- ;
) # ° ` . ? FtbTtlBlrV ?"??# lea ,= t ,K ' >'-
t
>

.
"` ' `• ' :a ` ?
FouWCrae1. & UT's
iiedal Co ^` r >r.
` vV <`? v-C = 4=?"*?.`!S
? ? _rt ?,_ _ _ 3 -- ? '
'
'"
-, )w t
'
__ n Y V h
_
= w V l K h
, 1
-
[
l -C`J x;t it 3C ?.. >~ ^ ?° y"?}" r,i
Taylor, &L_ 1993. The influences"o l%wetland and N&Uisrshed mt?ippliyloetal"charaeteristics aria
'
?
relationships to' lvetlarici' vegetation communities. -= l1?Iasters: thesis-, 'Dept
,of
?CiN,tl'Y
m !
En 3neerang rUnive6ity o?Washul
iton
kS attl
WA
- s
}
r

cc Marella Bunciek_ USFWS =
m Poll} Lespinasse, NCDIX' - w -
Chris Militscher, USERA,
%
m `Y _ k_ - y h»
° _f E) ? (
? >? Y
J N ? ? < ? it +
.
x
v a
,
? sa
`
? w
' a
a e
x
r
s r
m r ? -, w

c S Y ) t .r E

_ r s ?i??r Lr,F4
ei ? ?y Ql4
?i6'?
'V???>
?tw CF
.
?
>
Ff ...
f
>?
.?,sr >>?:
?
m 4 w. `

?Y ?) ) r"CN;? 'S3r C
( ?h
f ?V
y+.tHa?J?l?6}i
?fi
x
?l
;
'

?t
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F Easley, Go-, ernor Britt Cobb, Secretary
March 14, 2007
Mr Gregory Thorpe
NC Department of Transportation '
Project Development and Environ Anal
1548 Mail Service Center '
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr Thorpe
Re SCH File # 07-E-4220-0248, EA, Proposed project is for the improvements to existing I-40/I-77
Interchange TIP No 1-3819
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act According to G S 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act Attached to this
letter for your consideration are additional comments made by agencies in the course of this review
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call
Sincerely,
Ms Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc Region F
Mailing Address Telephone [phone] Location Address
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street I
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Courier #51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail Chrys Baggett@ncmail net
An Equal Opportumty/Afftrmative Action Employer
s
t
B
1
1
0
D
1
1
e
s
e
e
cT;?
NC E R
Nc,rth C rchna, Jepe, I mient of Environment and Nat1?l al Resources
MENlt)R.''kNUTJ`4f
TO (,hr%,, Eaza er:
State Cfeannghoust.
FROM Melba McGee )"
17nviron^-:nt.,I Projectiz 0C11 ce:
S>_ 31EC1 fG" 4""5 Impr,»'er-ient5 to e•:tstirrf I-404-7" Iiitrichaiz<e Iredell C'ountz+
D kTE. March 1^- 2007
The wlaulied uornn,c nts t%c-e received b' .h.s office after the respor=?e due pate 1'hc5L Wrnmvvs should be Sontardc d to
IhL, applicant and mace a Jar' of our pre%,10.11- .:omni:nt package
F-W,T A Jou for tre LIppar-_-i,, o resoond
At-,: chaicr t
r?''1y y1ti_ ?- o4' ::, ?,rj r ; ITi.?T + i'i+i1 Cr r
L P,sI u r_I CAL
One
NprthCarolina
,Ivaturally
f 7 L k r
L r
Irl 5
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name IBC DOT
Project Number '
o7-4248
County
lredell
Type of Project Proposed arolect is for the '
imnrovements to extstin (-
4011-':7 rnccrcfian,?c
Comments provided by RECEIVED
410oresville RegionaJ otnce
? Regional Program Person
® Reglenal Supervisor for Public Water Suppiv Section FEB 2 2 2007
? Cer•-,al Office program p NCDENR
erson
Public Wtator Supply
Name Britt Setzer Moores-ville Ra Date
Telephone number --7
Program wltnin Division of Environmental Health
F,1 Pu.l Lc Water Supply
I] 0t:1e- Name of Program
Response (check all applicable)
? No coiection to project as proposed
? No c--r-iment
Q InsLr4licient information to complete review
? Comments attached
L7 See comments below
Return t0
Public Watar Supply Section
Ervrronm"tal Reviev, Coordinator
for the
Div sion of Environrnentai Health
2/16/07
DEPARTMENT 4F
ENVIRONMENT AND
,
; Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES ; 07-0248
m DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH i County
' tredetl
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Protect Name NC DoT Type of Project Proposed nroiect is for the
imnrovementi to exiutnp-
m 40/1-7- interchini'e
? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
m awarc of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A 1VCAC 18C
C30Ce,_seq) For information contact the Public Water Supply Section (919)
733-2.3-21
m ? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section [phone]
Q If this cmject is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of
feet of
_
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant shoufd contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
m 726-6827
Q The sal disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
m proolen For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures the
applicant sl-cjld contact the Public Health Pest I'Aariagement Section at (919i 733-6407
Q The a: oiicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of alapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
m migration of the rodents to adjacent areas For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
(9191 733407
T me a:
scant should be adv
s
nt
d t
t th
l
lth d
f
p
e
i
o co
ac
e
oca
nea
epartment regaraing their
requ-remerts 'for septic tank installations (as recuirec unaer 15A NCAC 18A 19,00 et
m sep 1, For information corcerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
concoct the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone]
L.1 The epolicant should be advised to contact the locai health department regarding the
m sanita;-v facilities required for this project
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the vrater line
` relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health Public `Hater
m Supply Section, Tecrintcal Sewices Branch, 1634 I'Aaii Service Center Raleigh, Forth
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone]
m ?} For Pegionai and Cenral Office comments, see the reverse side of this `orm
W
Jim McRicnt PWSS 02/76107
Reviewer Section/Brancn Date
S %PwstAngela 'AACieannghouse'Review Resocrse P:-. t aid 2 for inp,it doc
EPA Review Comments on the Federal EA for I-3819,1-40/I-77 Interchange
Modifications, Iredell County
This is a non-Merger project The Federal EA was issued on 1/16/07 and comments were
requested by 3/5/07 EPA attended a scopmg type meeting approximately 6 months ago
that discussed the alternatives being considered and that this project was proposed to be
put into the Merger 01 process at CP 4A NCDOT proposes to modify the existing
interchange to address traffic capacity deficiencies and safety concerns, and to improve
traffic flow for approximately 6 8 miles
Two alternatives were studied in detail, Alternative 1 (Four-level Offset) and Alternative
2 (Four-level Turbine) NCDOT prefers Alternative 1 Estimated impacts for the
proposed interchange alternatives are as follows (Alternatives 1 & 2, respectively)
Residential & Business relocations 5R/313 & 5R/3B (and 1 Farm each)
Churches/Schools 2/3 & 2/3
Wetlands 3 19 & 3 65 acres
Streams 2,428 & 2,262 linear feet
Riparian buffers 0 & 0
Sections 4(f)/106 properties
Archaeological sites 0 & 0
Noise Receptors 120 & 120
ESAs 0 & 0
EJ communities 0 & 0
1 /0 & 1 /0 (Greenway)
Natural Heritage Program areas 0 & 0
Air quality No (NAAQS Attainment)
Terrestrial forests 30 5 & 319 acres
Prime Farmlands 43 & 43 acres
Hazardous Material Sites 63 & 63 (potential sites)
Critical Water Supplies No
EPA notes that Fourth Creek and its UTs are on the 303(d) list of impaired waters from
non-point source pollution resulting from urban runoff and sediment NCDOT should
incorporate the most environmentally methods of pre-treatment of stormwater to this
receiving water to remove pollutants and sediment NCDOT proposes to relocate
approximately 1,476 linear feet of streams (both alternatives) on-site EPA requests that
these proposed stream relocations in the Piedmont be closely coordinated with DWQ,
ACE, FWS, WRC and EPA (Kathy Matthews) in order to insure that the relocations are
technically and environmentally sound
EPA notes that Wetland system #15 represents the largest impact site of the 3 19/3 65
acres totals Alternative 1 impacts 1 81 acres of W 15 and Alternative 2 impacts 2 51
acres W15 was rated as a 92 (NCDWQ) riverme system This wetland is by far the
highest quality wetland in the project study EPA will be seeking avoidance and
minimization measures at CP 4A to reduce the impacts to this high quality wetland

EPA has some environmental concerns for the proposed project as it relates to measures
to avoid and minimize certain impacts from the proposed interchange designs EPA
requests that NCDOT look for environmental stewardship opportunities and mitigation of
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams, prime farmlands and noise receptors
NCDOT should also complete its noise analysis to determining the acceptability of noise
barriers NCDOT should complete its geotechmcal evaluation to determine the actual
number of hazardous material sites impacted Neither build alternative considered by
NCDOT is substantially different in most of the impacts for EPA to have an identified
preference, although Alternative 1 does have less impact (0 7 acres) to W#15 The
Federal EA was generally very comprehensive and the Summary table of impacts ( S-2 to
S-4) was very useful in comparing the two alternatives
h
eets) concerning
EPA acknowledges the project environmental commitments (Green s
wetlands, structures over Fourth Creek for the existing Museum Greenway path, retaining
walls at the elementary schools, noise mitigation and hazardous materials assessment
a
a
a