The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSR 1115Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Review Form Project Number: 09-0316 County: Caldwell Date Received: 05/07/2009 Due Date: 6/1/2009 Project Description: Environmental Assessment - Proposal to widen SR 1001 to a four lane divided facility from SR 1115 (Dry Ponds Road) to SR 1933 (Lenoir-Southwest Blvd.) is rojec is - reviewe as indicated e ow: 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 M-nit ? Forest Resources Radiation Protection Washington Land Resources Other Wilmington ? Parks &:. Recreation Winston-Salem Water Quality ? Water Quality - DOT Air Quality Manager Sign-Off'Region: Re viewen'Aeency: Response (check all applicable) _ No objection to project as proposed. Insufficient information to complete review No Comment Other (specify, or attach comments) I f vou have an,- questions, please contact: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at melba.mcgee ii ncmail.net r SR 1001 (CONNELLY SPRINGS ROAD) From SR 1115 (Dry Ponds Road) to SR 1933 (Lenoir Southwest Boulevard) in Lenoir Caldwell County State Project No. 8.2733401 Federal Project No. STP-1001 (25) WBS Element 34544.1.1 TIP PROJECT R-3430 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c) APPROVED: 4D s6vk Date c Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT W, &&,,, John F. Sullivan III, P.E., Division Federal Highway Administration SR 1001 (CONNELLY SPRINGS ROAD) From SR 1115 (Dry Ponds Road) to SR 1933 (Lenoir Southwest Boulevard) in Lenoir Caldwell County State Project No. 8.2733401 Federal Project No. STP-1001 (25) WBS Element 34544.1.1 TIP PROJECT R-3430 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT March 2009 Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by: Project / ` O w JOHN G. 3 /3 o/0 y 5 . REM Date Project Development Group Leader °?''?•. 9766 ''> TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PROJECT COMMITMENTS .................................. 1 SUMMARY ............................................... i 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ....................... 1 A. General Description ......................... .......... 1 B. Project Status .............................. .......... 1 II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ............... ..........1 A. Purpose of Project .......................... ...........1 B. Need for Project ............................ .......... 1 C. Benefits of Proposed Project .................. .......... 14 III. ALT ERNATIVES CONSIDERED .................... .......... 14 A. General ................................... ..........14 B. Build Alternative ............................ .......... 15 C. Typical Section Alternatives ................... .......... 15 D. Transportation System Management (TSM) ...... .......... 15 E. Alternatives Modes of Transportation ............ ..........15 F. "Do Nothing Alternative ....................... ..........15 G. NCDOT-Preferred Alternative .................. ..........15 IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...... ..........16 A. Length of Project ............................ ..........16 B. Typical Section ............................. .......... 16 C. Structures ................................. ..........16 D, Traffic Control during Construction .............. .......... 16 E. Right of Way ............................... .......... 16 F, Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ....... .......... 16 G. Sidewalks/Bicycle Accommodations ............. ..........17 H. Access Control ........................... 17 1. Design Speed and Proposed Posted Speed Limit.. .......... 17 J. Degree of Utility Conflicts ..................... .......... 17 K. Airports ................................... ..........17 L. Cost Estimates ............................. .......... 17 V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION.. ......... 18 A. Cultural Resources .......................... .......... 18 B. Land Use and Community Impacts Assessment .... ..........19 C. Natural Resources .......................... .......... 25 D. Highway Traffic Noise ........................ .......... 34 E. Air Quality Analysis .......................... .......... 37 F. Hazardous Materials Evaluation ................ .......... 47 G. Construction Impacts ......................... ..........49 TABLE OF CONTENTS H. 4(f) Resources ........................................51 VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ........................... 51 A. Coordination .........................................51 B. Public Involvement and Comments ........................52 VII. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................. 52 TABLES Table 1 a Intersection Level of Service for Build Scenario ............ .. 11 Table 1 b Crash Rates (Per Million Vehicle Miles) .................. ..13 Table 1 c Accident Type Summary .............................. ..13 Table 2 Preliminary Cost Estimates ............................ ..17 Table 3a Population by Race and Demographics Ongin ............. ..20 Table 3b Churches and Cemeteries Impacted by Widening Alignments . . 23 Table 3c Project Study Area Soils & Characteristics ................ ..25 Table 3d Stream Classification and Impacts ...................... .. 28 Table 3e Federally Protected Species in Caldwell County ............ . 32 Table 3f Underground Storage Tank Facilities .................... ..48 FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Proposed Improvements (Sheets 1-14) Figure 3 Roadway Typical Section APPENDICES Appendix A Figures Appendix B Correspondence Appendix C Combined Air and Noise Report Appendix D Relocation Report Appendix E Traffic Forecast Appendix F NCDOT Capacity Analysis Guidelines Appendix G DeMinimis Documentation PROJECT COMMITMENTS SR 1001 (CONNELLY SPRINGS ROAD) From SR 1115 (Dry Ponds Road) to SR 1933 (Lenoir Southwest Boulevard) in Lenoir Caldwell County State Project No. 8.2733401 Federal Project No. STP-1001 (25) WBS Element 34544.1.1 TIP PROJECT R-3430 In addition to the Individual Nationwide Permit Conditions, State Stormwater Permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, and General Certification Conditions, the following special commitments were agreed to by NCDOT: GeoEnvironmental Section / Right-of-Way / Division 11 Based on field reconnaissance and a database search, eighteen (18) sites were identified that could pose environmental concems for the proposed project. Out of eighteen sites, eight are active gas/service stations, nine are former or potentially former gas/service stations, and one is a potential dump site. Several of the former sites may still contain underground storage tanks (USTs). There is also a possibility of unregulated USTs (farm tanks or home heating oil tanks) being impacted by the project. The Geo Environmental Section of the Geotechnical Engineering Unit will conduct Preliminary Site Assessments for soil and ground water contamination on each site within the project limits and provide recommendations to Right of Way prior to acquisition. Hydraulics Unit/ Division 11 The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated community and agency for administering FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, to determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of Agreement with FMP (dated 6/5/08), or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision. "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" and Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be adhered to throughout construction. Environmental Assessment Page 1 of 2 November 2008 Stormwater drainage will be controlled and not shunted directly into the existing stream channels. Division 11 There is one major stream crossing associated with this project. It is an Unnamed Tributary to Gunpowder Creek located approximately 600 feet south of SR 1280 (Floral Drive). The existing structure is a 7' x 7' reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). It is recommended that the existing structure be replaced with an 8'x 8' RCBC. There are also two culverts which may need to be extended. All concrete used for the construction of culverts will be allowed to dry before making contact with streams or rivers. This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA- regulated stream(s). Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically. This project includes the following FEMA regulated streams: - Unnamed Tributary to Gunpowder Creek (Designated as Little Gunpowder Creek near City of Lenoir on the Flood Insurance Rate Map) Environmental Assessment Page 2 of 2 November 2008 SR 1001 (CONNELLY SPRINGS ROAD) From SR 1115 (Dry Ponds Road) to SR 1933 (Lenoir Southwest Boulevard) in Lenoir Caldwell County State Project No. 8.2733401 Federal Project No. STP-1001 (25) WBS Element 34544.1.1 TIP PROJECT R-3430 SUMMARY A. Type of Action This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action, Environmental Assessment (EA). B. Description of Action The proposed action proposes to upgrade SR 1001 to a four lane divided facility from SR 1115 (Dry Ponds Road) to SR 1933 (Lenoir-Southwest Boulevard) in Lenoir. This project is identified as TIP Project R-3430 is included in the approved 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The preliminary right-of way and construction costs are $27,500,000 and $37,900,000 respectively. The project is currently unfunded for both right-of-way and construction. The project is approximately 7.1 miles in length. C. Purpose of Proposed Action The primary purpose of the project is to relieve the existing and anticipated traffic congestion in the project area. Another desirable outcome of the project is improving overall safety along the roadway. D. Alternatives Considered Due to the nature of this project, the widening of an existing roadway, no alternative corridors were considered. Preliminary alternatives considered for the project included the following: Build Alternative This alternative proposes to widen SR 1001 to a four lane divided facility with a raised median throughout the project study corridor. The proposed improvements will decrease travel times by the reduction of congestion. These improvements will also improve access to the businesses and residences adjacent to the project study corridor. Transportation System Management (TSM) Transportation system management was considered for the project. However, the improvements would not have met the purpose and the need of the project. Alternative Modes of Transportation Transit in the area is limited. The Caldwell County Area Transit System (CCATS) is the only system in the area. CCATS operates on subscription and on dial-a-ride service. The system has no fixed routes. These services are offered to citizens of Caldwell County. CCATS operates from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. CCATS does offer services in the project area. The proposed improvement is not expected to encourage expansion of services along the corridor. 4. "Do Nothing" Alternative If the proposed improvements to SR 1001 are not made, the entire project study area will continue to experience considerable congestion and no improvement in travel times. Therefore, NCDOT does not recommend implementation of the no-build alternative. E. Environmental Impacts The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are detailed in Section V of this document. The following table summarizes the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, which consists of a four lane divided facility. RESOURCE SUMMARIZING IMPACTS Build Alternative (Four-Lane Divided Facility) NCDOT- Preferred Archaeological 0 Architectural District/Properties 0/2 Total Stream Impacts 1180 feet Jurisdictional Wetland 0 acres Endangered Species 1; none affected Community Terrestrial Community 0 acres Impacts Potential Hazardous 18 Material Sites Prime Farmland 0 acres Section 4(f) Impacts 0 Schools 1 Churches 7 EJ Communities 0 Air Quality No Noise (receptors) 122-186 Residential Relocations 51 / 20 (Owners / Tenants) Business Relocations 11 /13 (Owners / Tenants) Critical Water Supplies No Total Cost $75,000,000 F. Permits Required A Section 404 Individual Permit will be required due to two stream impacts, and a Section 404 Nationwide Permit for two other stream impacts. iii G. Coordination The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this environmental assessment: NC Dept. of Cultural Resources - State Historic Preservation Office* NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources* NC Division of Parks and Recreation* NC Wildlife Resources Commission NC Division of Water Quality Town of Cajah's Mountain* US Army Corps of Engineers - Raleigh Regulatory Field Office US Environmental Protection Agency (Raleigh) US Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville Field Office NC Dept. of Administration (State Clearinghouse) Caldwell County Schools Written comments were received from agencies noted with an asterisk (*) Copies of comments can be found in Appendix B. H. Contact Information The following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning the proposal and assessment: John F. Sullivan, III, P.E. Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Telephone: (919) 747-7000 Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Manager Project Development and Enviromental Analysis Branch North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 Telephone: (919) 733-3141 1V SR 1001 (CONNELLY SPRINGS ROAD) From SR 1115 (Dry Ponds Road) to SR 1933 (Lenoir Southwest Boulevard) in Lenoir Caldwell County State Project No. 8.2733401 Federal Project No. STP-1001 (25) WBS Element 34544.1.1 TIP PROJECT R-3430 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION A. General Description The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to widen SR 1001 to a four lane divided facility from SR 1115 (Dry Ponds Road) to SR 1933 (Lenoir-Southwest Boulevard). The proposed project will widen the existing roadway to a 48 foot curb and gutter section with a 23 foot median. B. Project Status TIP Project R-3430 is included in the approved 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The project is currently unfunded for both right-of- way and construction. The estimated TIP cost is $66,900,000 which includes $27,500,000 for right of way and $37,900,000 for construction. However, a more current cost estimate puts the total cost at $75,000,000 due to a rise in construction costs. II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT A. Purpose of Proiect The primary purpose of the project is to relieve the existing and anticipated traffic congestion in the project area. Another desirable outcome of the project is improving overall safety along the roadway. B. Need for Project The primary need for R-3430 is apparent in the level of congestion experienced presently along SR 1001, especially towards the northern terminus of the project at the SR 1933 intersection, as well as the projected increase in congestion for the 2030 design year. 1 1. Description of Existing Conditions a. Functional Classification SR 1001 is classified as a minor urban arterial on the North Carolina Highway Functional Classification System. b. Physical Description of Existing Facility 1. Roadway Cross-Sections SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) from SR 1115 (Dry Ponds Road) to SR 1933 (Lenoir Southwest Boulevard) is a two-lane undivided facility with 22 feet of pavement and four-foot grass shoulders on 60 feet of right-of-way. 2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment The current vertical and horizontal alignments of existing roads within the project limits of the proposed project are good. The proposed alignment of the widened road will follow the existing alignment in most of the project limits, although there are several existing alignments along SR 1001 which will be altered to improve sight distances. 3. Right of Way The existing right of way is 60 feet throughout the project study corridor. Additional right of way will be necessary to accommodate the proposed widening of SR 1001. Approximately ninety-six residences and businesses will likely have to be relocated due to the widening of SR 1001. 4. Access Control SR 1001 does not have control of access. Major intersections are at grade and adjacent residences and businesses also have driveway access. 5. Speed Limits SR 1001 has a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour within the project area. 2 6. Intersections and Type of Control Within the project limits, SR 1001 is a two-lane facility with at-grade intersections. Signals are used to control traffic at the intersections of SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) and SR 1933 (Southwest Blvd.), SR 1159 (Pleasant Hill Road), SR 1146 (Orchard Drive), SR 1134 (Union Grove Road), and SR 1130 (Cajah Mountain Road). Due to the low traffic volumes at other at- grade intersections, stop signs are used to control traffic. 7. Railroad Involvement The Caldwell County Railroad runs from Hickory to Lenoir, but it does not intersect the project limits. 8. Structures No bridges are located within the project limits. There are two culverts which may need to be extended. 9. Greenway, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Considerations There are no bicycle or pedestrian facilities along Connelly Springs Road. Current plans for the improvement do not make provisions for those services. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are not recommended in either of the 2001 Caldwell County thoroughfare plan or any land development plan for the Town of Cajah's Mountain. 10. Utilities The project contains both above ground and sub-surface utilities. Power and telephone lines are all carried on utility poles. A total of 305 power poles and 180 telephone poles need to be relocated. Furthermore, water, sewer, and gas lines will need to be relocated to accommodate the widening of SR 1001. C. School Bus Usage Four (4) school buses make two trips through the project study area daily; once in the morning and once in the afternoon. School buses that utilize the project corridor serve Baton Elementary School. Traffic Carrying Capacity Traffic volumes for the years 2006 and 2030 were determined to quantify existing and future traffic demands within the project area. The "no build" alternative is for the current configuration of SR 1001. The "build" alternative assumes widening of SR 1001 along the project corridor. For the year 2001, the "No build" alternative average annual daily traffic (AADT) at the northern project limit is 15,200 vehicles per day (vpd). At the southern project limit, the base year traffic volume is 8,300 vpd. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and how motorists and/or passengers perceive these conditions. A LOS definition generally describes these conditions in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six LOS, letter designations from A (Best) to F (Worst) represent operations for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available. NCDOT currently uses the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. NCDOT's Congestion Management Unit also utilized Synchro and SimTraffic softwares in our capacity analyses. These softwares utilize the methodologies from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual and Highway Capacity Software. CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS The mainline traffic volumes along SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) in the project area currently range from 10,000 vehicles per day south of SR 1115 (Dry Ponds Road) to 18,300 vehicles per day south of SR 1933 (Southwest Boulevard); the mainline is expected to operate at a LOS C in 2008. The "no build" projection for year 2030 lists average annual daily traffic (AADT) at 25,700 vpd at the northern project limit. At the southern project limit, the projected volume is 14,000 vpd. NCDOT's Congestion Management Unit performed 2030 analysis for this project. The traffic volumes are the same for the No-Build and Build Scenarios. The build main line analysis is based on a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour and a four-lane typical section. The upgraded SR 1001 is expected to operate at LOS C in 2030, with the area near SR 1933 (Southwest Boulevard) operating at a LOS F in 2030. Extensive queuing is expected near the SR 1933 intersection. In order to service design year traffic, additional through capacity will be required along SR 1001 and/or SR 1933, which could be provided in the form of additional through lanes and/or access management techniques. The build scenario proposes seven signalized intersections and seventeen unsignalized intersections. The following section provides a discussion of each individual intersection analysis. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1933 (Southwest Boulevard) - Signalized With the existing geometry, this intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the expected 2030 traffic volumes, it is recommended that the northbound approach should provide a minimum of 575 feet of dual left-turn storage and 325 feet of right-turn storage. The southbound approach should provide a minimum of 500 feet of dual left-turn storage and 200 feet of right-turn storage. The eastbound approach should provide a minimum of 225 feet of dual left-turn storage and 325 feet of right-turn storage. The westbound approach should provide a minimum of 425 feet of dual left-turn storage and 525 feet of right-turn storage. With these improvements in place, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in 2030. Therefore, additional through capacity along SR 1001 and or SR 1933 will be required at this intersection in order to service the projected 2030 traffic volumes. Extensive queuing is expected on all approaches due to heavy through traffic volumes, particularly on SR 1933. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1153 (Clarks Chapel Road) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the eastbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The northbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the expected 2030 volumes, it is recommended that the northbound approach provide a minimum of 675 feet of shared U-turn, left-turn storage. The southbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of right-turn storage. The eastbound approach should provide a minimum of 175 feet of right-turn storage. With these improvements in place, the northbound shared U-turn, left turn movement is expected to operate at LOS D in 2030. The eastbound approach is expected to operate at LOS F with a 95th percentile queue of an undetermined amount in 2030. This intersection may require signalization by the design year; if signalized, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS B in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1169 (Fairway Acres Drive) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the westbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The southbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the proposed geometry, the westbound right-turn movement is expected to operate at LOS D in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1168 (Sunshine Lane) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the westbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The southbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the proposed geometry, the westbound right-turn movement is expected to operate at LOS C in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1280 (Floral Drive) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the eastbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The northbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the proposed geometry, the eastbound right-turn movement is expected to operate at LOS C in 2030. With the existing geometry, the westbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The southbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the expected 2030 traffic volumes, it is recommended that the northbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of right-turn storage. The southbound approach should provide a minimum of 150 feet of shared U- turn, left-turn storage. The westbound approach should provide a minimum of 175 feet of right-turn storage. With these improvements in place, the southbound shared U-tum, left-turn movement is expected to operate at LOS C in 2030, and the westbound approach is expected to operate at LOS F with a 95th percentile queue of an undetermined amount in 2030. This intersection may require signalization by the design year. If this intersection becomes signalized, it is expected to operate at an overall LOS A in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1210 (S. Andrew Circle) - Unsignalized Given the existing geometry, the southwest shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The southbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The proposed geometry indicates that this intersection will be cul-de- sac'd. Therefore, the expected 2030 traffic volumes from this intersection were re-routed accordingly to SR 1210 (N. Andrew Circle). SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1159 (Pleasant Hill Road) - Signalized With the existing geometry, this intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS E in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the expected 2030 traffic volumes, it is recommended that the northbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of U-turn storage and 100 feet of right-turn storage. The southbound approach should provide a minimum of 175 feet of dual left-turn storage. The westbound approach should provide a minimum of 350 feet of right-turn storage. With these improvements in place, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS B in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1146 (Orchard Drive) - Signalized With the existing geometry, this intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS D in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the expected 2030 traffic volumes, it is recommended that the northbound approach should provide a minimum of 250 feet of shared U-turn, left-turn storage. The southbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of U-turn storage and 100 feet of right-turn storage. The eastbound approach should provide a minimum of 350 feet of right-turn storage. With thesE improvements in place, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS B in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1296 (Shannon Drive) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the eastbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS E in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The northbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the proposed geometry, the eastbound right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS C in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1221 (Oakmont Drive) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the eastbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The northbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the expected 2030 traffic volumes, it is recommended that the northbound approach should provide a minimum of 125 feet of shared U-turn, left-turn storage. The southbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of U-turn storage and 100 feet of right-turn storage. The eastbound approach should provide a minimum of 425 feet of right-turn storage. With these improvements in place, the northbound shared U-turn, left-turn movement is expected to operate at LOS C in 2030, while the southbound U-turn movement is expected to operate at LOS B in 2030. The eastbound approach is expected to operate at LOS F with a 95th percentile queue with seventeen (17) vehicles in 2030. This intersection may require signalization by the design year. If the intersection becomes signalized, it is expected to operate at an overall LOS A in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1258 (Catawba Terrace) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the westbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS E in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The southbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the proposed geometry, the westbound right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS C in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1203 (Cottage Grove Road) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the westbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS E in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The southbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the proposed geometry, the westbound right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS C in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1245 (Brandon Road) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the westbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The southbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the proposed geometry, the westbound right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS B in 2030. 8 SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1254 (Bradshaw Terrace) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the eastbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The northbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the proposed geometry, the eastbound right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS C in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1134 (Union Grove Road) - Signalized With the existing geometry, this intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the expected 2030 traffic volumes, it is recommended that the northbound approach should provide a minimum of 250 feet of shared U-turn, left-turn storage. The southbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of U-turn storage and 225 feet of right-turn storage. The eastbound approach should provide a minimum of 200 feet of left-turn storage and 175 feet of right-turn storage. With these improvements in place, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS C in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1222 (Berry K Drive) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the westbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected tooperate at a LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The southbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the proposed geometry, the westbound right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS C in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1222 (Wimberly Drive) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the westbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The southbound shared through, left-turnmovement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the proposed geometry, the westbound right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS C in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1130 (Cajah Mountain Road) - Signalized With the existing geometry, this intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the expected 2030 traffic volumes, it is recommended that the northbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of U-turn storage and 125 feet of right-turn storage. The southbound approach should provide a minimum of 300 feet of shared U-turn, left-turn storage and 300 feet of left-turn storage. The westbound approach should provide a minimum of 400 feet of right-turn storage. With these improvements in place, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS B in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1136 (Lea Pearson Road) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the eastbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS D in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The northbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the expected 2030 traffic volumes, it is recommended that the northbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of shared U-turn, left-turn storage. The eastbound approach should provide a minimum of 175 feet of right-turn storage. With these improvements in place, the northbound shared U-turn, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS B in 2030, while the eastbound left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F with a 95'h percentile queue of seven (7) vehicles in 2030. This intersection may require signalization by the design year. If the intersection is signalized, it is expected to operate at an overall LOS A in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1283 (Conway Drive) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the eastbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS D in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The northbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the proposed geometry, the eastbound right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS B in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1139 (Baton School Road) - Signalized With the existing geometry, this intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS B in the 2008 No Build Scenario. 10 Given the expected 2030 traffic volumes, it is recommended that the northbound approach should provide a minimum of 250 feet of shared U-turn, left-turn storage. The southbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of U-turn storage and 100 feet of right-turn storage. The eastbound approach should provide a minimum of 175 feet of right-turn storage. With these improvements in place, the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS B in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1124 (Baton Church Road) - Unsignalized With the existing geometry, the westbound shared left-turn, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2008 No Build Scenario. The southbound shared through, left-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the proposed geometry, the westbound right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS C in 2030. SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) at SR 1115 (Dry Ponds Road) - Signalized With the existing geometry, this intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS C in the 2008 No Build Scenario. Given the expected 2030 traffic volumes, it is recommended that the northbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of left-turn storage and 175 feet of right-turn storage. The southbound approach should provide a minimum of 375 feet of shared U-turn, left-turn storage and 100 feet of right-turn storage. The eastbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of left- turn storage. The westbound approach should provide a minimum of 175 feet of left-turn storage. With these improvements in place, the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS C in 2030. Table 1a summarizes intersection Level of Service for Build Scenarios. TABLE 1 a. Intersection Level of Service for Build Scenario INTERSECTION MOVEMENT 2030 SR 1001 at SR 1933 Southwest Boulevard Signalized F SR 1001 at SR 1153 (Clarks Chapel Road) NB UL D B EB LR F SR 1001 at SR 1169 Fairway Acres Drive WB R D SR 1001 at SR 1168 (Sunshine Lane WB R C SR 1001 at SR 1280 Floral Drive) EB R C SR 1001 at SR 1210 (N. Andrew Circle) SB UL C A WB LR F SR 1001 at SR 1159 (Pleasant Hill Road Signalized B SR 1001 at SR 1146 Orchard Drive Signalized B SR 1001 at SR 1296 (Shannon Drive) EB R C 11 NB UL C SR 1001 at SR 1221 (Oakmont Drive) SIB U B A EB LR F SR 1001 at SR 1258 (Catawba Terrace) WB R C SR 1001 at SR 1203 (Cottage Grove Road WB R C SR 1001 at SR 1245 Brandon Road WB R B SR 1001 at SR 1254 (Bradshaw Terrace) EB R C SR 1001 at SR 1134 (Union Grove Road Signalized C SR 1001 at SR 1222 (Berry K Drive WB R C SR 1001 at SR 1222 (Wimberly Drive) WB R C SR 1001 at SR 1130 Ca'ah Mountain Road Sign lized B SR 1001 at SR 1136 (Lea Pearson Road) NB UL B A EB LR F SR 1001 at SR 1283 (Conway Drive) EB R B SR 1001 at SR 1139 (Baton School Road Signalized B SR 1001 at SR 1124 (Baton Church Road) WB R C SR 1001 at SR 1115 (_Di,, Ponds Road) Signalized C e. Crash Data and Analysis During a three year period between 2005 and 2008, a total of 223 crashes were reported along the project corridor. Rear-end collisions accounted for 48.43% of all crashes. This was followed by left turn collisions (15.25%) and collisions with fixed objects (7.62%). The total crash rate within the project study corridor is 258.27 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (mvmt). This rate is significantly higher than the statewide crash rate for 2-lane undivided NC routes, which is 175.41 crashes per 100 mvmt (from 2005 to 2007). With the construction of R-3430, congestion along the mainline will decrease and storage for turning movements will be improved. Therefore, the amount of rear-end collisions due to stop and go traffic as well as the amount of collisions occurring within turning movements should decline. A comparison of the rates for different crash types on SR 1001 versus other NC rural undivided highways in North Carolina is shown in Table 1 b. 12 Table 1b. Crash Rates (Der 100 million vehicle miles) Crash Rate SR 1001 Crash Rates for Minor Urban Arterials Total Rate 258.27 175.41 Fatal Crash Rate 2.32 2.14 Non-Fatal Crash Rate 113.50 66.12 Night Crash Rate 48.64 60.38 Wet Crash Rate 47.49 33.32 '2005 - 2007 Crash Rates Tame 1c. Crash Type summa Crash Type Number of Crashes Percent of Total Angle 13 5.83 Animal 7 3.14 Backing Up 1 0.45 Fixed Object 17 7.62 Head On 3 1.35 Left Turn, Different Roadways 22 9 87 Left Turn, Same Roadway 12 5.38 Other Collision w / Vehicle 6 2.69 Other Non-Collision 5 2.24 Overturn / Rollover 1 0.45 Parked Motor Vehicle 2 0.90 Ran Off Road, Left 1 0.45 Ran Off Road, Right 1 0.45 Rear End, Slow or Stop 92 41.26 Rear End, Turn 16 7.17 Right Turn, Different Roadwa s 10 4.48 Right Turn, Same Roadwa 1 0.45 Sideswipe, Opposite Direction 10 4.48 Sideswipe, Same Direction 3 1.35 3/01/05- 2/29/2008 13 f. Airports Hickory Regional Airport is located six miles from the project area and provides general aviation services only. Charlotte-Douglas International Airport is located approximately 50 miles from the project study area. The airport provides passenger and general aviation services g. Cemeteries There is only one cemetery located near Baton Baptist Church that will be affected by the proposed improvements. Approximately 50 feet of frontage property will be affected, most of which will be needed for construction easement only. No graves will be affected by the design. 2. Thoroughfare Plan and System Linkage The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) produced the Thoroughfare Plan for Caldwell County in 2001, and it was adopted by the Caldwell County Planning Board on January 7, 2002. SR 1001 is classified as a minor urban arterial on the North Carolina Highway Functional Classification System. The improvements to SR 1001 will provide an improved connection between US 321 and Interstate 40 and US 70 in Burke County. C. Benefits of Proposed Project NCDOT proposes to widen SR 1001 to a four lane divided facility from SR 1115 (Dry Ponds Rd.) to SR 1933 (Lenoir Southwest Blvd.). The improvements proposed by the project will increase capacity and improve mobility within the project study area, as well as upgrade the existing facility so that it is consistent with similar roadways carrying regional travel. The road should also experience a decrease in both rear-end collisions and turning movement collisions. III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED A. General The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) propose to upgrade SR 1001 to a four lane divided facility with a raised median from SR 1115 (Dry Ponds Rd.) to SR 1933 (Lenoir Southwest Blvd.) 14 B. Build Alternative The NCDOT-preferred alternative consists of widening SR 1001 to a four lane divided facility with a 23-foot raised median throughout the project study corridor. C. Typical Section Alternatives SR 1001 will have a varied cross-section within the project study area. In this plan, the recommendation for the project corridor is for most sections to be four-lane curb and gutter with narrow, raised medians. Some sections would be five lanes with curb and gutter. D. Transportation System Management (TSM) Transportation system management was considered for the project. However, the improvements would not have met the purpose and the need of the project. Transportation systems management strategies are low-cost but effective in nature, which include, but are not limited to: e Intersection improvement e Data collection to monitor system performance Signal coordination E. Alternative Modes of Transportation Transit in the area is limited. The Caldwell County Area Transit System (CCATS) is the only system in the area. CCATS operates on subscription and on dial-a-ride service only. The system has no fixed routes. These services are offered to citizens of Caldwell County. CCATS operates from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. CCATS does offer services in the project direct impact assessment area. The improvement is not expected to encourage expansion of services along the corridor. F. "Do Nothing" Alternative If the proposed improvements to SR 1001 are not made, the entire project study area will continue to experience considerable congestion and no improvement in travel times. Therefore, NCDOT does not recommend implementation of the no-build alternative. G. NCDOT Preferred Alternative The NCDOT-preferred alternative is the build alternative. The build alternative will address the safety issues experienced within the project study corridor by improving sight distances at hazardous intersections and increasing 15 capacity, which will improve overall traffic flow. The proposed improvements will also decrease travel times by the reduction of congestion. These improvements will also improve access to the businesses and residences adjacent to the project study corridor. IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS A. Length of Project The total length for the proposed project is approximately 7.1 miles. B. Typical Section The build alternative proposes to upgrade SR 1001 within the study area to a four lane divided facility with two twelve-foot lanes in each direction, as well as a raised median of varying width. C. Structures The project within the stated limits has minimal structure work. There are two culverts which may need to be extended. D. Traffic Control during Construction Traffic will be maintained on site during construction. E. Right of Wav NCDOT owns right of way with variable width along the project corridor. Additional right of way will be purchased to accommodate the widened SR 1001. Typical right of way width will be from 110-150 feet. Temporary construction easements on both sides of the project may also be required. Permanent drainage easements may be required in some areas along the proposed project. Due to the close proximity of the right of way and/or easement areas to certain grave sites, retaining walls may be needed to help eliminate any grave removal. F. Intersection Treatment There are a total of twenty four (24) intersections, seven of which are signalized and seventeen which are unsignalized. Of all of the intersections, NCDOT proposes that eleven will require significant storage for turning movements (left, right, or U-turn). 16 G. Sidewalks/Bicycle Accommodations There are no bicycle or pedestrian facilities along Connelly Springs Road. Current plans for the improvement do not make provisions for those services. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are not recommended in either the thoroughfare plan or land development plan for the Town of Cajah's Mountain. H. Access Control NCDOT proposes no control of access along SR 1001. Design Speed and Proposed Posted Speed Limit The proposed project will have a design speed of 50 miles per hour (mph) throughout the project study corridor. The anticipated-posted speed limit is 45 mph. J. Degree of Utility Conflicts Utility conflicts along the proposed project are considered to be an average. Aerial lines carrying power and telephone services run parallel to SR 1001 for the entire length of the project. The sub-surface utilities consist of multiple sewer, water and gas lines that need to be relocated during the widening of the project. K. Airports The proposed project will have no impact on the Hickory Regional Airport, which is six miles from the project area, nor the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, which is located approximately 50 miles from the project study corridor. L. Cost Estimates The proposed project is included in NCDOT's approved 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP estimated costs and the total project construction costs are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Preliminary Cost Estimates Current Cost Estimate Construction Right of Way Prior Years 766V $46,000,000 $27,500,000 $1,500,000 $75;000,0004 `, fi 17 Draft 2009 - 2015 TIP Estimate Construction Right of Way Prior Years Tofal'Cosf $37 900 000 $27 500 000 $1 500 000 $669 00',OOQ , , , , , , . V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION A. Cultural Resources Compliance Guidelines 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. 2. Historic Architecture The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) requested surveys for historic structures in their memo to NCDOT dated April 17, 2003 and included in Appendix B. A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted in May 2003 and reviewed by an NCDOT architectural historian. Twenty-six structures over fifty years of age within the APE were recorded. The photographs of these properties along with their evaluations were presented to the HPO in the Historic Architecture Survey Report on June 3, 2003. After receiving this survey report, HPO staff concurred that two of the properties were eligible for the National Register in the letter of June 27, 2003 included in Appendix B. The Waitsel Monroe Smith House, located at the east side of SR 1001 at the junction with SR 1139 in Baton, was determined to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion C. It stands as one of the finest remaining Queen Anne- style farmhouses in Caldwell County. The Elizabeth Bush House is located approximately 0.2 miles south of the junction between SR 1001 and SR 1159 in the vicinity of Cajah's Mountain. It was determined to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion C. It is a sizable example of the rustic log architecture built in western North Carolina during the early twentieth century. The associated garage contributes to the architectural significance of the property. 18 An effects meeting was held on July 7, 2008, and a decision concerning the two properties was confirmed on August 11, 2008. The project was determined by NCDOT, HPO, and FHWA to have no effect on the Waitsel Monroe Smith House and no adverse effect on the Elizabeth Bush House. 3. Archaeology HPO requested an archaeological survey in a letter issued on April 17, 2003. Five sites were identified in the following 2004 survey, including three cemeteries, but none were considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties. A letter for R-3430 issued by HPO on October 7, 2004 recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. This letter is also included in Appendix B. B. Land Use and Community Impacts Assessment 1. Community Characteristics a. Geographic Location TIP Project R-3430 is located in Caldwell County which is in North Carolina's Western Piedmont-Foothills region. Caldwell County is bounded by Avery County to the west, Burke County to the southwest, Alexander County to the east, Catawba County to the southeast, Wilkes County to the northeast, and Watauga County to the north. Area landmarks include Tri-County Speedway, Wilson's Creek, Pisgah National Forest, and Tuttle Educational State Forest. The city of Lenoir is the Caldwell County seat and is centrally located in the county. b. Land Use and Transportation Plan The land use within the project study area consists of residential, commercial, and manufacturing facilities. The predominant land use in the area is low and medium density single-family detached residential development. Most residences in the Town of Cajah's Mountain are located within 1000 feet of the project corridor. There are numerous businesses along SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road). Appendix D lists most of these businesses and their locations along the project corridor. The businesses are primarily service related enterprises including retail sales, convenience stores, and auto and appliance repair operations. Two manufacturing businesses are located in the direct impact assessment area (Figure 3). Industrial Glass Products is located at the northern end of the project corridor, south of Clarks Chapel Road. Web 19 Furniture is centrally located along the corridor, just north of Lee Pearson Road. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) produced the Thoroughfare Plan for Caldwell County in 2001. The Town of Cajah's Mountain has a land development plan that was adopted on March 10, 1998. Goals of the plan include maintaining and improving the image of the town as a community in which to live and invest, as well as encouraging quality growth within the community. Zoning districts include Cajah's Mountain and Caldwell County, with the majority of the corridor zoned as low-density to medium-density residential (R-20, RA-20). Nodes of general business (B-1) are located at intersections and cross streets. C. Population and Demographic Characteristics Caldwell County experienced a population growth of 9.5 percent between the 1990 and 2000 census. The majority of the residents of the study area are of white origin. Additional ethnic groups are located within the project study area. Of those, Hispanics have shown the largest population increases from 1990 to 2000. Table 3a. Population by Race and Demographic Oriain Population by Race and Demographic Origin Caldwell County Demographic Study Area Number % Number % Total Population 77,415 14,957 White 71,017 91.7% 14,126 94.4% Black or African-American 4,223 5.5% 367 2.5% American Indian 162 0.21% 42 0.28% Asian / Pacific Islander 327 0.42% 85 0.57% Hispanic or Latino 1,927 2.5% 391 2.6% 2000 Census 13.3 percent of the population of Caldwell County lies within the 65 and older age group. 14.3 percent of the project area's population lies within the 65 and older age bracket. The area is representative of the State and County averages. In Caldwell County, 17.7 percent of households are below the poverty level. Within the project area, 16.2 percent of the total households are below the poverty level. This percentage is slightly higher than the 20 statewide rate. Median household income in the project area is $33,121, and per capita income is $15,553, both considerably less than the state. 2. Project Impacts a. Land Use The proposed improvements to SR 1001 are expected to be consistent with the existing land use patterns within the project study area. Current land use in the study area is a mix of land developed for residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. The primary land use in the study area is use for commercial facilities and residential housing. b. Economic Conditions Existing businesses are crucial to everyday living in the Town of Cajah's Mountain. Connelly Springs Road is the primary access for Cajah's Mountain businesses, therefore it could be considered important that the businesses along the road remain viable and available to the community. NCDOT's relocation report suggests that there will be 97 relocations (homes, businesses, non-profit organizations). The impact could be considerable since the town and Connelly Springs Road are virtually indistinguishable. The project could have serious impacts on the economic stability and the day-to-day lives of the people in the area. Once the project is completed, access along the road will be improved. Although the project area is densely populated with homes and businesses, there are vacant tracts along Connelly Springs Road that would allow limited residential and commercial development. Economic development opportunites in the direct impact assessment area are limited; however those limited opportunities should be improved by the project's completion. C. Mobility and Access The proposed widening to SR 1001 will improve traffic flow through the project study area. The inclusion of a raised median will restrict the left-turns but will improve the flow of the traffic on SR 1001. Accessibility is a problem along Connelly Springs Road. With the congestion problems, the businesses and the EMS agencies have problems responding to calls. During peak travel times on Connelly Springs Road, accessing the road from side streets can be difficult. 21 Making a left turn off Connelly Springs Road is difficult as well. The improvements should alleviate current accessibility issues. d. Safety The proposed improvements should also result in lower accident rates within the project study area. The project is expected to improve safety by improving the ability of SR 1001 to handle current and future traffic. The improvements should reduce the congestion and the safety concerns associated with the facility not being able to accommodate the existing traffic. The improvements to SR 1001 should also improve transportation for EMS and health service vehicles within the study area. e. Provision of Public Services The only school in the project direct impact assessment area is Baton Elementary School on Baton School Road. The school enrollment is approximately 550 students with 65 faculty and staff members. Four school buses make two trips per day along the project corridor; once in the morning and once in the afternoon. These four school buses serve only Baton Elementary School. Schools outside the direct impact assessment area are five to six miles away from the project corridor. Lake Rhodhiss provides recreational boating and swimming. SR 1001 provides access to the lake. The proposed improvements will not hinder access to Lake Rhodhiss. The North Catawba Fire Department is located at the Connelly Springs Road and Cajah Mountain Road intersection. The fire station bay doors appear to be within 30 feet of the edge of pavement of Connelly Springs Road. As Connelly Springs Road is the sole access for the station, maintaining an acceptable level of service for Connelly Springs Road is important to the fire department. There are no police, sheriff, or highway patrol stations within the direct impact assessment area. The NCDOT will have to take the building in the current design. f. Displacements During the project development process, the Roadway Design unit of NCDOT evaluated multiple alignment alternatives including widening to the west (left of -L-), widening to the east (right of -L-), and symmetrical widening. A manual count methodology was utilized to estimate the displacement impacts associated with each of these widening options. Widening to the west side was estimated to impact 35 businesses, 140 residences, 5 churches, and 3 cemeteries. Widening to the east side 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 was estimated to impact 32 businesses, 141 residences, 5 churches, and 3 cemeteries. Symmetrical widening along Connelly Springs Road was estimated to impact 21 businesses, 105 residences, 3 churches, and 3 cemeteries. All three of these alignment alternatives were evaluated as impacting the fire station at Cajah Mountain Road. The table below indicates the churches and cemeteries affected by each option. Table 3b. Churches and Cemeteries Impacted b Widenin Alignments Widening to the Left (West) Symmetrical Widening Widening to the Right (East) Churches - Covenant Baptist - Covenant Baptist - Covenant Baptist - Linda Joyce McGee - Cajah Mountain - Mountain Grove - Cajah Mountain Baptist Baptist Baptist (church owned - Collier's United - Cajah Mountain building) Methodist Baptist - Collier's United - Collier's United Methodist Methodist Cemeteries - Baton Baptist Church - Baton Baptist Church - Baton Baptist Church - Mountain Grove - Mountain Grove - Mountain Grove Baptist Church Baptist Church Baptist Church - Collier's Memorial - Collier's Memorial - Collier's Memorial Three of the churches and all three cemeteries are affected by each of the above alignment alternatives due to their proximity to the current roadway. The Linda Joyce McGee property would be impacted solely by a western widening, while Mountain Grove Baptist Church would be impacted only by an eastern widening. Throughout the project development process, the Roadway Design unit of NCDOT has continued to evaluate alignment shifts to the three alternative alignments previously discussed, in order to minimize displacement impacts. The result of this effort is an additional alignment alternative that is called the "best fit" widening alternate. This best fit alignment alternative is a combination of segments from the original three alignment alternatives together with other alignment shifts focused on minimizing displacement impacts, maximizing the use of existing roadway, and providing a safe, accessible facility for the community. As a result of this effort, the best fit alignment alternative is anticipated to reduce estimated displacement impacts to around 24 businesses, 72 residences, 0 churches, and 0 cemeteries. It is estimated that 305 parcels of land will be affected by the best fit alignment. Any increase in the proposed right-of-way acquisition would 23 cause a substantially larger number of relocations, including businesses, churches, and residential development. For all relocations, it is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of State and Federally assisted projects. Appendix D contains Relocation Report. Environmental Justice One of the fundamental environmental justice principles is, "to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations or low-income populations." The 2000 census data and field surveys indicate that the project study area does not include any low-income or minority communities. The proposed improvements will not adversely impact any environmental justice populations. 4. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Based on analysis, the following was concluded regarding indirect actions associated with the roadway widening project. Two types of changes are considered: change in the rate of development along the project corridor, and change in the character of the neighborhood along the project corridor as a result of potential changes in land use. The time horizon for the study is 2030. Among the major considerations in indirect impact assessment of new or improved roadways is the effect of the activity on the location of local and regional development. Often, a functional relationship can be shown to exist between these events. The improvement of the roadway may accelerate the rate of development along the corridor. Contacts with the local planning staff and on-site inspections confirmed that it is possible that additional (limited) development could occur along Connelly Springs Road. The majority of the corridor is zoned low- to medium-density residential, with general business at intersections and cross streets. Ultimately, development will be limited by the Watershed Protection Regulations (WS IV - Protected Area and WS IV - Critical Area), which apply to the majority of the area within Cajah's Mountain's jurisdiction west of Connelly Springs Road. Along the corridor, development within one- half mile of Rhodhiss Lake is limited to two units per acre with a 24 percent built-upon area. 24 However, the project will not provide access to areas where none exists. Travel time savings should also be limited since the posted speed limit will not change. Indirect effects of the project should be minimal. Cumulatively, if new businesses eventually locate along the road, they might bring jobs that would require a larger workforce in the area. This could create a greater demand for housing and might lead to increased residential development in the area. The improvement of, and additional businesses along, Connelly Springs Road might impact the existing character of the residential neighborhoods located along the corridor. C. Natural Resources 1. Physical Resources a. Physiography, Topography, and Land Use The proposed project is located in the southern portion of Caldwell County near the City of Lenoir (Figure 1 in Appendix A). The northern project terminus is approximately 2.5 miles south of the Caldwell County courthouse in downtown Lenoir. Caldwell County is situated in the northwestern part of the state in the Piedmont physiographic province (NRCS 1989). The geography of Caldwell County consists of steep, deeply dissected eastern flanks of the Blue Ridge Mountains in the northwestern portion of the county, and upland Piedmont landscapes in the central and southeastern parts of the county. Elevations in Caldwell County range from 920 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near Lake Rhodhiss, to 5,920 feet above MSL near Grandfather Mountain. (NRCS 1989). Elevations range from approximately 1,160 feet MSL near the southern project terminus to 1,400 feet MSL near Cajah's Mountain. Current land use in the study area is a mix of land developed for residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. Undeveloped forested land within the study area is described in Section (c.) of this report. The primary land use in the study area is commercial and residential. b. Geology and Soils As shown in Table 3b, eight soil mapping units are identified within the project study area. Along the ridge and existing roadway, Cecil sandy loam complex is the most prevalent soil type in the project study area. 25 Table 3c. Proiect Study Area Soils & Characteristics Percent Hydric Location Soil Mapping Unit Classification Slope Class Throughout project generally Cecil sandy loam (Ce82) Thermic Typic 2 to 8 % No along broad, Kandiudults smooth ridges. Most dominant unit. Throughout Thermic Typic project Cecil sandy loam (CeD2) Kandiudults 8 to 15 % No immediately downslope from CeB2. In the more Cecil-Urban land complex Thermic Typic ° 2 to 8 /o No developed northern (CfB2) Kandiudults portion of the project. In the more Cecil-Urban land complex Thermic Typic ° 8 to 15 /° No developed northern (CfD2) Kandiudults portion of the project. Scattered Thermic locales along Chewacla loam (Cm) Fluvaquentic Nearly level Yes floodplains in northern Dystrudepts portion of the project. Hibriten very cobbly sandy Mesic Typic ° 15 to 60 /o No Side slopes near Cajah loam (HbF) Hapludults Mountain. Stream Thermic Typic terraces in Masada loam (MaB) Hapludults 2 to 8% No the northern portion of the project. Ridges and Pacolet find sandy loam Thermic Typic 15 to 25% No side slopes (PaE) Kandiudults throughout ro'ect. C. Biotic Resources There are four terrestrial communities located within the project study area. Community boundaries within the study area are generally well defined without a significant transition zone between them. The observed communities in order of their predominance within the study 26 area are: (1) Urban/Disturbed Community - 88% (2) Dry Oak - Hickory Forest - 6%, (3) Pine Plantation - 5%, and (4) Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest - 1 %. Terrestrial impacts can result in changes in both species numbers and composition. Plant communities found along the proposed project study area often serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for wildlife. The proposed project construction may reduce the existing habitat for these species, thereby diminishing fauna numbers. Additionally, the reduction of habitat within the project study area concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, therefore causing some species to become more susceptible to disease, predators, and starvation. Ecological impacts can also occur outside of the project study area because of habitat reduction. Typically, those areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early successional habitats. The reduction/change of habitat, while attracting other wildlife, may displace existing wildlife further from the roadway. The animals displaced by construction activities may repopulate other areas suitable for the species. However, the. increased animal density can result in an increase in competition for the remaining resources. The widening of SR 1001 may result in certain unavoidable impacts to the aquatic communities. Probable impacts resulting from changes in water quantity and quality will include the physical disturbance of the benthic and water column habitats. Significant disturbance of stream segments can also have an adverse effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic communities: • Inhibition of plant growth. • Resuspension of organic detritus and removal of aquatic vegetation that can lead to increased nutrient loading. Nutrient loading can lead to algal blooms and ensuing depletion of dissolved oxygen levels. • Increases in suspended and settleable solids that can lead to clogging of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms and the gills of fish. • Loss of benthic macro i nverte brates through increased scouring and sediment loading. • Loss of fish shelter through removal of overhanging stream banks and snags. • Increases in seasonal water temperatures resulting from removal of riparian canopy. Unavoidable impacts to aquatic communities within and immediately downstream of the project study area will be minimized to the 27 fullest degree practicable through strict adherence to Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds. 2. Jurisdictional Topics a. Water Resources The USACE promulgated the definition of "waters of the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). "Waters of the United States" include most interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. A wetland is an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 CFR §328.3(b)). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and other similar areas. Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into "waters of the United States" falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must follow the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344). Streams within the study area are located in Catawba River Subbasins 03-08-31 and 03-08-32. The USGS 8-digit hydrologic unit (HUC) in the study area is 03050101. Five perennial streams and two intermittent streams were observed and surveyed within the project study area. Stream S1 is an unnamed tributary (UT) to Stafford Creek which is identified by DWQ index number 11-43-(1). All other streams within the project study area are UTs to Gunpowder Creek which is identified by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) index number 11-55-(0.5) (DWQ 2007a). Table 3c describes the streams surveyed within the project study area. Table 3d. Stream Classification and Impacts STREAM BANK HEIGHT (ft.) BANKFULL WIDTH (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) STREAM DETERMINATION IMPACTS (linear ft.) S1 (UT to Stafford Creek) 3-5 2-3 0.0 Intermittent 150 S2 (UT to Gunpowder Creek) 4-7 6-7 0.5-1.0 Perennial 90 S2A (UT to Gunpowder Creek) 3-8 2-3 0.2-0.4 Perennial 630 S3 (UT to Gunpowder Creek) 2-4 4-6 0.4-1.0 Perennial 0 S3A (UT to Gunpowder Creek) 3-4 3-4 .02-.08 Perenniat 0 S38 (UT to Gunpowder Creek) 3-5 3-4 0 Intermittent 0 S4 (UT to Gunpowder Creek) 3-7 3-4 0.1-0.3 Perennial 310 28 According to NCWRC and DWQ GIS data layers, none of the streams within the project study area have been designated as trout waters. Formal concurrence from NCWRC pertaining to the lack of trout waters and construction moratoriums within the project study area was received on January 9, 2008. Wetlands have been defined by the USACE (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater long enough and frequently enough under normal conditions to support a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. While the USACE does not have jurisdiction over isolated waters, they are protected under North Carolina statutes. Wetland delineations were conducted as part of the field investigations on August 28, 2007. Only one area of wetlands, located near Cajah Mountain community was delineated within the project study area. The wetland delineated is a small forested headwater wetland associated with a stream which is located outside the boundaries of the project study area. The study area is located in the Catawba River basin, which currently enforces riparian buffer rules below Lake James in Burke and McDowell counties. The 50-foot riparian buffers rule applies to only the main stem of the Catawba River; therefore, it does not apply to any surface waters within the project study area. During construction all materials will be stored in upland areas and runoff will be controlled to prevent contamination of surface waters. Equipment will be operated from uplands and will not be placed in Waters of the US, unless permitted. The delineated areas where stream and wetland impacts are expected to occur are shown in Figure 2 (Appendix A). 3. Permit Issues The USACE issues general and individual permits. Nationwide permits (NWP) are a type of general permit used throughout the United States that authorize certain activities that are considered routine and that are expected to have minimal adverse consequences to the environment. Permits will be required for roadway encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters. The type of activity, the extent of the impacts, and the specific environment impacted will be considered by the Wilmington District before a determination is made to authorize use of a permit. It is expected that the project will require a series of 29 Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 14s. The USACE issues a NWP No. 14 for linear transportation projects impacting Waters of the United States, provided that the project is in non-tidal waters and the discharge does not cause the loss of greater than a half an acre of wetlands or greater than 300 linear feet of stream channel for each crossing of jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands. An Individual Permit will be required for two of the stream impacts (Streams 2A and 4). The USACE also issues Nationwide Permit 33 when construction activities necessitate the use of temporary structures such as cofferdams, placement of access fill material, or dewatering of the construction site unless these activities are not adequately addressed in an environmental document. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) is required for any activity, including maintenance or construction activities which may result in a discharge into Waters of the US. The DWQ issues a WQC # 3704 when the USACE issues a Nationwide Permit 14 and a WQC #3688 for impacts associated with a NWP 33. Impacts to waters deemed isolated by the USACE will require an isolated waters permit from the DWQ. a. Mitigation The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a mitigation policy which embraces the concepts of "no net loss" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the US. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoidance of impacts (to Waters of the US), minimizing impacts, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered in sequential order. Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the US. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the USEPA and the USACE in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. The following methods are suggested to avoid adverse impacts to Waters of the US. 30 • Consideration of all alternative courses of action, including the "no build" alternative. • Within constraints related to the 'Purpose and Need' of the project, and where practicable, move roadway alignment away from surface waters and wetlands. • Where feasible, using spanning structures over Waters of the US. It is not feasible for this proposed roadway to completely avoid impacts to the Waters of the US and still meet the purpose and need of the project. Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the US. Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. The following methods are suggested to further minimize adverse impacts to Waters of the US: • Clearing and grubbing activity should be minimized. • Decrease or eliminate discharges into Waters of the US by strictly enforcing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control sedimentation during project construction. • Reestablish vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious pesticide and herbicide management. • Minimization of "in-stream" activity. • Use responsible litter control practices. Compensatory mitigation includes restoration, enhancement, or creation for wetland and stream functions and values that are lost when these systems are converted to other uses. Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of the US have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands and streams" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. The USACE may require compensation under a NWP No. 14 if the discharge causes the loss of any wetlands or if the activity causes more than 150 linear feet of perennial streambed impacts or intermittent streambed impacts if the intermittent stream has important aquatic function(s) as deemed by USACE. Final 31 compensatory mitigation requirements for jurisdictional wetland and stream impacts are ultimately left to the discretion of the USACE and DWQ. Off-Site Mitigation Off-site mitigation should be considered as the first mitigation option whenever unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands occur. In accordance with the "Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District", July 22, 2003, the EEP, will be requested to provide off- site mitigation to satisfy the federal CWA compensatory mitigation requirements for this project. 4. Federally Protected Species Species federally classified as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), Proposed Threatened (PT), and Threatened due to similarity of appearance (T (S/A)) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Endangered refers to "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and threatened refers to "any species likely to become an Endangered Species within the foreseeable future throughout all of a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532)." Federally protected species listed for Caldwell County as of May 10, 2007, the USFWS lists the following federally protected species for Caldwell County. Table 3e. Federall Protected S ecies in Caldwell Count Common Name Scientific Name Federal Habitat Biological Status Present Conclusion Bog turtle Clemmys Threatened No None muhlenbergii (S/A) required Virginia big-eared Corynorhinus bat townsendii Endangered No No Effect virginianus Spruce-fir moss Microhexura spider montivaga Endangered No No Effect Heller's blazing star Liatris helled Threatened No No Effect Dwarf-flowered Hexastylis naniflora Threatened Yes MANLAA heartleaf 32 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi?) Federal Status: Threatened (due to a similarity of appearance) Suitable habitat for the bog turtle consisting of bogs, swamps, marshy meadows, and other wet environments does not exist in the project study area. The bog turtle is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance [f (S/A)] to the northern population of the bog turtle that is listed as a threatened species. According to NCNHP information, there is one element occurrence of a bog turtle on May 21, 2004 3.0 miles west of the Cajah Mountain community. The bog turtle is threatened due to similarity of appearance and therefore are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for the species is not required. Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) Federal Status: Endangered Biological Conclusion: No Effect Roosting habitat for the Virginia big-eared bat consisting of caves, mines, or suitable abandoned buildings is not present within the study area. NCNHP maps were reviewed from information last updated on July 2, 2007 to determine if occurrences of the Virginia big-eared bat have been identified near the project area. This map review confirmed that no occurrences of the Virginia big-eared bat have been identified within a one-mile radius of the project study area. Upon investigating potential roosting habitat in the project study area, the NCDOT determined the proposed project will have No Effect on the Virginia big-eared bat. Spruce-fir moss spider (Microhexura montivaga) Federal Status: Endangered Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat for spruce-fir moss spider consisting of moss mats growing on rock outcrops and boulders on peaks at and above 5,400 feet in elevation is not present within the project study area. The elevation within the project study area does not exceed 1,400 feet MSL. NCNHP maps were reviewed from information last updated on July 2, 2007 to determine if occurrences of the spruce-fir moss spider have been identified near the project area. This map review confirmed that no occurrences of the spruce-fir moss spider have been identified within a one-mile radius of the project study area. Based on this analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed project will have No Effect on the spruce-fir moss spider. 33 Heller's blazing star (Liatris hellen) Federal Status: Threatened Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat for Heller's blazing star consisting of high elevation or rock outcrops and cliffs is not present within the,study area. NCNHP maps were reviewed from information last updated on July 2, 2007 to determine if occurrences of Heller's blazing star have been identified near the project area. This map review confirmed that no occurrences of Heller's blazing star have been identified within a one-mile radius of the project study area. Based on this analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed project will have No Effect on Heller's blazing star. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) Federal Status: Threatened Biological Conclusion: MANLAA Suitable habitat for dwarf-flowered heartleaf consisting of acidic sandy loam soils along bluffs and nearby slopes, hillsides and ravines, in boggy areas adjacent to creekheads and streams is present within the study area. During the field investigations, suitable habitat was noted on several of the north facing slopes along streams within the project study area. Within these areas of suitable habitat biologists identified other Hexastylis spp. Plant surveys will need to be conducted throughout the project study area, especially in the areas identified to contain suitable habitat during the appropriate flowering season, which for dwarf- flowered heartleaf is from mid-March through early-June. NCNHP maps were reviewed from information last updated on July 2, 2007 to determine if occurrences of dwarf-flowered heartleaf have been identified near the project study area. This map review confirmed that one occurrence of dwarf- flowered heartleaf has been identified within the project study area. Further review suggests the dwarf-flowered heartleaf population lies outside of the slope stake line for the current design. The biological conclusion will stand as May Affect, Not to Likely Adversely Affect (MANLAA). D. Highway Traffic Noise 1. Introduction In accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (Title 23 CFR 772), each Type I highway project must be analyzed for predicted traffic noise impacts. Type I projects are proposed Federal or Federal-aid highway projects for construction of a highway on new location or improvements of an existing highway which significantly changes the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the vehicle 34 capacity. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise found in Title 23 CFR 772, which also includes provisions for traffic noise abatement measures. When traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures must be considered for reducing or eliminating these impacts. A copy of the unabridged version of the full technical report entitled Highway Traffic Noise / Construction Noise Analysis can be viewed in Room 464, the Transportation Building, 1 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh. 2. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours The maximum number of receptors in each project alternative predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in the table below. The table includes those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts by Alternative' Alternative Traffic Noise Impacts - 4-Lane Study Residential Churches/Schools Businesses Total Symmetrical Widening 171 5 15 186 East Side Widening 111 5 6 122 West Side Widening 150 3 18 171 Alternative Traffic Noise Impacts - 5-Lane Study Residential Churches/Schools Businesses Total Symmetrical Widening 165 East Side Widening 135 West Side Widening 147 5 15 185 5 5 145 3 16 166 'Per TNM®2.5 and in accordance with 23 CFR Part 772 35 The maximum extent of the 72- and 67- dBA noise level contours measured from the center of the proposed roadway is 75 feet and 123 feet, respectively. 3. "Do Nothing" Alternative The Traffic Noise Analysis also considered traffic noise impacts for the "no-build" alternative. If the proposed project does not occur, 138 receptors are predicted to experience traffic noise impacts and the future traffic noise levels will increase by approximately 5 dBA. Based upon research, humans barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change is more readily noticeable. Therefore, most people working and living near the roadway will notice this predicted increase. 4. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts were considered for all impacted receptors in each alternative. The primary noise abatement measures evaluated for highway projects include highway alignment changes, traffic system management measures, buffer acquisition and noise barriers. For each of these measures, benefits versus costs, engineering feasibility, effectiveness and practicability, land use issues, and other factors were included in the noise abatement considerations. Substantially changing the highway alignment to minimize noise impacts is not considered to be a viable option for this project due to engineering and/or environmental factors. Traffic system management measures are not considered viable for noise abatement due to the negative impact they would have on the capacity and level of service of the proposed roadway. Costs to acquire buffer zones for impacted receptors will exceed the NCDOT abatement threshold of $35,000 per benefited receptor, causing this abatement measure to be unreasonable. 5. Noise Barriers Noise barriers include three basic types: vegetative barriers, earthen berms and noise walls. These structures act to diffract, absorb and reflect highway traffic noise. For this project, the cost of acquiring additional right of way and planting sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the NCDOT abatement threshold of $35,000 per benefited receptor. Also, for this project, earthen berms are not found to be a viable abatement measure because the additional right of way, materials and construction costs are estimated to exceed the NCDOT abatement threshold of $35,000 per benefited receptor. 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 This project will maintain uncontrolled right of way access, meaning that most commercial establishments and residences will have direct access connections to the proposed project, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade. Businesses, churches and other related establishments require accessibility and high visibility. Noise barriers do not allow uncontrolled access, easy accessibility or high visibility, and would therefore not be acceptable abatement measures for this project. Based on the Traffic Noise Analysis, traffic noise abatement is not recommended for this project because of the previously noted uncontrolled right of way access: therefore, no noise abatement measures are proposed. Summary Based on this preliminary study, traffic noise abatement is not recommended and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772. No additional noise analysis will be performed for this project unless warranted by a significant change in the project scope, vehicle capacity or alignment. In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development for which building permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the proposed highway project will be the approval date of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). For development occurring after this date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility. E. Air Quality Analysis Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. Changing traffic. patterns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb); these are listed in order of decreasing emission rate. Attainment Status Caldwell County has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 and 93 is not 37 applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area. 2. Carbon Monoxide Automobiles are considered the major source of CO in the project area. In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e. distances within 400 feet) of the receptor location. The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources." In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and the background component was obtained from NCDEHNR. Once the two concentration components were ascertained, they were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the area in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 3. Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone (03) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Automotive emissions of HC and NOx are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. However, regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements may be offset by the increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area. The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all sources in an urban area mix in the atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, react to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog that forms in Los Angeles, California. 38 4. Particulate Matter and Sulfur Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter (PM) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g. industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to exceed the NAAQS. 5. Lead Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead, which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline, thereby eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of lead gasoline. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was approximately 0.53 gram per liter. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.003 gram per liter. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 made the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded. 6. Mobile Source Air Toxics In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. 39 The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources. 66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs. This included its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent, as shown in the following graph: VMT Emissions (trillions/year) (tonslyear) ovcw0e)G FUmatle" ffi lb we I Mobdk le ACOMI 200,000 100,000 Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are held constant. VMT.• Highway Statistics 2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2- generated factors for elemental carbon, organic carbon and SO4 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at 10.0 microns. As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section 202(1) 40 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 that will address these issues and could make adjustments to the full 21 and the primary six MSATs. Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis This EA includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this EA. Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information: a. Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve several key elements. This would include emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and final determination of health impacts based on the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science, which prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project. b. Emissions The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level,.it has limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model-- emission factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time. Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT emission rates do change with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative analysis. 41 These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions. MOBILE6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing relative analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations. C. Dispersion The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some time at, some location within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to assess potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting research on best practices in applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general public. Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project- specific MSAT background concentrations. Exposure Levels and Health Effects. Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions about project-specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There are also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure 42 O O 0 O O 0 0 O O O 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 data to the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis. Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of MSATs. Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses. Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency conducted the National Air Toxins Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or state level. The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures. Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen. The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure. Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient evidence in animals. 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation. 43 Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after inhalation exposure. Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases. Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary noncancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these studies. There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary of the series is not expected for several years. Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health outcomes -- particularly respiratory problems-'. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs, instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project. Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably Foreseeable Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current 44 emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not possible to make.a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse impacts on the human environment." In this document, FHWA has provided a quantitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the various alternatives, (or a qualitative assessment, as applicable) and has acknowledged that (some, all, or identify by alternative) the project alternatives may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations. The concentrations and duration of such exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these emissions cannot be estimated. As discussed. above, technical shortcomings of emissions, dispersion models, and uncertain science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT emissions and effects of this project. However, even though reliable methods do not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at the project level, it is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project. Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions (if any) from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives, found at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions.htmI The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools, and businesses; therefore, under each alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSAT could be higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) from the Burke County line to SR 1933 (Lenoir Southwest Boulevard). Upon completion of the project widening, the localized increases in MSAT concentrations would most likely decrease at the intersection, due to decrease in speed and the existence of the project widening. However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the No Build Alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current models. In sum, when a highway is widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the 45 No Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today. Lessening the effects of mobile source air toxics should be considered for projects with substantial construction-related MSAT emissions that are likely to occur over an extended building period, and for post-construction scenarios where the NEPA analysis indicates potentially meaningful MSAT levels. Such mitigation efforts should be evaluated based on the circumstances associated with individual projects, and they may not be appropriate in all cases. However, there are a number of available mitigation strategies and solutions for countering the effects of MSAT emissions. 9. Burning of Debris During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws, and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality, in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary. 10. Summary Vehicles are a major contributor to decreased air quality because they emit a variety of pollutants into the air. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. New highways or the widening of existing highways increases localized levels of vehicle emissions, but these increases could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion, and because vehicle emissions will decrease in areas where traffic shifts away from them. Significant 46 progress has been made in reducing criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles and improving air quality, even as vehicle travel has increased rapidly. This project is located in Caldwell County, which complies with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project will not add substantial new capacity or create a facility that is likely to meaningfully increase emissions. Therefore, it is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area. F. Hazardous Materials Evaluation 1. Purpose The purpose of this evaluation is to identify properties within the project study area that are or may be contaminated and therefore result in increased project costs and future liability if acquired by the NCDOT. Geo-environmental impacts may include, but are not limited to, active and abandoned underground storage tanks (UST) sites, hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills and unregulated dumpsites. Table 6 shows the potential hazardous sites on the project and any impacts brought on by its construction. 2. Summary Seventeen sites currently or formerly containing petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs) exist within the project study area. This total number includes seven active gas stations and five known former underground petroleum storage sites. Of the five former UST sites, three sites have removed the USTs and the remaining two sites could not locate any USTs. A potential dump site was identified by field reconnaissance; however the county has since constructed a disposal facility and cleaned up the site prior to construction. The Geo-environ mental Section observed no additional contaminated properties during the field reconnaissance and regulatory agencies' record search. If any USTs or any potential source of contamination is discovered by Right of Way personnel during the initial contacts with impacted property owners, NCDOT be notified of their presence prior to acquisition, so an assessment can be conducted to determine the extent of any contamination. This assessment will also serve to estimate the associated clean up costs and allow for right of way recommendations. 47 Table 3f. Underaround Storaae Tank Facilities Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities Site # Business Name and Anticipated Anticipated Comments Location Impacts Severity Jack B. Quick #5 Petroleum Negligible to Active gas 1 2790 Connelly Springs Rd contaminated LOW station has three Granite Falls, NC soils 3 USTs River Run Superette Petroleum Negligible to Active gas 2 2751 Connelly Springs Rd contaminated LOW station has five Granite Falls, NC soils 5 USTs Baton Tire & Wheel Petroleum Negligible to Five USTs 3 2614 Connelly Springs Rd contaminated Low removed in Granite Falls, NC soils approx. 1996 Unnamed Business Petroleum Patching in 4 2364 & 2368 Connelly contaminated Negligible to asphalt may Springs Rd soils Low indicate past Granite Falls, NC UST removal J-B Auto Body Repair Petroleum Negligible to USTs removed 5 2111 Connelly Springs Rd contaminated Low from site in 2006 Granite Falls, NC soils Patching in asphalt may Wing Ding Shoppe Petroleum Negligible to indicate past 6 2042 Connelly Springs Rd contaminated LOW UST removal; Cajah's Mountain, NC soils UST may be under north end of building Jack B. Quick #8 Petroleum Negligible to Active gas 7 2036 Connelly Springs Rd contaminated LOW station has four Ca ah's Mountain, NC soils 4 USTs Cajah Mt. Suprette Petroleum Negligible to Active gas 8 1990 Connelly Springs Rd j contaminated LOW station has three ah's Mountain, NC Ca soils 3 USTs Cajah Mt. Tire Store Petroleum Negligible to USTs could not 9 1930 Connelly Springs Rd contaminated Low be located Cajah's Mountain, NC soils Holiday Foods #9 Petroleum Negligible to Active gas 10 1732 Connelly Springs Rd contaminated LOW station has four Ca ah's Mountain, NC soils 4 USTs Tim's Discount Food #1 Petroleum Negligible to Active gas 11 1661 Connelly Springs Rd j contaminated LOW station has four Ca ah's Mountain, NC soils 4 USTs Makeovers Hair Salon Petroleum Negligible to No evidence 12 1657 Connelly Springs Rd contaminated Low found of USTs Ca ah's Mountain, NC soils 48 Picture Perfect Petroleum 13 Photography contaminated Negligible to No evidence 1655 Connelly Springs Rd j soils Low found of USTs Ca ah's Mountain, NC J. Woods Company Sales Petroleum 14 1379 Connelly Springs Rd contaminated Negligible to No evidence Cajah's Mountain, NC soils Low found of USTs Southern MotorSport Former station; Hobbies Petroleum Negligible to UST ports may 15 1383 Connelly Springs Rd contaminated Low have been Cajah's Mountain, NC soils covered by asphalt lot Cajah Mt. Produce Petroleum Negligible to No evidence 16 1354 Connelly Springs Rd contaminated Cajah's Mountain, NC soils Low found of USTs Connelly Spr. Gas House Petroleum Negligible to Active gas 17 534 Connelly Springs Rd j ' contaminated Low station has three Ca ah s Mountain, NC soils (3 USTs G. Construction Impacts To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction of the proposed project, the following measures, along with those previously stated, will be enforced during the construction phase: 1. All possible measures will, be taken to insure that the public's health and safety will not be compromised during the movement of any materials to and from construction sites along the project, and that any inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum. 2. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent endangering the safety and general welfare of the public and to prevent diminishing the value, utility, or appearance of any public or private properties. 3. The contractor shall be required to observe and comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees, including those of the N.C. State Board of Health, regarding the disposal of solid waste. All solid waste will be disposed of in accordance with the Standard Specifications of the Division of Highways. These specifications have been reviewed and approved by the Solid Waste Vector Control Section of the Division of Health Services, N. C. Department of Human Resources. 4. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of way and provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by the 49 Engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution. 5. The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving the area. Before construction is started, a pre-construction conference involving the contractor, pertinent local officials and the Division of Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures, including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the time of construction that will minimize interruption of service. Prior to construction, a determination will be made regarding the need to relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project area. A determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible for this work will be made at that time. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will. be removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. The contractor will devise an erosion control schedule before work is started. The schedule will show the time relationship between phases of the work that must be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe construction practices and temporary erosion control measures that will be used to minimize erosion. In conjunction with the erosion control schedule, the contractor will be required to follow those provisions of the plans and specifications that pertain to erosion and siltation. These contract provisions are in accordance with the strict federal erosion control measures. Temporary erosion control measures such as the use of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the state Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site, building, structure, or object that is included or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow source. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be subjected to brief disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be made to insure that the transportation needs of the public will be met both during and after construction. 50 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O H. 4(f) Resources In compliance with the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, the 4(f) resources located within the project area consist of the two historic properties mentioned earlier in the document. The Waitsel Monroe Smith House, located at the east side of SR 1001 at the junction with SR 1139 in Baton, was determined to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion C. It stands as one of the finest remaining Queen Anne-style farmhouses in Caldwell County. No property rights will be acquired from within the boundary of the Waitsel Monroe Smith house. The Elizabeth Bush House is located approximately 0.2 miles south of the junction between SR 1001 and SR 1159 in the vicinity of Cajah's Mountain. It was determined to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion C. It is a sizable example of the rustic log architecture built in western North Carolina during the early twentieth century. The associated garage contributes to the architectural significance of the property. As a result of the widening project, property (in the form of right-of-way) will be acquired from the boundary of this resource. At an interagency meeting held on August 11, 2008, FHWA informed SHPO that FHWA intended to utilize SHPO's concurrence with a "no adverse effect" determination, as the basis of a deMinimis finding. Documentation regarding this meeting and effect determination is located in Appendix G of this document. There are no public parks located within the project area. The Orchard Hills Golf Course is located approximately 300 feet from the project boundary line and is a public facility; however, the course is privately owned by Orchard Hills Golf Club, Inc., and therefore does not qualify as a 4(f) resource. VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION A. Coordination During the preliminary engineering phase of this project, NCDOT maintained contact with several local, state and federal agencies. Correspondence requesting environmental input was sent to the following agencies; replies were received from those marked with an asterisk (*). NC Dept. of Cultural Resources (Historic Preservation)* NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources* NC Division of Parks and Recreation (Natural Heritage)* Town of Cajah's Mountain* US Army Corps of Engineers (Raleigh) US Environmental Protection Agency (Raleigh) US Fish and Wildlife Service (Asheville) NC Wildlife Resources Commission NC Dept. of Administration (State Clearinghouse) Caldwell County Schools 51 B. Public Involvement and Comments NCDOT held a Citizen's Informational Workshop (CIW) for the project on October 17, 2002. Several citizens were in attendance. Handouts provided at the workshop included a comment sheet, so written comments could be received. The primary concern of citizens was the potential relocations due to the widening of SR 1001. Another concern included the construction of a median having a significant impact on the accessibility of businesses and homes; an open turn lane is preferred. The design incorporates a median to accommodate U-turns and to reduce the probability of opposing direction collisions, which an open turn lane would be prone to cause. A public hearing will take place after the publication and distribution of this Environmental Assessment. At this hearing citizens are given the chance to learn about all of the project's design features and state publicly their individual choice for implementation and/or recommendations for modifications. After the hearing, a Finding of No Significant Impact document will be distributed and will include the recommended alternative for this project. The recommended alternative will be selected based on engineering, environmental information, and public comments. VII. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is anticipated that this project will not have a significant detrimental effect on the quality of the human environment. The proposed project will cause no significant changes in route classification and land use and is not controversial in nature. The project has been reviewed by federal, state and local agencies and no objections have been raised. No major objections to the project were voiced at the citizens' informational workshop held on October 17, 2002. For these reasons, it is concluded that an Environmental Assessment is applicable to this project. 52 APPENDIX A (FIGURES) -I ? * r ? . h dr r Pc y '•9 ? ti aq a8R 1 . I +? L F ?: isaa ' N END PROOJEC4 aq ? ? L?C?C?OnM pG°30OJC?C4 i ? ??? 0 2,000 4,000 Feet a"0'""s.., VICINITY MAP County: CALDWELL °4t NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT PROPOSED WIDENING OF FI ure OF TRANSPORTATION Div: 11 TIPk R-3430 g DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SR 1001 (CONNELLY SPRINGS RD.) PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND WBS: 34544.1.1 1 '? ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH CALDWELL COUNTY TIP PROJECT R-3430 Date: JUNE 2008 rooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo4 ell - 1.`.K Yy t:?t? ^ ?.? M• Y t". i ,, I ; ?..• U-'Y y'i •4?+ ;V. .? v Kfi.,yr a? 47y L 'r°I>_?' : ? .?'?+??.??_ ? 1..?• ,y ? r . ? 3 t rY' f .. ''i^ f?r ' t ,?s?. .?f ` '+.? .4 ?? fit: aY. °,?1 t ?Jf ?tY, k ,f?,> ? 't S ? ,f -S. .Q? ?? ?•S, I? ? c ?' ? rY???',l`:?tl?Y? ? ?, S S ? ?' ., ? ?t? ?, • : ° ?+,' "•L f ~i '` t d a.' .t/ ^ +.•: 1?Tf, 1F 'LAS ?i? 3Jy1'd. '? 5. 41 7h"4?K !' ?. ', ?'r`Y•1' ?M. \a,Y du•?Y ry. ?'??.}-',f4 K, ,t ?r r`'}•Yr 1 -???• (,C _ 5 '1. q 74- a,A. .1 ,ri.. a G..? r , fttL - 1', n r •.r .+ ? !Cl _ v! C _ ' p ` t': f ~ r ? :'??• '? ??•_ • F? ,,gip: S ??w y •. ,? ? ^ ' 'I `!L?Y?y"t 1 ? ? v e t r ` "F?y ?N(? a? •r_' ( (? ? 4?' ?y4 ? '{fit ? ° frC i? •? ,c+F• fi1V? A . ?i• f ' e i •.. e •Y .? 5+?4! kt ?` T t ?'?C ?a Y!. / / f4 ..} , F?:.? r a Z \ - ki A?! ? '+f ,.,7G }?' ?? !L ?%, a Sad {•Y,! j '[,,.• 7C.? ,' .f ?' -.M1? ?,.!7' I 'a a LC\?• qy w?i,.ft. t,`t !•`.}:7.? `mac .qY• t `, ?? - .,.?. ,i r.,? , •">...)..+r .5, N ^ =? ??? rra ?, yY'? ??/,. •*. P,.,??.. ;-c. : rye ?atY ?• +?'i? ?, •j'???n' '? J5 '?+ ;}?*? '`•????ys t ? i+ *}. i .;'( S ? AP ? "+ ? •.c r. ! RR' ? ?. S a °Y r • ..? ,r^4'{• ? ?}? .. 't: ?, f ' Y+. ' . ` j ? 'p` ,. yt?+ t ? } ?" ? ,•{''. ? ? . _ #? r ? jrk lIII444 +. 't 7 ?` •, dt?t-^ ?'4 ry'"7? .`" \ it. ytt n U k .1 t .. y;. fffwU.i''.. . ,+i i • "1? 1. ASS - ?., ' j#'t, '. '.,, ,.?•. a .•4 40 y,? ?15?? ?` +? f ? - ?'( • ?' ?:' ? ? .? .`dk ?, .::? ?'4,, ,.?.. ? ill',: Y,?`1? y? 1 ?I g1F ??.? ?` ,4 ;•-.1r ? ?7!?:• '•.'?I `'? s .,`µ" ?' ? 7C,j • .? • t F i *f f ' RR ? j . ..??'' ?yy 4. ; •• n, * z l • i ?l*fi a. K,..? IVY M j4? t •jr r,• `aL ??C•;ry`A '! It • c?'.'v\ •; N _,? ,?y. 41 ?_?jy? .Xi '•R "..f .3' `. k y?.fi.. + r,.;ft "?,.` F tf, R '?K •- •.y?? ^j, t E'+- •i' `'Yi. M1 { --i??? y/Tt ?'.: F.y,?? ??*? .! T M ?4i` a a . 'Rt •???. S _M ? ! ?, ? ? ??YT.T_ S • ?1, 4 ' a.. ,1???. -Sv. Br?.AT? ? '` 't ??.. ,..??? ?,t?'iX.'ya"??? •r* M',WW? AWN;' '".G - ff. W ? 5 / • +W ? Y ?i .. ?,- '? ?: 'i + ??? r; 5 ,?e' 4 i,? l;?%„'tx /1 J'y?• ?. 4f M?,yi.Y'? 5''fr J ? ., - j _ 'x4' '?M ?'?''f!?I `? - y`' id. ?Y+iS'e.'Y... t? ? .Y.i Ilk •t, ?,f??j\. .,y;y ? K S,.J a,'j S' ?1{ I !? ti Z c? ?'. ..• . i) ?{ ,s+ f?`, ,,??i9. ' iy r ,??1 x,C?' $,7 R~... . '4j? ? 6? -?.'. ri ? _?? ? i g. -'?,i?. 5.? `S ?^. C:. "a ?? +?.r'ti\ » •? x q j 3rd . m.A IVY \ +b" ?.' rl -, A? ? ??' ??^.. ' r rte' Y? r .'.:.'!' ?r ? ?•,. ?•? ?? '? ..i•:?' ''.' s ?? eta+? ? ?, '°' -?.._ `?"•?. ?. ` "•?,- \?t # .,a?• a - ..?.. 4'.''I YtJ ty ?. k ?i, ? •-. ', ? }??1`? bra `? :-Q ':? !!??? ?' M a 4 •?! • 4 .? nl w T • - y P?,?!'j?? ?.' ••la?4? w'• 'h ? "A: . ?'. ` ,r n L C ; do tit „,? *w^" 4y, ? +- r? .mom x -s, ;. •'? b'?'S". l?Cy,? v I•- .? ?,1•, Y ,.r„ ?j?Y- ? •! ?r?• ?Frya ±?{R??n•r 1 -?.?1,t{?c?+k .''•'yll+? ..t?' ?•fr u. C,'•Ti.?r. ?`.. f '7Y,7s? i+?' ?'~3 '`lF__ ti c -y .-•r• `may r a' ? .? ? + y ct; 1 e,L,.- `??! '. 114 1 e ? ?Y ? ? , ? ? ?• . k t_;?_? , 77, _?u- •; . d r :M. z CPC PN LN 1 i w 4 1 5 ? rn. ?1 Q lk 0 4 ? a . s"tO Ir` a 1 ' VIP prof ,rim ? f.,v:.. „? ?... Jllk ,'7? a x O m ..? 1 Qty' ?. :. ,} Dy f•. p. I ? t.1. , ' ry 3i N ? N d V a' ! t4 l ?'-? //a CD 3 ?.- _ T.? ' ?y ?? ~'? I• ?/?LG? ITT '/``?:.y< Vi 41 y? r -. o J` * k # ?. r^+ or • 1• .j Y ?. 4w w Mc. WA.Nft ?"` ? G. ' '' ,. , ,yam, ? ? ?,a?., x.• , , low I?x • ?F .A ` ?oooogooooooooooooooooooooooooooooe .? O r 1 .^ r O C) (BATOK m fill, g:w Ala lie wt® t "ill }. • .. ?. •'?' TT" - Y ?!'? ? ??. ?. .1. pt ccro#R .may P •Y'F ?.i 'M, c G7 ? m <- ? ? m n G7 ? (? (? m to ? o x. 5O m m = c (n ? 7 0? n w m ro " n a " m ? m f0a ? o, ?° u a c v <D a r A o O d 7 W N m ? u *IF fwi, ` ?Y+s P 48 •+ ?yyp :? - a c L7 -o m .Z) „ C) G) v 0 C-) m (n a cn m 5 a7 W m > j ? n o i y m CD mm '° m n o. m m A m c. a fC m CD r, N c? m a a <D m m ?' O Z m Q CT m 10 `m 10 N m n u3 3 •"al?rj?_Y rla "9f•i' . ?. ? s r t i ??.r «14f' C r =?t ?r f wJ VNI, r1 .?? 4L 1?•p, :fA + T 421 40". ._«'??, ?.? c cwt \?•t `? ,?..s .??:0'? ?? ? ?„ • ??. 4 1f1?• ti I' Q d ' a kt! V ? . .04 4`. ,r??_ '? y?J ?" ct 'r? 1. YrM.`I`' 1-. ? ? ? ?'a ?. ? `?r? .? - - ,?rL,: opt 1 2 ?. r i T A% 'k . rtt ? t p q\,. ?oosoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos L1:. . 4 • iJ k ; ??. •Y '? rt?l.?? J?? Lly l ?? f. ? n L r ? y ?C. f w f C 14'"?' ^? ? ?•??•? d ." Y ?i?T ? * if` r '? vC. it t? YY?hL 1. - i d .. `,w/?w t •?^lr???,a. ?t ?! `? r I ?.s- J S J s LY"• ? yy.? ?M vd, AL Y.- - •? ? - f"'"' ??? ? i ! JS/K I't'. ?.r Jai ?. ? •A ., ? L. r. .. To, 3 r4 .A 14 •? - ? if . r : f tip _ t •?'?' -? Mfr r? MP p!'ic.' - - a _.tX"'! ?770 < A' s yT- / f 014 calk ??. Ark? ? j rl t ? ?F Aioi s• 0000000000000000000000000000000004 Aow O x . T? it a W ` 2.,?? c t aRP: rr _?j. 1. `? )F ID CD IF. ,!; ' 1?? !-w{' ''• ?,[M+l jet i Y?^4?'t"i?h• ? I ?j?. ?"7l 1' - +' ?1 t F t' Z <1 II' Y . i3 rr , ' B ? • `?.` ? .: x,11 i , :7j , ad. --' of }fit y.,Cy??I4 r ? ! ,rr $ i ' r? I ? F"? r ?r ?a z .'.'?" y _ nL ?;_? f'.?? pi- >«`• ?7?>' ; N ''"`1'' sy ? ? of t? ., . ;po ?• ?• ,' s• ? t # •rI !fir .:+I r ,j •? ? 11 -C ?w , ?i =Al ? a f Ilk O /7 . vk tt~Y? CD_°'? ???(`"' llbbRR ' Y. R ? i•? Sri' 7: ??a r ?jY ? ?7a •y. r ?' -?.1'M?`jGC' ?.n i,,,,yyyy????9 ?..•F. y. ?j.Y.- a' ? k INI tlOi y Aft v??(. t.`. ® ? q??? ... 1 ? ? ? ``-?. rlr 1L ?9 d II'?' ? - .? ?• b ? . ILL{ Y w- y t ''`C I+ f ?' A 01 irk Fit r _ X, 4L _ IMF- oil' J, 4,4 y ` n- 'dip ?? ?7nr d to ' !., _ AV y* •.~`` _ ?r `" ?a '` ti l.U1jc?G,7l??nN/C? LQ c- T?' l y --rte - ?04 ?1 \- • 141 1*4 N ,?,, .?•,..???? ? ? ?1n Vic: ? ? ?' >(? ? J Ilk Jl? CD )7 'y. 1?1??n}/ ? SIP.-'!111} r I??.yl? j ? rT-r .? n^ H® vine Mal 7tD 1 .• 1 ?_A `- ON -? X11 \lk[? 0. oyl, \ 1 y -00,10 1 t? _». - I 444` /,,'?^1• ,1' 10 Jr IN It L1? 4 7% 49 CD OT ip.?ay1,C 4wo 4"' " yG'1 Y.s:11 ` Yt'•?• A` . e 'rti"} ?., ?? -1j? jr Ad' ' . 1114 Ire - tI. y- • It ' If '1/ ;41 rr, V ?r 141? <1:: _ Mg U- ws a. C-5) w /?/ Cry F l ` ' ? ? 1 ??. ?+c fir; , \N,? ' _ a? 1.?• ,i S ' Ii \ / ?. ??q?y` , ? ~? kv r t, 42 -o`i• `•. .1. It . s1. "i'Rt\? .-? Ilk. - lop IN 1, -4 lit ' 4 ?? Aj?pF -., ? ..? `?`i Y '?? ? r4;? . f j ?t . 6?• -?`?c. "`?'... "RAJ vie, f fir.. t r' •? , .r •- Ti.??`?'1_. .fir ?.tr' .'?a. a61? ?.w - '?, f,F?lf - V.?? •? .-tit ? : - `^^? i H:?:,? 1 '? +l' ? .z,,??? ti t `^ 4f, ?.,' •;r- "fir ,+.f. • ?. j , ? yr ? 0 0 • • • All 0 11-?? APR 22 20C North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources m o gL'P pWI6ICN10F State Historic Preservation Office o?rtwn David L. S. Brook, Administrator N04' ,? rOEVELO? Michael F. Easley, Governor - Division of Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretarv David J. Olson, Director Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary April 17, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NCDOT Division of Highways FROM: David Brook ", &L&'- h-lit-6 , t SUBJECT: ffect from is SR ]1more]Sthan.(Drfifteen y Pondys ears Road) to he arc Scoping, architectural SR 1survey001 for (Ctheonnelly area of Spripngs potential Road) recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identify and evaluate any structures over fifty years olds and report the finds to us. SR 1933 (Lenoir SW Boulevard), R-3430, Caldwell County, ER03-0639 , 2003, concerning the above project. Thank you for your memorandum of March 7 old, we Based on the topographic and hydrological situation of the project, there is a high probability that prehistoric and/or historic archaeological sites may be affected by construction activities. We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains in the undeveloped portions of the project area. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. www.hoo.dcr.state.oc.us i Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919) 733.4763 • 733-8653 RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994613 (919) 733-6547 -7154801 SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994618 (919) 733-6545 • 715-4801 4D A - ° ?c?GEfVCG fifl8 r ono ,. JUL ( ® 0?ce rn ?? O 6'IY',eiOP .< North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources I( ® State Historic Preservation Office ?`I \?, va David L. S. Brook, Administrator fELU 41 7•AL ANp'`'15 0 Michael F. Easley, Governor Li b h C E S ' Division of Historical Resources s et vans, . ecretary David J. Olson Director 0 Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary , 0 0 June 27, 2003 0 MEMORANDUM 0 0 TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NCDOT Division of Highways FROM: David Brook ? "' 0 L , p ict?c?, i SUBJECT: Historic Architectural Survey Report, Widen SR 1001 from the Burke County Line to SR 1933, R-3430, Caldwell County, ER03-0639 Thank you for your letter of June 3, 2003, transmitting the survey report by Frances P. Alexander of 0 Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc. 0 For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under 0 the criterion cited: 0 The Waitsel-Monroe Smith House; Baton 0 The Elizabeth Bush House, Cajah's Mountain vicinity The Waitsel Monroe Smith House, east side of SR 1001 at the junction with SR 1139, Baton, is 0 eligible for the National Register under Criterion C as one on the finest remaining Queen Anne- 0 inspired farmhouses in Caldwell County. 0 The Elizabeth Bush House, east side of SR 1001, approximately 0.2 south of junction with SR 1159, 0 Cajah's Mountain vicinity, is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A. It is a fine, sizable 0 example of the rustic log architecture built in western North Carolina during the early twentieth century. The associated garage contributes to the architectural significance of the property. We concur with the proposed National Register boundaries as described and delineated in the • survey report for both the Waitsel Monroe Smith House and the Elizabeth Bush House. • 0 www.hpo.dcr.state.nc.us Location Mailing Address Telephont/Fax • ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919) 733-4763 •733.8653 • RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 2 7 6 99-16 1 3 (919) 733.6547 . 7154801 SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4618 mwl Service Center, Raleigh NC 2 7 699-16 1 8 (919) 733-6545 . 7154801 0 APPENDIX B (CORRESPONDENCE) nor for All t6? co >> r G l,e L l it Q „`4v ?, ono 6 ,? oA er of A F,? APR 22 20P ® North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources Ao wu?OH F i t,rGrlwn ® State Historic Preservation Office I/ ® David L. S. Brook, Administrator 0 F4',t10 rDEVELOVyS?e' ® Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of ces Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretarv David J. Olson, Director 0 Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary 0 April 17, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NCDOT Division of Highways FROM: David Brook )9^7_?-?i.[ -7" SUBJECT: Scoping, SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) from SR 1115.(Dry Ponds Road) to SR 1933 (Lenoir SW Boulevard), R-3430, Caldwell County, ER03-0639 ® Thank you for your memorandum of March 7, 2003, concerning the above project. Because the architectural survey for the area of potential effect is more than fifteen years old, we recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identify and evaluate any structures over fifty years olds and report the finds to us. Based on the topographic and hydrological situation of the project, there is a high probability that prehistoric and/or historic archaeological sites may be affected by construction activities. We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains in the undeveloped portions of the project area. Potent ial effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act • and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. • www.hpoAcr.statemc.us • Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919) 7334763 • 733-8653 RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4613 Mail service Center, Raleigh NC 276994613 (919) 733-6547 • 715.4801 • SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail service Center, Raleigh NC 276994618 (919) 733-6545 •7154801 • April 17, 2003 Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future cornmurtication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number. cc: Man. Pope Furr, NCDOT Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT n / \/VI ® ? 8R8 a n a JUL 2q v ® North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou C rces Af ?'y`?'"??'t'? Q` ® State Historic Preservation Office D d L S B k °'1'.yrv?? Lo;:k?' '15 ?NT A avi . . roo . Administrator AL NhL Michael F. Easley, Governor E Li b h C S C Division of Historical Resources vans, s et ecretary . David J. Olson. Director 0 Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary 0 0 June 27, 2003 0 MEMORANDUM 0 0 TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager 0 Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NCDOT Division of Highways 0 FROM: David Brook L1 SUBJECT: Historic Architectural Survey Report, Widen SR 1001 from the Burke County Line 0 to SR 1933, R-3430, Caldwell County, ER03-0639 0 Thank you for your letter of June 3, 2003, transmitting the survey report by Frances P. Alexander of 0 Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc. 0 For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under ® the criterion cited: 0 The Waitsel-Monroe Smith House, Baton 0 The Elizabeth Bush House, Cajah's Mountain vicinity 0 The Waitsel Monroe Smith House, east side of SR 1001 at the junction with SR 1139, Baton, is 0 eligible for the National Register under Criterion C as one on the finest remaining Queen Anne- 0 inspired farmhouses in Caldwell County. 0 The Elizabeth Bush House, east side of SR 1001, approximately 0.2 south of junction with SR 1159, 0 Cajah's Mountain vicinity, is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A. It is a fine, sizable 0 example of the rustic log architecture built in western North Carolina during the early twentieth • century. The associated garage contributes to the architectural significance of the property. We concur with the proposed National Register boundaries as described and delineated in the • survey report for both the Waitsel Monroe Smith House and the Elizabeth Bush House. • ADMINISTRATION • RESTORATION SURVEV & PLANNING 0 Location 507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh NC 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC Mailing Addreaf 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 276994613 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994618 (919) 733-[763 • 733-8653 (919) 733.6547 . 7154801 (919) 733.6545 .7154801 Page 2 • The following properties are determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic • Places: 2-5; 8; 10-19; 21-23; and 25-26. • • The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act • and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. • Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above • comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all f i i • uture commun cat on concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number. • cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT Frances P. Alexander, Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc. OI I • •I •I •I • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,. srArt North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator . Michael F. Easley, (lnvernor Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Cmw, Deputy Secretary October 7, 2004 MEMORANDUM .ADMINISTRATION RESTORATION &S URVEV & PLANNING • • TO: Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor Division of Highways Department of Transportation FROM: Peter Sandbeck IL st.A0 e_ - SUBJECT: SR 1001 from SR 1115 to SR 1933,R-3430, Caldwell County, ER 03-0639 Thank you for your letter of September 15, 2004 forwarding the archaeological survey report by Environmental Services, Inc. for the above project. During the course of the survey, five sites were located within the project area. The report author have recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve significant archaeological resources. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number. cc: Scott Seibel, ESI Raleigh Office of Archives and History Division of Historical Resources David Brook, Director 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 776994617 (919)733-4763!133.8653 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)733-6547/715-4801 515 N. Blount Street. Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 776994617 (919)733-6545/715-4801 w' 'ryo O G wnuam v. noss dr., secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources vi Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. A i i ct ng D rector O T Division of Water Quality March 12, 2003 C E! V<c? • MEMORANDUM f TO: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis W-R 14 2003 °='a e?,ftst?a FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator Ct dtj "P^??L - 1ps tid/ 3 .00 SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) from Bur "?? Line to SR 1933 (Lenoir Southwest Blvd.), Caldwell County. TIP Project R-3430 In reply to your correspondence dated March 7, 2003 (received March 12, 2003) in which you requested comments for the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project by the NC Division of Water Quality indicates that unnamed tributaries to Gunpowder Creek (index number 11-55, class C) and the Catawba River (11, class WS-IV & B Critical Area) in Hydrologic Unit 030832 will be impacted. The NC Division of Water Quality has the following comments: Environmental Documentation 1. The environmental document pertaining to this project should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. 2. DWQ recommends that the environmental document include a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed project's impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping as well as the cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project. Design & Construction 1. A biological assessment of Gunpowder Creek showed a good-fair rating. 2. The project shall incorporate the requirements for WS-IV Waters within a critical area as specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0215 (i.e., stormwater management, sedimentation and erosion control, and buffers). 3. Hazardous spill catch basins will most likely be required for this project. 4. The DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) and Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (March 1997) throughout design and construction of the project. 5. The subbasin that this project occurs in, contains portions of the cities of Hickory, Conover and Newton. Highly erodable soils and moderate gradients contribute to the large amounts of sediment in the Little R__ _ tvers (Upper. Middle and Lower) and their trihutaries. Where practicable. • North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit, • 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address) 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location) • 919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/ I® storm water should be directed to buffer areas, grass-lined swales or retention basins and must not be routed directly into streams in order to filter pollutants and sediment. While vegetated buffers are not a requirement within this basin, NCDOT is encouraged to retain vegetation as much as possible. 6. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands. Sediment should be removed from any water pumped from behind a cofferdam before the water is return ed to the stream. 7. Do not use any machinery in the stream channels unless absolutely necessary. Additionally, do not remove vegetation from the stream bank unless it is absolutely necessary. Especially avoid removing large trees and undercut banks. If large, undercut trees must be removed, then cut the trunks and leave the stumps and root systems in place to minimize damage to stream banks. 8. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow. 9. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation. 10. Qualified personnel should perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval. 11. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges, particularly in higher quality waters (i.e. trout streams, water supply watersheds, high quality and outstanding resource waters). 12. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed. Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires tha( appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at (919) 733.5715. pc: John Thomas, USACE Raleigh Field Office Chris Militscher, USEPA Marella Buncick, USFWS Marla Chambers, NCWRC File Copy DIVISION OF PARES AND RECREATION c March 10, 2003 i'aH MEMORANDUM T0: Gregory J. Thorpe .` Dept. of Transportation, Project Development and Environmental Branch FROM: Harry'LeGrand Natural Heritage Program SUBJECT: Caldwell County, SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Road) - widen to multi-lane facility State Project No. 8.2733401; TIP No. R-3430 The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas along the project route nor within a mile of the route. Although our maps do not show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority natural areas. You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at <www.ncsparks. net%nhp/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8687 if you have questions or need further information. TOWN OF CAJAH'S MOUNTAIN 1800 CONNELLY SPRINGS ROAD LENOIR, NORTH CAROLINA 28645 Phone (828) 728-5053 • Fax (828) 728-4166 Richard L Brewer, P.E. Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548 RE: TIP Project R-3430 Connelly Springs Road Caldwell County Dear Sir: The Connelly Springs Road (SR 1001) is a main thoroughfare through the Town of Cajah's Mountain and Our Board agrees that the widening and development of it would be a significant improvement to our town and that area. Of the two options offered at the local public meeting on October 17, 2002 we prefer the 5-lane, center turn design. This construction seems to offer better access for local traffic. We support the project and URGE the DOT to proceed as expeditiously as possible to secure rights-of-way and begin construction. ?Thanks You. Bill Oxford Chairman, Cajah's Mountain Board of Aldermen CF- Sam Erby, Jr The Town of Calam's Mountain does not discriminate on the oasis of race, color, national origin, sea, religion, age or disability in employment or the provision of services. APPENDIX C (AIR & NOISE REPORT) • • • • • • • • Table Al CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 JOB: R-3430 CONNELLY SPR RD./UNION GROVE RD RUN: R-3430 CONNELLY SPR RD./ UNION GROVE RD. SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES --------------------------.---- VS = .0 CM/S VD = U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = LINK VARIABLES 0 CM/S 20 = 108. CM 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 4.0 PPM - ------------- LINK DESCRIPTION ` LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H 11 V/C QUEUE .. .... ---------------- ' X1 -- .------ .---- Yl ..------- X2 --- .------- Y2 ' --- ......* (M) ----------- (DEG ---- ) ----- ----- - (G/MI) -- - (M - ) (M) (VEH) 1 . EB RT Appr. * -1000.0 -6.0 .0 -18.0 * 1000. 91 . AG - 202. - ------ 16.1 - .0 --- ... 32.0 ...-- -----... . 2 . EB RT 0 -500.0 -6.0 -470.9 -6.0 * 29. 90 ..AG 636. 100.0 .0 12.0 .51 4.8 3 . EB RT Dept -18.0 -6.0 -18.0 -1000.0 • 994. 180 . AG 202. 16.1 .O 32.0 4 . ES LT Appr -1000.0 -6.0 -18.0 -12.0 * 982. 90 . AG 203. 16.1 .0 32.0 5 . EB LT 0 -500.0 -6.0 -471.0 -6.0 . 29. 90. AG 636. 100.0 .0 12.0 .51 4.8 6. EB LT Dept ' -18.0 -6.0 -18.0 -1000.0 ` 994. 180. AG 203. 16.1 .0 32.0 7. U6 Dept ' . -18.0 6.0 -1000.0 6.0 - 982. 270. AG 203. 16.1 .0 32.0 8. NB Appr. 18.0 -1000.0 18.0 .0 * 1000. 360. AG 283. 16.1 .0 32.0 9. NB LT Q .0 -30.0 .5 -49.4 * 19. 179. AG 746. 100.0 .0 12.0 .58 3.2 10. NB 0 ` 18.0 -30.0 18.0 -46.0 * 16. 180. AG 251. 100.0 .0 12.0 .26 2.7 11. NB Dep. 18.0 .0 18.0 1000.0 * 1000. 360. AG 321. 16.1 .0 32.0 12. S8 Appr. -1.8.0 1000.0 -18.0 .0 * 1000. 180. AG 321. 16.1 .0 32.0 13. SB Thur/Rt * -18.0 30.0 -18.0 86.6 * 57. 360. AG 392. 100.0 .0 12.0 .76 9.4 14. SB Dep. -18.0 .0 -18.0 -1000.0 ` 1000. 180. AG 283. 16.1 .0 32.0 AD DITI ONAL QUEUE LINK --- PARAMETERS ------------- LINK DESCRIPTION ------ ' CYCLE RED 'CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL ` LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE --- ---- ------ ---------- ` (SEC) -•-..--..---. (SEC) ---_----- (SEC) -..---..... (VPH) ........... (VPH) ....... .-- (gm/ ----- hr) ----- , ------ ------- -- 2- EB RT 0 120 86 2.0 203 1600 330. 60 1 - 3 -- 5. EB LT 0 ' 120 86 2.0 202 1600 330. 60 1 3 9. NS LT 0 120 101 2.0 115 160D 330. 60 1 3 10. NB 0 * 120 34 2.0 283 1600 330. 60 1 3 ' 13. SB Thur/Rt ` 120 53 2.0 641 1600 330. 60 1 3 Table Al (continued) RECEPTOR LOCATIONS .................. ' COORDINATES (M) ' ... RECEPTOR ................... x ................... y z .... ' . 1. REC 1 30.0 ........... 60.0 ....... 1.8 ' 2. REC 2 30.0 105.0 1.8 3. REC 3 45.0 45.0 1.8 ' 4. REC 4 60.0 45.0 1.8 5. REC 5 -30.0 60.0 1.8 • 6. REC 6 -30.0 105.0 1.8 ' 7. REC 7 -45.0 45.0 1.8 • 8. REC 8 -60.0 45.0 1.8 ' 9. REC 9 -30.0 -60.0 1.8 ' 10. REC 10 -30.0 -105.0 1.8 ' 11. REC 11 ' -45.0 -45.0 1.8 ' 12. REC 12 ' -60.0 -45.0 1.8 13. REC 13 30.0 -60.0 1.8 14. REC 14 30.U -105.0 1.8 - 15. REC 15 45.0 -45.0 1.8 • 16. REC 16 60-C -45.0 1.8 ' MODEL RESULTS REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum. WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360. WIND - CONCENTRATION ANGLE • (PPM) (DEGR)• REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16 .-....: .....................................................................................:.......... MAX 5.0 4.8 4.9 4.8 5.6 5.7 4.9 4.7 5.5 5.1 '5.2 4.8 5.4 5.0 5.5 5.1 DEGR. 188 191 204 265 148 169 45 54 60 12 BO 89 300 338 273 273 THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 5.70 PPM AT 169 DEGREES PROM REC6 . lable A2 CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 JOB: R-3430 CONNELLY SPR RD./UNION GROVE RD RUN: CONNELLY SPR RD/UNION GROVE RD Y10 SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES ------------------------------- VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MI%H = 1000. M AMB = 4.0 GPM LINK VARIABLES -------------- LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE ' X1 . Y1 %2 Y2 . (M) (DEG) - --- ------- (G/MI) ---- ---- (M) --- (M) ----- ------ (VEH) .-.--.. -- 1 ---- . EB ---------------- RT App,. -- ----------- -1000.0 --------- -6.0 ---------- . .0 ....... .. -18.0 ' .---------- 1000. -- -- 91. - - AG 223. - 15.5 .0 32.0 2 . EB RT 0 -500.0 -6.0 -468.4 -6.0 - 32. 90. AG 601. 100.0 .0 12.0 .54 5.3 3 . ES R1 Dept ' -18.0 -6.0 -18.0 -1000.0 ` 994. 180. AG 223. 15.5 .0 32.0 4 .. EB L1 Appr -1000:0 -6.0 -18.0 -12.0 - 982. 90. AG 223. 15.5 .0 32.0 5 . EB LT 0 500.0 -6.0 -468.4 -6.0 ' 32. 90. A6 601. 100.0 .0 12.0 .54 5.3 6 . ES LT Dept -18.0 -6.0 -18.0 -1000.0 • 994. 180. AG 223. 15.5 .0 32.0 7 . WS Dept ' -18.0 6.0 -1000.0 6.0 ' 982. 270. AG 223. 15.5 .0 32.0 8 . NS Appr. ' 18.0 -1000.0 18.0 .0 ' 1000. 360. AG 385. 15.5 .0 32.0 9 . NB LT Q .0 -30.0 .5 -51.2 - 21. 179. AG 707. 100.0 .0 12.0 .60 3.5 10 . NB Q _ 18.0 -30.0 18.0 -52.5 ' 22. 180. AG 247. 100.0 .0 12.0 .36, 3.7 11 . NB Dep. 18.0 .0 18.0 1000.0 ' 1000. 360. AG 364. 15.5 .0 32.0 12 . SB Appr. -18.0 1000.0 -18.0 .0 - 1000. 180. AG 364. 15.5 .0 32.0 13 . SB Thur/Rt -18.0 30.0 -18.0 63.4 - 33. 360. AG 389. 100.0 .0 12.0 .45 5.6 14 . SB Dep. " -18.0 .0 -18.0 -1000.0 - 1000. 180. AG 385. 15.5 .0 32.0 ADDITI ONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS -- ------------------- LINK DESCRIPTION --------- CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION ID LE SIGNAL ARRIVAL ' LENGTH TIME 'LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE • (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPM) ------- (VPH) .. (gm/ hr) -- 2. ---- EB ----------------- RT Q - ----------- ' 120 ---------- 85 -------- -- 2.0 ---- 223 1600 316. 30 1 3 5. EB LT 0 " 120 85 2.0 223 1600 316. 30 1 3 9. NB LT Q 120 100 2.0 127 1600 316. 30 1 3 10. NB Q 120 35 2.0 385 1600 316. 30 1 3 13. SB Thur/Rt 120 55 2.0 364 1600 316. 30 1 3 Table A2 (continued) RECEPTOR LOCATIONS __________________ ' COORDINATES (M) ` --- RECEPTOR --------------- ` X ------------------ y -- - z ' - 1. REC 1 30 - ------------- .0 60.0 ---------- 1.8 ' 2. REC 2 • 30 .0 105.0 1.8 3. REC 3 • 45 .0 45.0 1.8 4. REC 4 60 .0 45.0 1.8 ' 5. REC 5 ` -30. 0 60.0 1.8 ` 6. REC 6 -30. 0 105.0 1.8 ` 7. REC 7 ` -45. 0 45.0 1.8 ' 8. REC 8 -60. 0 45.0 1.8 ' 9. REC 9 ` -30. 0 -60.0 1.8 ` 10. REC 10 ' -30. 0 -105.0 1.8 " 11. REC 11 -45. 0 -45.0 1.8 ` 12. REC 12 -60. 0 -45.0 1.8 ` 13. REC 13 30. 0 -60.0 1.8 14. REC 14 30. 0 -105.0 1.8 ' 15. REC 15 45. 0 -45.0 1.8 ^ 16. REC 16 60. 0 -45.0 1.8 ` MODEL RESULTS REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum. WIND ANGLE RANGE:' 0.-360. WIND • CONCENTRATION ANGLE " (-PPM) (DEGR)' REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16 ----------------- _---------- _----- _-------- _----------------------------------------- __________________ MAX 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.7 5.6 5.4 4.8 4.7 5.6 5.3 5.3 5.0 6.0 5.1 5.6 5.3 DEGR. * 187 185 203 258 147 169 66 80 58 15 81 81 298 337 272 272 THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 6.00 PPM AT 298 DEGREES FROM REC13. 0 a 0 0 0 Table A3 CAL30HC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 JOB: R-3430 CONNELLY SPR RD./UNION GROVE RD RUN: CONNELLY SPR RD/UNION GROVE RD Y25 SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL -------------- '-.--. VARIABLES c - VS = .0 CM/S ---..-..- VD = .0 CM/S 20 = 108. CM U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) AT IM = 60. MINUTES MI%H = 1000. M A MB = 4 .0 PPM, LINK VARIABLES ............. . LINK DESCRIPTION ' LI NK COORDI NATES (M) " LENGTH ERG TYPE VPH EF H U V/C QUEUE ....... ' KI .............. Y1 ......... %2 .......... Y2 (M) . (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH) 1. ES RT Appr. - -1000.0 -6.0 .0 ......... -18.0 . ........... - 1000. ......... 91. AG ........ 285. ......... 15.2 ........ .0 32.0 ............. 2. EB RT 0 ' -500.0 -6.0 -454.5 -6.0 ` 46. 90. AG 615. 100.0 .0 12.0 .79 7.6 3. ES PT Dept -18.0 -6.0 -18.0 -1000.0 - 994. 180. AG 285. 15.2 .0 32.0 4. EB LT Appr -1000.0 -6.0 -1B.D .12.0 ` 982. 90. AG 285. 15.2 .0 32.0 5. ES LT 0 -500.0 -6.0 -454.5 -6.0 " 46. 90. AG 615. 100.0 .0 12.0 .79 7.6 6. EB LT Dept • -18.0 -6.0 -18.0 -1000.0 ` 994. 180. AG 285. 15.2 .0 32.0 7. WB Dept .18.0. 6.0 -1000.0 6.0 ' 982. 270. AG 285. 15.2 .0 32.0 8. NB Appr. 18.0 -1000.0 18.0 .0 ' 1000. 360. AG 435. 15.2 .0 32.0 9. NB LT 0 " .0 -30.0 .9 -66.6 " 37. 179. AG 705. 100.0 .0 12.0 .89 6.1 10. NE 0 ' 18.0 -30.0 18.0 -52.5 ` 22. 180. AG 214. 700.0 .0 12.0 .38 3.7 11. NB Dep. ' 18.0 .0 18.0 1000.0 ' 1000. 360. AG 493. 15.2 .0 32.0 12. SB Appr. • -18.0 1000.0 -18.0 .0 - 1000. 180. AG 493. 15.2 .0 32.0 13. SB Thur/Rt -18.0 30.0 -18.0 70.3 • 40. 360. AG 339. 100.0 .0 12.0 .55 6.7 14. SB Dep. -18.0 .0 -18.0 -1000.0 ` 1000. 180. AG 435. 15.2 .0 32.0 ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK -------------- PARAMETERS -------- LINK DESCRIPTION ---------- CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL " LENGTH TIME 'LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE ----------------------- ` (SEC) - +----------- (SEC) --- .------ (SEC) - .-------- (VPH) --------- (VPH) ----- .. (gm/hr). 2. ES RT 0 120 89 2.0 285 ------ 1600 ----...-- 309.20 -----.. 1 -------. 3 -. 5. EB LT 0 120 89 2.0 285 1600 309.20 1 3 9. NB LT 0 ' 120 102 2.0 165 1600 309.20 1 3 10. NB 0 " 120 31 2.0 435 1600 309.20 1 3 13. SB Thur/Rt 120 49 2.0 493 1600 309.20 1 3 Table A3 (continued) RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ------------------ ' COORDINATES (M) ... RECEPTOR ............... ' X Y ................................... 2 . ... 1. REC 1 30.0 60.0 ....... 1.8 ' 2. REC 2 30.0 105.0 1.8 . 3. REC 3 45.0 45.0 1.8 4. REC 4 60.0 45.0 1.8 ' 5. REC 5 -30.0 60.0 1.8 ' 6. REC 6 -30.0 105.0 1.8 ' 7. REC 7 • -45.0 45.0 1.8 8. REC 8 -60.0 45.0 1.8 • 9. REC 9 ' -30.0 -60.0 1.8 ' 10. REC 10 -30.0 -105.0 1.8 11. REC 11 -45.0 -45.0 1.8 12. REC 12 ' -60.0 -45.0 1.8 ' 13. REC 13 * 30.0 -60.0 1.8 • 14. REC 14 30.0 -105.0 1.8 • 15. REC 15 45.0 -45.0 1.8 • 16. REC 16 60.0 -45.0 1.8 MODEL RESULTS REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to the maximum concentration, only the first angle, of the angles with same maximum concentrations, is indicated as maximum. WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360. WIND ' CONCENTRATION ANGLE • (PPM) (DEGR)' REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12 REC13 REC14 REC15 REC16 -.---- « ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MAX 5.4 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.8 5.6 5.1 5.0 5.8 5.8 5.3 5.2 6.2 5.6 5.8 5.4 DEGR. 191 184 197 209 162 167 151 145 63 25 84 90 300 332 270 270 THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 6.20 PPM AT 300 DEGREES FROM REC13. Figure N1 Project.Location.&Ambient Measurement Sites SR 1001 (Connelly Springs Rd.) Widening . CaldwetL County,. TIP # R-3430 d MO111M ?, - ' North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways Air Quality & Traffic Noise Analysis Unit SR 1001 From The Burke County Line to SR 1933 Caldwell County TIP # R-3430 TABLE N1 HE.ARIIIG: SOUNDS BOMB ARDING US D4\1LY 141) S',olgtm blast, jet loo' away at takeoff PAIN , Motor test chamber HUMAN E,\P. PAW THRESHOLD 1 --° 3 0 --'--------------- Firecrackers 120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer Hockey crowd :Amplified rock music UNCO?vfFORTA-ELY LOUD 110 ---- Textile loom 100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor Power lawn mower, newspaper press - Heavy Cry traffic, noisy factory L0LTD 90 ---- --------------- ---'-' °--•------'-° _-----------'- = D ----------° -- -------- --------------- Diesel truck 40 mph at 50' awav E So Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal C Average factory, vacuum cleancr I Passenger car 50 mph at =0' away MODERATELY LOUD E Quiet typewriter L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner S Quiet automobile Normal conversation, average office QUIET 50 ---- '°------------- ------ Household refrigerator 40 ----- Quiet office VERY QUIET ------------------------------------ ------------ ------------'-------------------"--- ------- - Average home 70 Dripping faucet' Whisper at ;' awav 20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF [ `?PjN'G Whisper JUST ADDIBLE Igo ---- -------------------------- 0 THRESHOLD FORA CUT._ HEA , R1NG Sources: World Book. Rand McNally Atlas of die Human Body. Enaclopedia America. "Industrial Noisc and Hearing Concerset (ni" be 1 B. OhIhifski and E. R. Harford (Researched by N Jane Hwu and published ni the Clucagn Tiibunc m an illusiraicd grAphtc hr Toni Heim ) TABLE- N2 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTMTY CATEGORY HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL -DECIBELS (dBA) Activ tY Category Leq(h) Descripuon of Activity Category A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinmy sig ificance (Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualiues are essential if tire arca.is to continue to scree its intended purpose. B 67 Picnic areas, recreation arias. playgrou rids, active sports areas. (Exterior) parks. residences, motels, hotels, schools. churches. libraries, and hospitals. G C 72 Developed lands, properties. or activities not included in Categories (Exterior) A or B above. - D -- Undeveloped lands. F 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms. schools. (Interior) churches, libraries. hospitals, and auditoriums. Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Pan 772. U. S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA) Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from FNisting Noise in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels < 50 >= 50 >= IU . Source North Carolina Department o(Transportation Noise Abatement Policy. Z Q m C7 ? A Z7 S. ? g 0 d ? w w ? F C n ' a . n a = = c 0 ° o ° O n c S c ? c ? °z - U N U N 4+ 00 A n n ? d d d y S a ILI " a d m A A H O z ?- r 0 0 n 0 CD O .D O 00 ?, ? Ctl ?z ?rz n ? O `G ?U w A W O N J to N O G. a o 0 a w a c m °o p 6 ? N O d n a „ Y Y ? 0 n ? H m 3 d m O C 3 N n. ? o n ? o Y o? 0 0' o '? o Y a F A W N - ! A W N - m A W N -- (/? o ° ° ° ° ° o o o ° C o o o ? p o o o ° ..? 3 3 3 3 3 3 B 0 r) 3 B B D " cn v, cn C cn cn ? a a z ? z z z ? ? z z z a ? ? ? rn a o n C) (? a a o n o CIS A a w w o n o ?r7l 0 0 0 ? o 0 0 ? n ? o 0 0 ? ? n z cn v, rn 'v cn cn ? p V] f/? fn Z W A w Z W t w w a A c w rn A g o. A c A L w W o W 0 O O ?D ? O 0 0 ? Oho U 0 J 0 J 0 P ?o O? oe U o 00 - i.. ?o x r 0 z o °O >trn a H a a o ?? m rn ? a a o ?? rf] ti > w x a r N A b w a C ` N A b W a < m < o m ?' No m ' c ? a o U ?o U ?o U 0o o x ?' a o U ?o U ?o U 0o o x ? ?' T o U ?o U ?o U 0o o x ? a oa - in a a .- U is a - i.n "'] O VJi w J p J J A J J N co O O O J W J O T J T J J N CA O O J w J O? O\ J N OJ ' O n a a O O J J a ° a yzx yzx a ? zx r a- r a r a 1 V N N a 0 W V) V N N O01 O Q7 VJ V N N O W (A a a a a a 0 0 0 0 o a nz o 0 0 0 o a a nz o 0 0 0 o a 'o ynz ?,m 0 pmO ?m0 m d m'-ix - ' a ?^ a A m J A N U ( n O? .? N _ N C? A 00 U ?. _ CJ 0 O ? I -V Q Y O ? A ? C Q A "? "?? "? 0 0 0 0 o p v? o 0 0 0 o p ? o 0 0 0 o p ?3 N?a N a ti ? ?a ° ° ° W O N O _ m ? U .- ? _ N m ? U O N _ N m v O "rl ?a z ?a a A ? m r a ? r C ? a 2E Z m .? = Cry?r7 2.r C4 C b w ? A W O N _ J U N O d ? ao a ? J ? d ? O o a ? H C ? O. y = m d CJ y ? C 3 N ? a d, y ? 6 S ? R o? O O ad 0 N N y 4 ? O ? a F Y w N - C Y W N - m Y W N - f/? a a z C/I C a ? ? y ? C A C K ? z - i A 3 ? ? 3 3 3 3 3 o °0 a ? ? cn m v n v m r a z z z ? ? v Y W W ('? ' Y W W (? ? A W W ('? O? A O C O? A O C A o. A o C z 11 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 v, rn v, ? ? vi ? b w to rn ? O ? .+ d W z w A w 0 z w a w O O w a Y O^ w O? A O W D\ Y O A p w O w O w O J - J O a ?O D\ ?O U O J - J O T ?O P ?O U O J O D\ ?O D` ?O U O - W J N .T ? _ W J N ? ? - W J N ? g a v?, H a o 01y a v?. ? a o 7aJ? rn a rn U a H o. Y - O 6? W i o+ o in D a o. C in o? ?r a c. c iy ?, a r m ? ? 0 N ? ? p 0 r N ? ? p ? r N 0 ? y U J - O. U J ? O? in J _ T H J W O. J o` A O? N H J w P O? A O? N ' H J a\ O? T N O O J N U G Q O O J J N U 6 ?J }' 7 n O w J A N G * D y ?n O Y O J U D ? Z x a `j z ~ X (n a Z0 w J n O N J Z0 A ° N'?? _ n.i _ A `o C '? _ _ - a ? 'ro V - ? CA V G7 to V ` W Vi W N A ? D w N A ? a w N > D 0 0 0 0 o > 0 0 0 0 0 9 „j?? o 0 0 0 o D. `j i : m A = m y ? j O 0 j m p A J A N _ W Cif .j X 7 W O ONO J w m } x ' 7 b u N rn H 7 x A W 0 [ Y? W W A [ * U ' W;v [ '' n y ? ? > C7 > '71 i ? S U Q7 to _ _ n ? ? >C O O c O O > > O H O 0 0 0 = d J ?./ 0 0 0 0 0 Q J b 0 0 0 0 0 O ? ? J ? N D N D n i D l H n H n H . j O , ? O .j W O N O [S7 U _ _ N [q m . U to O N _ N m ox o v 1J ?z =o ? rn M ?. M a ? d CD - r n ? rn ^= rn l J ?. a b ?a x? w -? w 0 O O O m® W 0 O N J to N O n O d " a ? J c m o D ° o c c H o N a ? m m ? m °1 in c 5 p, rv ? m c ? m a ? S a a? S ? O O O ? o? od o f° io y a , O ? c f a W N O O O ° _ ' 3 0 3 o 5 a w m rn w a o C ? f] 0 0 0 ? ? r w a w fD Z w o. a o .'a 0 a\ ?p a\ oo 0\ Oo O\ Oo U p O Oo J a S ? z o a w w w _ ° a ? [?tl i.i ?o 00 ? p y ? r M U U U U N o O m r ? in N O o0 "'? O W N i i N ? J N 6 O C) 3 D - . - o` y tnOD yzx a z0 a A J ?cc W 3 J a i.n J D 0 0 0 0 o D D ? ? rn 0 u _ a a w o ,a a ooI ? R1 .%? X_ N O ? w D w p l A ro ( ') x aoo a 0 0 0 t o o 0 ??? C) N D 'i O m a o? N rn _O x ?a z =o ?. W o ? ao o a Y a? ?z r.3 m b ? W A w O J tJ DD N V? n. a m m 5 a a o ? T? ;d s? D r " m? N ? 0 0 D r m z N A W N - t V] VJ Vf fn m 0 0 0 0 ? _o o o o C n Kf m ?*l ? 3 3 3 0 d a z ? ? mrri z a A O O n? 0 0 0 M rA W Z a _ r p o. a ? 5 r •/Q W W O 0 0 0 0 0 0 iw„ ? o a o O yl N W ? T In ? J to A ? m x m N P O N a O O A z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 `?' m ,p r m N o m r O O O O O N A n v O O O O O N ? N zN o? N ?` O N A n y ? ?? m., D r rA < m m D r r• SOD cz C) N C _ N _ N O O ? m ?, T m A w N - (S] D 0 0 0 o v' o o o o p _ 3 3 3 3 d v, v, v, m sfm t a a a c z? 0 0 0 ? a ? ? z r F3 a w p tii rn a r ? x+ w V o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N b O w O A 'O •-1 ? w O N ? m x 0 0 0 0 0 0 "' m 7 N o m r O O O O O N Z a ? [ v > y O O O O O N m z? o? D < m m D oa b ?n b N in r.i m p y az ? m A w N •- (n 0 0 0 o t+7 0 0 0 0 .? ? -n m ^n n n 3 3 3 D C A g ° aa a o o Z'v ~ 0 0 0 ? ? z ° x a c i z a _ r p ? a a ,? p o r w A w V O 0 0 0 0 0 0 - o 0 o m a •Q O x m ? O O O A ? p A ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ?D m N o m r O O O O O N a ? m v a O O O O O N ? y a o 0 o a - m r D cn < mma rr boa a o 0 0 ? ti m p as° c m cn O n? z ?o b ? ?• m r??y w p m C4?zz a a ? o. ? F trl C 1 cn G m c V] b Y i W w O N - D D N N ? d a a o m N C O' ?. N D = P 5 r m? z^ N ? 0 O O D P r m Z N A w N - t VI z Vl z V) a cn z R7 y 0 0 0 0 ? _o _o _o o C m m m m m ? 3 3 9 9 00 N a s o o C]y 0 0 o c O _ X x Z o_ _ r a z z:; O P A ? O N r K+ 77 w V O 0 0 0 0 0 II 0 m w o P w o a R?1 0 x m a xz z 0 0 0 0 0 0 y m m N m O O O O O N a ('1 m V D 0 0 0 0 0 ?;; m m m D r r Dzo m A W fJ - ?1] ? a ? z a 0 0 0 0 ., o o o o p _ _ _ _ m m m m -' N N P m m 7? 7? 'a c Ztn ? z ? A rn w A w o o n 0 0 0 c ? O m w W Z a ? A w ry O a a ? 0 N to - w V w O O O O O O II 0 m j O N O a m 'O _ A w J U w ? N w w ? gip; m x a m U v w A N 0 a 'Zc z 0 0 0 0 0 0 n m o r m N o m r" O O O O O N - A ? m V D 0 0 0 0 0 m In ? zN oC w ? w a N - - m m D r z a m m a rr 3 boa mn _ _ D Z C m A w N - (p 0 0 o o m C o c o . A -n n ?f m n 3 3 3 3 ao ° m z z z o , ?v ? w W v? rn A o 2 y C 0 C o z O ; ; ; nz a _ r ?. rn a p cn D" A P v V w O O O O O O II 0 a a o N o a 'O O A w v to to z N w w ?O ? m x a m Q N J W A N O z 0 ` N 0 0 0 0 0 :' m ?O m N o m O O O O O N A n m v 0 0 H ol d N N m H y z .c 0 U V W A N m D r _ w<a mmD r ?. 3 D Pn w ? w A r 0? O tTj S C D m 7 O n? 0 ^17 ? 1J .? z ON r r??y ? a Cn v?nztn CN N a o Cr9 c cn `G -? a w w w 0 N D D N N ? a 5 5 rt n o_ n o- o- o- o 0 0 n m m C O' 0 -a d r m z? N ? N O' O 3 0 y D r m z N A u N - 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 5 0 5 O A c07 N 'a a o a H 0 m 0 a 0 C ? ? O o. n '-1 O cn a rn w A y ? o r ? ?0 W W 77 V O 0 0 0 0 o u 0 J w N to U J W L m ??,, o 0 0 u "' m x m 0 0 0 0 0 ° O? z 0 0 0 0 0 o ? m r m m O O O O O N o tJ r a n 7 ? T O O O O O V N ? U ? 0 0 0 0 0 - r-> r m r D ? boa O O O O 1 0 IJ ? O? ?so m 7O 'TI ITI CD ( ) c O b Con ?• Cr] o? r o a a =.nzrn o ? 5 ? W A W O 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 APPENDIX D (RELOCATION REPORT) • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 EIS RELOCATION REPORT 1' North Carolina Department of Transportation RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN WBS ELEMENT: 134544. 1.1 COUNTY Caldwell Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate I T.I.P. NO.: I R-3430 I I DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening of SR-1001 (Connelly Springs Rd.) from SR-1115 (Dry Pongs Rd.) to SR-1933 Southwest Blvd. ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL Type of Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M' •• 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP Residential 51 20 72 15 22 12 12 26 Businesses 11 13 24 4 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent Non-Profit 1 1 0-20M $0.150 0-20M S 0.150 ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 2040M 1 150.250 2040M 150-250 Yes No Explain ell 'YES' answers. 40.70M 11 250400 9 40-70M 30+ 250400 10+ X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70.100M 14 400600- 11 70-100M 30+ 400.600 25+ X 2. Will schools orc iC'tcjjq(s) be affected by 100 ur 26 600 uv 100 up 70+ 600 u? 30+ displacement? TOTAL 52 20 130+ 654 X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS Res or Number X 4. X 5. 6. X 7. X 8. X 9. X 10. X 11. X 12. X 13. X 14. 115. after project? 3. Will not be disrupted due to project. Will any business be displaced? If so, 4. A. Caldwell Body Works, 7500 sf, 5 emp., 0 minorities indicate size, type, estimated number of B. Riverun Superette, 2700 sf, 4 emp., 0 minorities employees, minorities, etc. C. Baton Tire & Auto, 4675 sf, 5 emp., 1 minority Will relocation cause a housing shortage? D. Odum's Salvage, 3450 sf, 6 emp., 1 minority Source for available housing (list). C. Cajah Mtn. Baptist Church Offices, 1900 sf, 2 emp., 0 min. Will additional housing programs be E. JB Body Shops Auto Repair, 400 sf, 2 emp., 0 miniority needed? F. William Bros. Grading, 650 sf, 3 emp. Should Last Resort Housing be G. J & T's Computer Repair, 300 sf, 2 emp, 0 minority considered? H. The Swap Shop, 1300 sf, 1 emp., 0 minority Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. I. Cajun Mtn. Internet CaM, 1200 sf, 2 emp., 0 minority families? J. Frosty Freez, 1600 sf, 6 emp., 1 min!mty Will public housing be needed for project? K. ' Holiday to Go Conv. Store, 3000 sf, 4emp., 1 minority Is public housing available? L. Discount Foods Market, 5000 sf, 4 emp., 0 minority Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing M . Beck & Triplett Accountants, 2100 sf, 3 emp., 0 minority housing available during relocation period? N. Stacey's Hair & Tanning, 2100 sf, 3 emp., 0 minority Will there be a problem of housing within O. Discount Foods & Auto Sales, 2 emp., 0 minority financial means? P. Freedom Insurance Agency, 1400 sf, 2 emp., 0 minority Are suitable business sites available (list O. Hair Salon Makeovers, 625 sf, 2 emp., 0 minority source). R. Wolf Tanning Beds, 300 sf; 1 emp., 0 minority Number months estimated to complete S. Industrial Glass Products, Inc., 18000 sf, 8 emp., 1 min. RELOCATION? 11 24 to 36 months T. Cross Roads Leather, 5000 sf, 4 emp., 0 minority 'Continued on Attached Sheet' 4L FRM15-E 08/05/08 Date EIS Relocation Report Continued On R-3430 Caldwell County U. Southern Motorsports Hobbies, 1500 sf., 1 emp., 0 minority V. Hair Mechanics Nail Salon, 3 emp., 0 minorities W. Quality Mart, 1000 sf, 3 emp., 1 minority 6. Caldwell County Board of Realtors MLS, Newspapers, etc. 8. As necessary in accordance with state law. 11. Housing Authority, City of Lenior 12. Given the last resort housing programs and proper lead-time it is felt that DSS housing could be made available to those persons being displaced. 13. Suitable business sites will be available during relocation period. Source same as for available housing (no. 6) "Anticipated that some of the tenant displacees are on a Fixed Income. It appears that there will be elderly residential property owners involved. APPENDIX E (TRAFFIC FORECAST) 0 W N U p N o A S? Z Y N N_ C N y A y '? Y y } ? N A 151 f 139 p w 2 10 5, 1 ?60 'Y 10 2 i60 m < 7 1, 1 u O N m 79 a a 60?? 72 i t r ' ..p 1 4 ? A er N V 3 PM 12 ? 6s 3 /1,D R on r m 7 X O Z O 0 O N O 0 m o r O a m - > > m 00 ` v o °? G) O < j 5, M y S m Q O °om ?Z `o a H Z < C I D v n > A r y D ` m v < Tm m O C o s O m m O = n D N - m y d A Cl 0 O < 52. ,n Y D w w 3 10 n=7 ?70 b = x 3 1 m ... N 70 10 y. N C' N (n . ? Ov CD c1 o '. a ° 7 a 52 ' u Y D _0 O p0 -1 p a 00 m -DI c v O .? > -0 M D Co lb A o n 3 0 m N z O n w m N +2 `,• CO N Q Y (n w N ° Cl m N m o o o 00 - m D c+ X (n -i i=) y N x Z * - ? F A O , C.) Cm M O ? 11 - 2 N CD < O ?' %1 tj m -1 m J ? W o c Z CA C ? ? a A o v o m _ rn N _ Y a section Break Section Break N Z L? PM IN "i 0 O (A T y + ro a 1D 31 w to ? N w s a a P A gyp: u j A ('M A {JI ? l ? a > + O 48 60? M 10 3 4. w X a _ A N Z to O M w 00 D to * r O a f m d < m M r v o G7 w ` 3 j y < D Z -0 R: 0 O W m o m 10 60 m a Z --I D Co ?A 0-U 0 3 x m< 'n A o 73 7 Y < m m A r 601, l2 o a v m o 3ov? v to y3 n 0 = O m +om wpm B v rp ? o < m F to 0 3 m ? T . 1 0 (n m a, o ? O to a ' u 6o?M W N o A RD Y 21 A r n a to AO a 00 A D O 0 -4 y e A ffi A o _i v m 2 W a , m PM , u )60 15 = ( D ? ( 1 pr nt 4. - z m o N A N a c n n (, O m CD c m m ° 0 r O N m y A PM 65 L2 u P 60 •? y ) 0 - m 3 c A ;0 2 Cl -1 M + 0 ;0- n Z G N 5 ., H + 35 C + O J 7 C O y O Z N A a , N A CA O CD AO ? a CD < (n w A W NaQ Cn O . A m p >> C Z O q= 0 y m c + Q 3 N N ....... o ....... Count y Line - @ @ @ m@ w N a n N > > A 'a r0 ? m N R O >? y co A 294 r ? 287 ? A C 10 M X 60 10 SS m Q I _ A w n af N • 51 N z t`1 •,L"y W 60f AIM 11 N I FL o a m 1 J ? x J m Z O m O 0- O N O d r vm m o 0 L) E < 'N m v v 0- >z a n? Z <C 1 D n y O-0 = Q y < Tm a o p K v O = 0? c m rn m Q 0 m m m or-o Si Ax- < ?. 6) m 0 m o MO c? a N N O m = O m$ m 3 1 N m N D Q A O D O O 7 D C a 0 m ? v ` 0 ?D o -0 m Z C .. m 0 D i ;u IS - -1 a> Z X m C4 c ° CD CO wx < •• N a a y xm o Co m ° D - m m CO o i w CD p ? ? 0 - N ° ? ? CA A A v N N ,, r 12 PIM ?65 OL 4? J 0 N 7 N N A 0 q r. m N y O A? y 97 a a p ? B3 d ? O 65 ?M 10 m 10 PM p 65 y A y n 4 N 0 O A x 27 O r 0 12 65 I ? ) 1 N J 12 (Ltl PAf?65 d d A 3 m u 14 ., 0 0 A? o O N ? r at u Section Break F A \ ? I V , ?'?, <3 N a 82 , 's j 9 A n X N A Z o v O a o ? N ? O r f 3 s 2< = m o v0 o C) < S' M -0 M O O D Z a y Z <C - N 0 0 0 < T m a o O o p O = p D F p < < M _m d n '? p N AA 0 ?0 ?3= ..? ?- Q [n 2gL, -0 M c N y 40 W y N n CD b S e O O d O n p 7 CA A ?o O v O M 3 ? M z ;U T 0 to Z M iv .. A N ? 3 p.. O c O w C X - n f o y M N a to co ° xm 7 Cl) 0 r 0 to _ T m M o A Z A D n? C) ? y D ? C) T O M 7 w A p 0 '? a ` O C A _ fn Z A. r >. j v n N N Section .. ..... ....... Rreak A a o N 7 {p Z! PM !2 , 65 C a` 60 O ( 12 14 ° I ? L? 6 6513 ° i 61 r.v m rr M J2-?-?60 PM 12 71 62 m e N h A v o N Arc ?, c ............. County Lim M O M N 1 ? `o m m? C ? 0 0 46 t2 Pjj ?65 3 12-,?i60 24 O A 70 Q O a ? m w to N y A IL ? N G ? y 3A 3 A? 4 d ? A C) S b A ° a 't y A ?o" N N aom ? F N APPENDIX F (NCDOT CAPACITY ANALYSIS GUIDELINES) NCDOT Congestion Management CAPACITY ANALYSIS GUIDELINES TIP Project Traffic Analyses The values and information below serve as standard practices and default input values for traffic analysis reports as they relate to TIP Projects. Changes or deviations from these standards are allowed, but should be discussed, justified and documented. Failure to properly justify and document changes and deviations may result in the analysis being returned for changes, corrections and justification without a detailed review and the additional analysis will be performed at the consultant's expense. A meeting regarding a scope of study is encouraged where significant deviations from standard practice are anticipated. They are also encouraged before scope is agreed to when contracting with other Branches of the Department. By reviewing reports, plans, and submittals, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in no way relieves the Team / PEF of possible claims or additional work resulting from errors or omissions. The reviews and comments by NCDOT are cursory in nature and do not involve in-depth analysis and design review. General When submitting a traffic analysis for a TIP Project, all available documentation that would prove beneficial in review of said analyses should be included in the submittal. This includes but is not limited to, available plans, traffic forecast used in the analysis, appropriate software printouts, any assumptions used in the analysis, etc. Information regarding existing conditions should be provided where applicable. All submittals must be in latest version of the software that NCDOT is utilizing. When performing analyses.for Build Conditions providing an adequate overall level of service alone is not sufficient. Items such as volume to capacity ratio, queuing, and intersection movement level of service should be evaluated and addressed. Documentation should be provided to justify any change in default values. When new developments or schools are located along a TIP Project, coordination with the Access Management Group and Municipal and School Transportation Assistance Group is required, accordingly. For median divided facilities, the Department's Median Crossover Guidelines should be used. Any median openings not adhering to.these guidelines will require a design exception. These guidelines are provided on our webpage. Before beginning a review, the corridor should be checked to see if it is a Strategic Highway Corridor. If so, the vision for the corridor should be maintained. Interim 2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 1 measures, such as signalized intersections on expressways for identified interchange locations, may be required due to scoping limitations for a specific.project. Where feasible alternate intersection treatments should be evaluated, including various treatments of median U-turns as described in the memorandum from the State Highway Administrator dated January 6, 2006 on the Implementation of Directional Crossover with Median U-turns. Signalized Intersections Coordinated Signal Systems • When analyzing multiple signalized intersections, the default should be to analyze as a coordinated signal system. If the analysis procedure indicates that coordination is not recommended that information should be included in submittals. • For coordinated signals, under recall, the usual condition will specify none for minor streets or movements, and the coordinated phase should be the main street through movement, typically phases 2+6. • Cycle lengths for individual intersections in coordinated systems should be equal; double or half cycles can be used with justification if the minimum cycle lengths are accommodated. • For existing conditions, the existing system cycle length should be used where known. General Information • For analysis of future improvements, when protected left-tums are used, use protected only phasing not protected / permitted phasing. This analysis will identify the maximum queuing storage necessary in the event that protected-only phasing is necessary. In the design of the traffic signal, the use of protected/permitted phasing may be allowed. • When analyzing existing signalized intersections, only use a leading phase sequence for protective/permitted phasing left turn movements, to prevent the yellow trap. Lagging operation is allowed for protective left turn movements only. • Check for the possibility of using overlapping right-turn phasing where appropriate. • For analysis of future operations, Right-Tum-On-Red (RTOR) operation should not be included. In the design of the traffic signal RTOR may be allowed. Exceptions will require justification and approval. To provide for a proper comparison, do not use RTOR for existing conditions. • If an intersection is not anticipated to be signalized as part of the T.I. P. Project but may warrant signalization by the design year, both signalized and unsignalized analyses should be performed to ensure adequate laneage and storage is provided for both signalized and unsignalized operations in the future. The recommended storage lane lengths should reflect the maximum queue from both analyses. Signal recommendations should be obtained from the Regional Traffic Engineer (RTE). • Due to uncertainty in determining between Rural and Urban conditions and predicting future land use, a PHF of 0.90 should be used, which is a median value between the 0.88 for Rural and the 0.92 for Urban conditions listed in the 2000 2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 2 HCM. If field traffic counts have been acquired, the resulting PHFs should be used for existing conditions. • Use the AADT, K (DHV), % Trucks, and D (directional split) provided by the Transportation Branch's forecast. Percent trucks used in the analysis should be the total of TTST and Duals divided by two. • Where appropriate pedestrians should be considered and accommodated. This can include but is not limited to pedestrian phases, adequate pedestrian clearance, and potential conflicts with phasing, such as overlapping phases. Signal Timing and Phasing • Total Lost Time - 5.0 sec/phase for most intersections, and increase clearance as needed for large cross sections such as a single point urban interchanges (SPUI). • For existing traffic use yellow = 5 sec., red = 2 sec or existing timings. For analysis purposes, rounding up to the nearest second is preferred. • For future No-Build and Build traffic use yellow = 5 sec., red = 2. sec. Clearance times using NCDOT criteria may also be used. If design plans are available, the clearance calculation spreadsheets provided by the Signals and Geometrics Section is acceptable. The calculation for these clearance times shall be included and the spreadsheets may be found on our website. • The minimum initial green time for all protected left turn movements and all side street movements is 7 seconds. • The minimum initial green time for the main street through movements is dependent on the speed limit and policy provided in the NCDOT Signals and Geometrics Design Manual. For 35 mph or less, use 10 seconds; for 36-45 mph use 12 seconds, for 46 mph or higher use 14 seconds. • All cycle lengths should be rounded to the nearest 5 seconds. • Phasing should remain consistent for all time periods. As an example, if split phasing is used for the AM peak, it must be used for the PM peak. Changing the phasing sequence such as altering left-turn phasing from leading left to lagging left is dependent on the traffic signal controller equipment. • Laneage should be identical for all time periods for the same alternative. • Intersections with combination through/left-tum lanes should have a split phase left- . turn treatment for that approach. This is not a recommended geometric configuration, try to avoid if at all possible. Recommended minimum cycle lengths by phase Number of Phases Minimum Recommended seconds 2 60 3 90 4 110 5 110 6 140 8 140 Note: Maximum recommended cycle length is 180, but certain circumstances may warrant cycle lengths u to 240 seconds. 2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 3 Left Turn Treatment Use protected left turn treatment not protected/permitted when (a) dual left turn lanes are present, (b) when left-turn lanes are crossing 3 or more opposing through lanes of traffic, or (c) when a condition is satisfied in the table below: Number of Opposing Lanes (Through and Right) Condition 1 Left Turn Volume ' Opposing Volume > 50,000 2 Left Turn Volume ' Opposing Volume 790,000 3 or more Left Turn Volume ' Opposing Volume -> 110,000 Additional Guidelines The use of field values may be used in lieu of these standard values where conditions are not likely to change from the current operation. • Full storage for queue lengths should be rounded up to the nearest 25 feet with a minimum of 100' for both right-turn and left-turn lanes. • Ideal Saturated Flow Rate = 1900 vphpl • The Plan Review Group will provide traffic breakout spreadsheets provided by the Transportation Planning Branch to assist in the conversion of forecasted AADT to Peak Hour Volumes. If this spreadsheet is not used, justification should be provided for any alternate method chosen. This spreadsheet is available on our website. The Plan Review Group will also provide an interpolation spreadsheet to determine intermediate year traffic volumes. • The Intersection Analysis Utility (IAU) spreadsheet should be used only when traffic forecast volumes are displayed with two-way arrows. The Intersection Analysis Utility for Directional Data (IAU_directional) spreadsheet should be used only when traffic forecast volumes are displayed with one-way arrows. • AM and PM Peak hour analysis should be performed for all reports; explanation should be provided for alternate time periods or to not perform an analysis for the AM or PM peak. The requirement to review other key analysis periods, such as a seasonal peak, lunch peak, or weekend peak, should be discussed with NCDOT prior to completion of the traffic analysis. • System analysis software (such as Synchro) should be used for arterials and multiple signalized intersections. Analyses for roundabouts should use aaSIDRA. For unsignalized intersections, analysis based on HCM procedures should be used. 2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 4 Synchro and SimTraffic To facilitate review of the traffic analysis, electronic copies of the Synchro data file should be submitted along with the appropriate printouts. The values stated previously should be correctly applied to the Synchro capacity analyses. Provided below are additional methodologies and inputs in Synchro that should be incorporated into the analyses. • If there are existing protected/permitted left-turn treatments, lead/lag optimization should be fixed for lead operation for the respective phases. • Any approaches or movements whose queue length are flagged by a "#" or a "m" should be reviewed for improvements given there may be serious delay and queuing problems for this approach or in the vicinity. These problems will need to be addressed in order for the intersection to operate properly. In these cases, it is recommended the Synchro output should be compared to the SimTraffic output and /or other analysis tools such as CORSIM, VISSIM, or the Red Time Formula. Red Time Formula should only be used for protected phasing when operations are under capacity. • When creating a Synchro output report, the Intersection: Lanes, Volumes, and Timings' report will provide all necessary information for review. The data selection "Actuated Green Times" is not necessary information for our review. • SimTraffic should be utilized to aid in verifying geometry, determining storage lengths and spotting other trouble areas. A SimTraffic queue analysis report should be included for review. • Networks should be seeded for a period long enough to traverse the network including stops prior to recording. We typically use 10 minutes as a default seed time for the network. Also, the simulation should record for the entire one (1) hour period. • When evaluating facilities with U-turns, the U-turns should be modeled both as left- turns to obtain an estimation of level of service and as U-tums in SimTraffic to compare to the left-turn level of service and to help determine operations and required storage. Highway Capacity Software (HCS2000) General HCS Guidelines • Due to uncertainty in determining between Rural and Urban conditions and predicting future land use, a PHF of 0.90 should be used, which is a median value between the 0.88 for Rural and the 0.92 for Urban conditions listed in the 2000 HCM. • Provide output by means of the formatted report. • Enter fp = 1.00, unless in a tourist area, then use 0.95. • Appropriate terrain should be used depending on location. 2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 5 • Use the AADT, K (DHV), % Trucks, and D (directional split) provided by the Transportation Branch's forecast. Percent trucks used in the analysis should be the total of TTST and Duals divided by two. • . When U-turns are present, they should be modeled as left-turns to obtain a level of service estimation. This should be compared to a simulation of the U-Turns to determine operations and required laneage and storage. HCS Unsignalized Analysis • Median storage should be zero as a standard unless there is sufficient width to provide adequate storage. Do not enter a storage exceeding one vehicle. No median storage should be used for TWLTL's. • Enter appropriate information from upstream (per direction) signalized intersections. • Do not provide an overall level of service (LOS) for unsignalized intersections. According to the 2000 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL, LOS for an unsignalized intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole. HCS Freeway Analysis • Use the Base Free Flow Speed unless measured flow speeds are available. Base Free Flow Speed for an ideal freeway segment is 70 mph for urban conditions or 75 mph for rural conditions. However, this can be limited by design constraints. Therefore, this should be compared to the design speed of the facility and adjustments made to these inputs, as appropriate. HCS Weaving Analysis • The Weaving Section Analysis applies to weaving segments up to 2,500 feet maximum. • Enter the Freeway Free Flow Speed (use the design speed or the posted speed plus 5 mph). Note: typical freeway situations have free-flow speeds of 65mph, collector- distributor (C-D} facilities are 45mph. The analyst can also use the. base free flow speed to obtain an estimated free flow speed. Check Weaving Area Limitations to ensure that none of the limitations specified are exceeded. Where any limits are exceeded, consult the appropriate notes near the bottom of the output. These situations should be eliminated where feasible and addressed in the included report. HCS Ramp Analysis • For Freeway Free Flow Speed use the design speed or the posted speed plus 5 mph. Note: typical freeway situations = 65mph. You can also use the base free flow speed to obtain an estimated free flow speed. • Typical Free Flow Speed for Ramps = 45 mph, and for Loops = 25 mph. These can be adjusted as needed based upon designs if that information is available. • Enter appropriate information for any adjacent ramps that exist within 6,000 feet of an analyzed on-ramp or within 1,400 feet of an analyzed off-ramp. • If analysis indicates an LOS F and the freeway is not over capacity, extending the ramp acceleration/deceleration lengths could improve the LOS. 2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 6 • If the freeway operation is the limiting factor, a failure year and the required number of lanes for adequate level of service should be provided. HCS Multilane Analysis • This methodology does not address highways that have one of the following categories: Signal spacing of 2.0 miles or less, significant presence of on street parking, heavily used bus stops, significant pedestrian activity. Facilities falling under one or more of these categories may be analyzed evaluated with the methodology of Urban Streets (HCS Arterials or Synchro Arterials) • If no information is available for access points per mile, use 12 for rural sections and 25 for urban sections. If there is potential for rural section to become urban by design year, use 25. This includes right-side only access points. For a one-way roadway it is appropriate to include intersections and driveways on both sides of the roadway. Existing and proposed driveways and intersections may be used where known for specific conditions. • Use the base Free Flow Speed unless measured flow speeds are available. For Multilane Highways, Base Free Flow Speed may be estimated by increasing the speed limit by 7 mph for 40 and 45 mph, and increasing the speed limit by 5 mph for 50 and 55 mph. HCS Two-Lane Highway Analysis • This methodology does not address two-lane highways with signalized intersections. Two-lane highways in urban and suburban areas with multiple signalized intersections at spacings of 2.0 miles or less can be evaluated with the methodology of Urban Streets (HCS Arterials or Synchro Arterials) • Enter 100% no passing zones. • If no information is available for access points per mile, use 12 for rural sections and 25 for urban sections. If there is potential for rural section to become urban by design year, use 25. This includes access points on both sides of the roadway segment. Existing and proposed driveways and intersections may be used where known for specific conditions. • Use the Base Free Flow Speed unless measured flow speeds are available. For Two-Lane Highways, Base Free Flow Speed may be estimated by increasing the speed limit by 7 mph for 40 and 45 mph, and increasing the speed limit by 5 mph for 50 and 55 mph. HCS Arterial Analysis • Free Flow Speed may be estimated by the speed limit or default values found in the 2000 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL. • Used when Urban Street criteria are met. HCS Signalized Analysis • Enter Right-tum-on-red (RTOR) as 0. • Unless you have progressed movements use Arrival Type = 3. • Enter Unit Extension (normally 3 seconds). • Enter Start-up Lost Time (normally 2 seconds). 2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 7 • Enter the Phasing Design. (use 5.0 seconds of yellow time and 2.0 seconds of red time). • Note that HCS Signalized analysis is recommended only for isolated intersections and even in these cases, it is recommend an optimization software package is used to provide the recommended signal timing. aaSidra General aaSidra Guidelines • When creating an aaSidra output report, the S7 and S15 reports will provide all necessary information for review. • For proposed roundabouts a minimum lane width of 13 feet should be used. • For proposed one-lane roundabouts a minimum of 120 feet should be used for the inscribed diameter (88-foot island diameter and 16 foot circulating road width). For proposed two-lane roundabouts a minimum of 148 feet should be used for the inscribed diameter (88-foot island diameter and 30 foot circulating road width). • If the roundabout operation is a limiting factor, a failure year should be provided. This can be determined by calculating a variable Flow Scale run for the intersection. References The POLICY ON STREET AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO NORTH CAROLINA HIGHWAYS is the dictating standard related to all aspects of development access for the State of North Carolina. All pertinent standards found within this document shall be implemented during the analysis to provide for the safe, efficient, consistent treatment of the traveling public. Most signal standards can be found in the TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS UNIT DESIGN MANUAL. Management Website: 2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 8 APPENDIX G (DEMINIMIS DOCUMENTATION) I'crfcred .lid = STP-100 1(25) 771'- N-3930 Con= Caldwell CONCURRENCE P(1RM FOR ASSLSSNIEN (II' F.1•Fit IS !'ru; rc? Ik:.c; •, i? ,'ir.n: \\ idcn S'K I U01 (Connel k Sprint: Rd 11'ronl Burke Coons Lt nc to SR 19,13 ( to o) it 1:200). rcnrcicnlall,c, 01111c SEX' ??,/ North C aolnus Fkpartmcnl ofl7ancpoaa(ion (VA Y)1 ) L? FalemlIH invacAdmini,tration(FI!%\1 rL 1{I" Noah (.:uohim Slate Historic Preservation Oklce (111'0) u 0111c!- Rcvieaved lhr sul )jc'E projcc: and a_rtced ? I hc:r are nn ctfcc!, nn thr National Res ter-lislcd propi:11% prapcruv: Iocalvd u'illim Me prolccl s area of poteuoe! et cct and lined on the reverse. ' I hCrc: arc nn c:ffccts on the Nmiouai Rcl,ielervch,_,iblc propetty pt-a cities ioc;acd tcithiI I thr projccC ?:ca of potennoi cl'I'cca an.! lilted on the rev crsc. ? l hcrc I, as ct(ra on tiro N:!n m; pIojccl*s ar_a nl'polenlial ettect thr rcvcne- -I here is :m efl'eel on Me WON: ptojcct*: arct n potcmial clt?'el rcvcrsc. Rc,?rsRZ-hued property.prupcrlics locamc ccIthm the lllc propeiiyipropcmcs and tllc cffc.tf s) are listed or. Repstor-cli_ihlcpropcrt?:propc:_ic9.located within the The propene propcrtics sud dleca;st arc BtCL! N! the Slow[ R Cr'r4SCI It;I It I . k,' lTw P11NA, 1<tr the Divisiofi A(1ministrator. OF o:ht:' Fedclal ;Agency Date Rc: ms nlauva IIN) Data -- Sant I Ikioric Preservation Officer Dute U FrJcrni-lrel- s'rP- l oo 1(3;) 771':2 R-3430 Gnmf.L< Cal(Iwcll Properlies within the area of potential effects for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is National Roister-listed (Nlt) or determined eligible (Ufa). \1'aitsel %Imin,c Smirh House f D E I - No effect because no tww i, rc(Imrccl from the propcrtv and the %icw tiom the house to SR 1001 will nnl be suhslrn'ially allercd. Properties within the area of potential effects for which there is an effect. Indicate property stales (NR or DE) and describe the effect. Flt2.Ilmh Rush Housc (I )F:) - Nuadverse cficct heCalSC NC'DCl1 aerccs to minimize the cut and lilt sections aion,_ the new IL()\V. l i v nca K( AV does nol encroach upon the. irnmcdiatc stufoundinvs ?,! the house and the vie« tiom the house to SK 1001 will not Inc substantially altc-cd. Initialed: NCDOT_EL FHW;\ Fl`RVA intends to use SHPO's ;incurrence as a basis of a "de minimis" finding for the following croperiies pursuant to Section 4tf): I IPO ituba!f.-?iiewabe?se