SR 1365

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Date
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review

Asheville Air Soil & Water _ Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville Water _ Coastal Management
Mooresville Aquifer Protection L Wildlife
I, T
Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources
Washington Water Resources Environmental Health
Wilmington Parks & Recreation _ Waste Mgmt
_ Winston-Salem ?,1-_1?ater, Quality DOT _ Radiation Protection
Air Quality _ Other
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:

Response (check all applicable)
_ No objection to project as proposed
_ No comment #D

Insufficient information to complete review
/s[?
U
?00
Other (specify or attach comments) 9
OS? h'grER
_ 8I ft.gyQUgL/n
1".,C4
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC. 27699-1601
SR 1365 (Stallings Road)
SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) to
US 74 (Independence Boulevard)
Union County
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-1365(1)
WBS Element 34982
S.T.I.P. PROJECT U-3825
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Submitted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (c)
APPROVED:
4WD!
-_3
Date
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental
l Pr, ' c velopment and Envi rental Ar

Director
Highway Administration
SR 1365 (Stallings Road)
SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) to
US 74 (Independence Boulevard)
Union County
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-1365(1)
WBS Element 34982
S.T.I.P. PROJECT U-3825
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MARCH 2009
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch by: ""kA CAR
3_a0- Oq
DATE
3-120-09
DATE
Kristina L. Solber , E. = SEAL
Project Development Engineer = 026409
( Ae "
J es F. Bridges, Jr .E.
Project Development Group Leader
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SR 1365 (Stallings Road)
SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) to
US 74 (Independence Boulevard)
Union County
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-1365(1)
WBS Element 34982
S.T.I.P. PROJECT U-3825
Branch, Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT anticipates some utility conflicts during construction and will coordinate
with the companies and local government agencies if any relocation is
necessary.
Construction Branch
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters will be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project.
Right of Way Branch
One geodetic survey marker may be impacted by this project. The NC Geodetic
Survey will be contacted prior to the start of construction.
Environmental Assessment, U-3825 Page 1 of 1
March 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SR 1365 (Stallings Road)
From SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) to US 74 (Independence Boulevard)
Union County
Federal Aid Project No. MASTP-1365(1)
WBS Element 34982
S.T.I.P. PROJECT U-3825
A. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) propose to widen SR 1365 (Stallings Road) to a four
lane median divided facility from SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) to US 74 (Independence
Boulevard). The proposed typical section will consist of two 11 foot inside lanes and two
14 foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycles, and sidewalks on both sides. The
proposed project is approximately 1.4 miles in length, and will improve an existing east-
west cross-town facility through downtown Stallings. Figures 2A through 2E, (Appendix
A) show the proposed design alternatives on an aerial photograph. NCDOT currently
owns a 60 foot wide right of way along the corridor.
Right of way acquisition is scheduled for fiscal year 2009 and construction is
scheduled for fiscal year 2011 in the 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement
Program. Estimated construction and right-of-way costs for the alternatives are:
$23,600,000 and $7,200,000 respectively for Alternative A (grade-separated railroad
crossing with service road relocation); $22,400,000 and $7,400,000 respectively for
Alternative B (grade-separated railroad crossing); $15,800,000 and $4,900,000,
respectively for Alternative C (at-grade railroad crossing). For safety reasons,
Alternatives A and B are the NCDOT-preferred alternatives (Environmental Assessment,
Section V. Alternatives for Study,
A. Build Alternatives).
B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Three build alternatives were considered for the project. All alternatives studied a
best-fit widening of Stallings Road to a four-lane median divided facility. Alternative A
proposes a grade-separated crossing (bridge) of the railroad and relocating Gribble
Road to create an intersection with Industrial' Drive at Stallings Road, plus service road
relocation under the bridge. Alternative B proposes the same as Alternative A, minus the
service road relocation. Alternative C proposes an at-grade railroad crossing. Also
considered for implementation were transportation system management (TSM), the "No-
build" alternative, and utilizing alternative modes of transportation. TSM and the "No-
build" alternative do not meet the purpose and need of the project. Public transportation
is not available within the project area.
C. NCDOT-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
Based on input from comprehensive studies of the human and natural
environments, engineering analysis, and input from transportation professionals,
NCDOT recommends widening Stallings Road and utilizing a grade-separated railroad
crossing. The preferred alternative will consist of two 11-foot inside and 14-foot outside
travel lanes to accommodate bicycles in each direction, with sidewalks on both sides. A
23-foot wide grass median will separate the opposing roadways. Alternatives A and B
align Gribble Road with Industrial Drive at Stallings Road. Additionally, Alternative A
proposes to realign a service road under the new bridge. Existing Gribble Road, Kelly
Drive, and Tracy Circle would be connected to the realigned Gribble Road. The bridge
constructed with Alternate A will be 88-feet wide and 255 feet long. Alternate B will have
an 88-foot wide and 165-foot long bridge carrying Stallings Road over the existing CSX
track and 200 foot right of way.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Stallings Road is located in a suburban area with residential, industrial and
commercial uses along the project. Impacts to the natural environment were found to be
minimal as the area near the roadway is mostly disturbed. Three stream crossings will
result in 199 linear feet of stream impacts. No jurisdictional wetlands are within project
study area. There are no eligible properties on the National Register of Historic Places
in the project's area of potential effect (APE), and all other natural and human
environmental resources will receive minimal impacts.
Environmental impacts are nearly equal for both preferred study alternatives.
Both will require approximately 110' of right of way. The impacts for the individual build
alternatives are shown below.
SUMMARIZING
IMPACTS
RESOURCE Alternate Alternate Alternate
A B C
Grade- Grade-Separated At-Grade Rail
Separated Rail Crossing Crossing
Rail Crossing
w. Service
Road
Relocation
(NCDOT (NCDOT Preferred)
Preferred
Archaeological No No No Resources
Resources Resources
Architectural Districts 0 0
Residential/ /2 13/2 2/1
Business Relocations
Stream nnial
F 1 perennial 1 perennial
Crossings intermittent 3 intermittent 3 intermittent
Total Stream feet 199 feet 241 feet
Im acts
Jurisdictional cres 0.0 acres 0.0 acres
Wetlands
TYPE OF IMPACT [AMOUNT OF IMPACT
Air Quality The project is not anticipated to create any adverse impacts.
Endangered Species There are three Federally Protected Species for Union County,
but the project will affect none.
Hazardous Material Sites Three sites may be impacted during construction.
Environmental Justice
Issues U.S. Census data indicate lower than State average minority and
low-income populations within the vicinity of the project. The
project is not expected to direct) affect an of these populations.
Noise Receptors No residences are predicted to be impacted..
Churches / Schools No churches or schools will be impacted.
Perennial Streams 66 linear feet impacted for the project (all alternatives).
Section 4(f) / 106
Properties 1/0 for all alternatives
Relocations
Residential/Business) Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C
2/1 13/2 13/2
E. PERMITS
Due to the scope of the project, minimal impacts are expected. The amount of
stream impacts on jurisdictional streams will require a US Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit. Additionally, a North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required prior to issuance of the
Nationwide Permit.
F. COORDINATION
All essential federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the
preliminary engineering phase of this project. Also, the public and local business owners
provided NCDOT with verbal and written comments at the Citizen's Informational
Workshop held June 18, 2007 and by mailed-in comments afterwards.
G. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained
by contacting the following individuals:
John F. Sullivan III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1501
Telephone: [phone]
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................... ...............................2
II. PU RPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................... ...............................2
A. PURPOSE ..................................................................................................... ...............................2
B. THOROUGHFARE PLAN .............................................................................. ...............................3
C. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ........................................ ................................3
D. CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS .......:....................................................... ................................5
E. HIGHWAY SAFETY AND CRASH RATES .................................................. ................................5
III. EX ISTING HIGHWAY DESCRIPTION ............................................................... ................................7
A. INTERSECTING ROADWAYS / TRAFFIC CONTROL ................................ ................................7 .
B. CROSS SECTION ........................................................................................ ................................7
C. RIGHT OF WAY ........................................................................................... ................................7
D. STRUCTURES ............................................................................................. ................................7
E. SCHOOL BUSES ......................................................................................... ................................7
F. SPEED LIMIT ............................................................................................... ................................7
G. CONTROL OF ACCESS .............................................................................. ................................7
H. RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................ ................................8
I. UTILITIES ..................................................................................................... ................................8
J. SIDEWALKS ................................................................................................. ................................8
K. BICYCLES .................................................................................................... ................................8
L. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT ............................................. ................................8
M. OTHER HIGHWAY PROJECTS IN THE AREA ........................................... ................................8
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .......................................... ................................8
A. PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................. ................................8
B. CONTROL OF ACCESS .......................................................:...................... ................................9
C. RIGHT OF WAY ........................................................................................... ................................9
D. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ...............................:............................ ................................9
V. ALTERNATIVES FOR STUDY ........................................................................... ..............................10
A. BUILD ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................... ..............................10
B. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) .............................. ..............................10
C. NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................... ..............................10
D. ALTERNATIVE MODES ............................................................................... ..............................10
E. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES ............................................................. ..............................10
VI. EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT ................................................................. ..............................11
A. CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................... ..............................11
1. Archaeological Resources ..................................................................... ..............................11
2. Architectural Resources ........................................................:................ ..............................11
B. LAND USE & COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................... ...............................11
1. Community Characteristics ................................................................... ...............................11
2. Project Impacts ..................................................................................... ...............................12
3. Indirect and Cumulative Effects ............................................................ ...............................13
C. NATURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ ...............................14
1. Physical Resources .............................................................................. ...............................14
2. Jurisdictional Topics .............................................................................. ...............................14
3. Mitigation ............................................................................................... ...............................15
4. Permits ........ ....... ....................................................._..... __._............. ...............................15
5. Federally Protected Species ................................................................. ...............................15
D. TRAFFIC NOISE .... ..... ............. ..................._.............................__.._....... ............................... 18
1. General ............ ......... ................ .............._................__..............._...... ................... ..... .......18
2. Noise Abatement Criteria .............. ............. .......... ..... .. ............_..... ......_....................... 18
3. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures. ............. ............ ....._..._.............. ...............................18
4. "Do-Nothing„ Alternative ........... ........... ............... ............... ............... .................................. 18
5. Construction Noise... .......................... .......................................... ..... ................ ........... 18
VII. SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... ..................................19
A. AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................... ..................................19
B. GEODETIC MARKERS .................................. ............................. ............. .. ................................ 24
C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EVALUATION .............................................. ..................................24
1. Purpose .............................................................................................. ..................................24
2. Summary ............................................................................................ ..................................25
3. Table 7. Underground Storage Tank Facilities .................................. ..................................25
D. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS .................................................................... ..................................25
VIII. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ............................................................. ..................................27
A. COORDINATION ...................................................................................... ..................................27
B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMENTS ........................................... ..................................27
IX. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .......................................... ..................................28
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2A-E Aerial Photograph/Functional Roadway Design
Figure 3A-E Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 Other Roadway Projects in the Vicinity of STIP U-3825
Figure 5 NCTA Monroe Bypass/Connector
Figure 6 Thoroughfare Map
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Levels of Service ...........................................................................................4
Table 2 - Crash Pages ...............................................................................................6
Table 3 - Preliminary Project Costs ............................................................................10
Table 4 - Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Community Types ..........................................14
Table 5 - Project Study Area Streams ..........................................................................15
Table 6 - Federally Protected Species for Union County .................................................15
Table 7 - Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities ......................................................25
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Figures
Appendix B - Correspondence
Appendix C - Noise and Air Quality Data and Results
Appendix D - Relocation Report and Relocation Assistance Programs
Appendix E - Capacity Analysis Report
Appendix F - Citizens' Informational Workshop Notice and Handout
SR 1365 (Stallings Road)
SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) to US 74 (Independence Boulevard)
Union County
WBS Element 34982
S.T.I.P. PROJECT U-3825
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) propose to widen SR 1365
(Stallings Road) from SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) to US 74 (Independence Boulevard),
(see Figure 1, Appendix A). The proposed improvements will widen SR 1365 (Stallings Road) to
a four lane median divided facility from SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) to US 74 (Independence
Boulevard). The proposed typical section will consist of two 11 foot inside lanes and two 14 foot
outside lanes to accommodate bicycles, with curb and gutter and sidewalks on both sides. The
project is approximately 1.4 miles in length, and will improve an existing east-west cross-town
facility through downtown Stallings. Figures 2A through 2E, (Appendix A) show the proposed
design alternatives on an aerial photograph. NCDOT currently owns a 60 foot wide right of way
along the corridor.
This project is included in the Division 10 highway improvement section of the 2009-
2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled
for fiscal year 2009 and construction is scheduled for fiscal year 2011 in the draft 2009-2015
State Transportation Improvement Program.
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. PURPOSE89
The purpose of this project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity and improve safety
along SR 1365 (Stallings Road). The proposed widening from a two lane to a multilane facility
will alleviate traffic congestion and improve pedestrian and vehicular safety by adding turning
lanes, sidewalks (both sides), curb and gutter, median, intersection improvements additional
signals and better signal coordination.
The proposed project (U-3825) is an integral part of the overall Mecklenburg Union
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for the
region and the Town of Stallings. The widening of Stallings Road will serve current development
as well as development expected to occur over the next twenty-five years as envisioned in the
recently adopted Town of Stallings Land Use Plan (January 2007). Crash rates along Stallings
Road within the project limits are higher than the statewide rates for similar facilities.
Traffic volumes for the years 2008 and 2030 were determined and analyzed to quantify
existing and future traffic demands on SR 1365. Traffic projections for 2008 range from 11,200
vehicles per day (vpd) west of the US 74 intersection to 13,000 vpd between Industrial Drive
and SR 1368 (Gribble Road). The projected design year (2030) traffic volume is estimated to
range from to 20,600 vpd west of the US 74 intersection to 25,800 vpd between Industrial Drive
and SR 1368 (Gribble Road). Currently Stallings Road operates at a level of service (LOS) E.
If no improvements are made, the facility is expected to operate at a LOS F in the year 2030.
B. THOROUGHFARE PLAN
The facility is classified as a minor arterial in the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MUMPO) Thoroughfare Plan. There is a mixture of residential,
commercial and industrial land use along the project. The project would improve connectivity
between SR 1009(Old Monroe Road) and US 74 (E. Independence Boulevard).
SR 1365 is a cross-town facility. The corridor also serves as an east-west connector for
traffic moving across town to US 74 which is a main route to Charlotte.
C. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic volumes for the years 2008 and 2030 were determined and analyzed to quantify
existing and future traffic demands on SR 1365. Traffic projections for 2008 range from 11,200
vehicles per day (vpd) west of the US 74 intersection to 13,000 vpd between Industrial Drive
and SR 1368 (Gribble Road). The projected design year (2030) traffic volume is estimated to
range from to 20,600 vpd west of the US 74 intersection to 25,800 vpd between Industrial Drive
and SR 1368 (Gribble Road). The projections for the year 2030 assume that the Monroe
Connector is open to traffic. Alternatives under study show the Connector tying into existing US
74 either just north or south of Stallings Road. Figures 3A through 3E (Appendix A) display
current and projected average daily volumes along the corridor.
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within e
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, with letter designations from A (Best)
to F (Worst), represent operations for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are
available. For this project, the type of facility analyzed is classified as a major thoroughfare in
MUMPO's 2030 Thoroughfare Plan.
On urban streets, the LOS is based on average through-vehicle travel speed for the
segment or entire street under consideration. Travel speed is the primary measure of service.
The average travel speed is computed from the running times on the urban street and the
control delay of through movements at signalized intersections.
The control delay is the portion of the total delay for a vehicle approaching and entering
a signalized intersection that is attributable to traffic signal operation. Control delay includes the
delays of initial deceleration, move-up time in the queue, stops, and re-acceleration.
The LOS for urban streets is influenced by both the number of signals per mile and by
the intersection control delay. Inappropriate signal timing, poor progression, and increasing
traffic flow can degrade LOS substantially. Streets with medium to high signal densities (i.e.,
more than two signals per mile) are more susceptible to these factors, and poor LOS might be
observed even before signal problems occur. On the other hand, longer urban street segments
comprising heavily loaded intersections can provide reasonably good LOS, although an
individualized intersection might be operating at a lower level. The term vehicle refers to all
vehicles passing directly through a street and not turning.
On urban streets, LOS criteria are defined in terms of travel speed. Motorists driving in
LOS A conditions could average speeds of 30-35 mph. LOS B conditions would reduce travel
speed to between 24 to 30 mph. LOS C conditions would further reduce travel speeds to
between 18 to 24 mph and LOS D travel speeds would be 14 to 18 mph. Motorists driving in
LOS E conditions would average travel speeds between 10 and 14 mph and LOS F would result
in travel speeds of less than 10 mph.
Highway Capacity Software 2000, aaSidra, SimTraffic and Synchro analysis programs,
and The Highway Capacity Manual 2000, were utilized to determine the 2008 and 2030 levels of
service.
A summary of the Level of Service for existing, no-build, and build scenarios using
intersection analysis along SR 1365 (Stallings Road) is shown in Table 1. The complete
capacity analysis is included in Appendix E.
Table 1: Levels-of-Service
I
tersectio No Build Build
n
n Movement 2008 2030 Movement 2030
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) Signalized F F Signalized E
i
D EB LT A B EB L A
r
ve
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at Community Park Sig LR D F SB LR F
D
i FA LT A B nal
zed
Si B
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at Industrial
r
ve
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at SR 1368 (Gribble Road)
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at Industrial Drive / SR 1368 (Gribble
Road) SB
NB
NB LP
LT
LR F
A
F F
G
F g
i
NB R
Signalized
8
c
R
d
SR
6
S
i
h F -NB LT A F Si
nalized C
oa
)
136
(
m
t
arm
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at NB LR F g
EP LTR A 8
T
il R
d
i T P Si
nalled D
oa
)
an
ra
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at SR 1367 (Matthews Ind NB L F F g
SB L TR F F
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at US 74 SignalizeC F F' F' S.rc3na;ized F' F'
' Northem Alignment of Monroe Connector (Altemative D-2)
Southern Alignment of Monroe Connector (Alternative E-3)
As shown in Table 1 and based on an increase in traffic anticipated by the traffic forecast, the
following three (3) intersections are expected to operate at an LOS E or F in the 2030 Build
Scenario:
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road)
With the increase in traffic anticipated by the traffic forecast and the proposed four-lane typical
section on SR 1365 (Stallings Road), the eastbound approach should provide a minimum of 600
feet of left-turn storage and 100 feet of right-turn storage. The westbound approach should
provide a minimum of 350 feet of dual left-turn storage and 675 feet of right-turn storage. The
existing storage lanes will remain for the northbound and southbound approaches since the U-
3825 project is only widening Stallings Road. With these improvements in place, the intersection
is expected to operate at an overall LOS E in the 2030 Build Scenario.
The intersection will require additional improvements to operate at an acceptable LOS. The
improvements necessary to achieve an acceptable LOS for this intersection is beyond the
scope of the project, which is to widen Stallings Road. The above recommended storage
lengths provided assume Old Monroe Road is not improved to provide additional capacity and
that any improvement to increase the capacity on Old Monroe Road may change the
recommended storage lengths substantially.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at Community Park Drive
This intersection meets the NCDOT Median Crossover Guidelines. In the 2030 Build Scenario it
is recommended that this intersection have full movement access. With the increase in traffic
anticipated by the traffic forecast and the proposed four-lane divided typical section on Stallings
Road, it is recommended that the eastbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of
left-turn storage. The westbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of U-turn
storage. With these improvements in place, the southbound shared left-turn, right-turn
movement is expected to operate at a LOS F with a 95`h percentile queue of two (2) vehicles,
which is acceptable in the 2030 Build Scenario. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) states
that it is acceptable for a side street to operate at a LOS F based on engineering judgment. In
this case, a queue length of two (2) vehicles was deemed acceptable in the 2030 Build
Scenario. The eastbound shared left-turn, through lane is expected to operate at a LOS A in the
2030 Build Scenario.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at US 74
With the increase in traffic anticipated by the traffic forecast and the proposed four-lane divided
typical section on Stallings Road, the eastbound approach should provide a minimum of 1,150
feet of dual left-turn storage and 400 feet of right-turn storage. The westbound approach should
provide a minimum of 500 feet of left-turn storage and 125 feet of right-turn storage. The
existing storage lanes will remain for the northbound and southbound approaches since the U-
3825 project is only widening Stallings Road.
With these improvements in place, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS F in
the 2030 Build Scenario, with Alternative D-2, the northern alignment of STIP R-3329 (Monroe/
Connector /Bypass). With Alternative E-3, the intersection is also expected to operate at an
overall LOS F in the 2030 Build Scenario.
D. CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
Currently, SR 1365 (Stallings Road) operates at a level of service E along the mainline.
Under a no build scenario, Stallings Road will operate at a level of service F on the mainline by
2030. Under a no build scenario, all intersections will also have at least one movement operate
at a level of service F by 2030. Under the build scenario, only two intersections (Community
Park Drive and US 74) will operate with at least one movement at a level of service F by the
year 2030.
E. HIGHWAY SAFETY AND CRASH RATES
During a three year period between November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2007, 116
vehicular crashes occurred on Stallings Road. Over half of the crashes occurred at the project's
eastern and western termini, with crashes scattered throughout the project. Frontal crashes
(which generally includes angle and turning crashes) accounted for 38% and rear end crashes
accounted for approximately 48% of the overall crashes during the study period. There were
no fatalities within the project limits during the study period.
The appropriate indicator of a potential safety problem is the critical crash rate. The
critical crash rate is a statistical tool that assists in screening for high crash locations by utilizing
a confidence interval that can be adjusted to accommodate the needs of the safety program.
Fc = Fa + k(Fa/M)/2 + 1/2M
F? =the critical crash rate
F, = statewide crash rate of roadway class or average crash rate
k = a probability constant. Some values are:
k = 1.645 for a 95% confidence level, commonly used for rural areas
k = 3.291 for a 99.95% confidence level, commonly used for urban areas
M = vehicle exposure (exposure should be calculated in 100 million vehicle miles (mvm) if NC
Statewide Rate is used)
The total crash rate for Stallings Road within the project limits exceeds the statewide
critical crash rate for similar two lane undivided secondary route facilities. The non-fatal with
injury critical crash rate is also exceeded. This suggests that there may be safety and
operational issues within the project limits. A summary of the accident rates for Stallings Road
and the critical rates for urban two-lane secondary roads is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Crash Rates (per 100 million vehicle miles)
Crash Type SR 1365
(Stallings Road) Statewide Critical Crash Rate
urban two-lane secondary roads..
Total 762.13 566.35
Fatal 0.00 9.92
Non-Fatal wl Injury 275.94 197.68
Nighttime 59.13 154.26
Wet Conditions 45.99 121.15
A safety analysis was performed by the NCDOT Safety Planning Group in the Traffic Safety
Unit, and the following safety improvements should be considered:
• Install advance signal ahead warning signs on US 74 if they are not already in place.
Upgrade the traffic control at the intersection of SR 1367 (Matthews Indian Trail Road)
by installing a traffic signal if warranted.
Install an exclusive right turn lane for westbound traffic and also consider prohibiting left
turn movements by installing a raised median or a right in/right out type driveway at
Campus Ridge Extension Road.
Install either a raised median or right in/ right out type driveways to prohibit left turn
movements into or out of the businesses between the section from US 74 and SR 1367
(Matthews Indian Trail Road).
III. EXISTING HIGHWAY DESCRIPTION
A. INTERSECTING ROADWAYS /TRAFFIC CONTROL
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) within the project limits is a two lane facility 1.4 miles in length.
The eastern terminus of the project is the intersection of SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) and the
western terminus is US 74 (Independence Boulevard). The western and eastern termini are
signalized intersections. Between SR 1009 and US 74, Stallings Road has multiple at-grade
intersections with streets providing access to adjacent neighborhoods and commercial or
industrial sites. Access is stop sign controlled at each of these intersections.
B. CROSS SECTION
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) currently consists of one 12-foot lane in each direction with 2-3
foot grass shoulders. At the western terminus of the project where Stallings Road intersects
with (SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road)), Stallings Road has an exclusive left turn lane with a
combined right/through lane. At the intersection with US 74, which is the eastern terminus of the
project, the same configuration exists. Currently a sidewalk with varying setback (10 feet or
more) exists along the southern side of Stallings Road for the length of the project.
C. RIGHT OF WAY
The existing right of way is 60 feet wide along SR 1365 (Stallings Road) within the project
limits.
D. STRUCTURES
There are no structures along SR 1365 (Stallings Road) within the project limits.
E. SCHOOL BUSES
Fifteen Union County Public School System buses operate within the project limits.
These buses make 37 total trips per day.
F. SPEED LIMIT
Stallings Road has a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour (mph).
G. CONTROL OF ACCESS
There is no access control on SR 1365 (Stallings Road).
H. RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT
- There is one rail crossing within the project limits. The crossing consists of one track on
200 feet of CSX right of way, approximately midway along the project between Gribble Road
and Smith Farm Road. Ten trains use this rail line per day.
UTILITIES
Utilities are located along the project such as telephone on both sides, water on both
sides, sewer on both sides, power on both sides, and gas on the north side of Stallings Road.
J. SIDEWALKS
Currently there is a sidewalk on the south side of SR 1365 (Stallings Road) along the
length of the project.
K. BICYCLES
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) is not designated as a bicycle route, nor does it correspond to
a bicycle STIP request. However, there is some bicycle traffic as the municipal park and several
residential neighborhoods access the facility.
L. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) traverses rolling terrain, and has both horizontal and vertical
curves within the project limits.
M. OTHER HIGHWAY PROJECTS IN THE AREA
There are several NCDOT highway projects near STIP project U-3825. This project is
located in the Division 10 highway improvement section of the 2009-2015 State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). STIP project R-2559 and R-3329 is the planned Monroe
Connector/Bypass, a multilane toll facility on new and existing location (North Carolina Turnpike
Authority Project). STIP project U-3809 is the proposed widening of SR 1008 (Indian Trail Road)
from SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) to US 74 (E. Independence Boulevard). STIP project U-4713
is the proposed McKee Road Extension from SR 3457 (Campus Ridge Road) to SR 3446
(Pleasant Plains Road), two lanes on multi-lane Right of Way. See Figure 4 in Appendix A for
locations of these projects.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located within the Town of Stallings city limits in northern Union County
(see Figure 1, Appendix A). Union County is adjacent to Mecklenburg County and Charlotte to
the northwest, and shares a border with South Carolina to the south. Union County is one of the
fastest growing counties in the state of North Carolina.
B. CONTROL OF ACCESS
Currently partial control of access is proposed along SR 1365 (Stallings Road). The
proposed improvements include a median with median breaks at the appropriate locations.
C. RIGHT OF WAY
A 110-foot wide right of way is proposed for the entire length of the project. Additional
right of way may also be acquired along existing side streets and on both the eastbound and
westbound approaches to the grade separated railroad crossing (bridge).
D. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Depending on the alternative selected for construction, several intersections will be
improved or altered.
Alternative A is a four lane median-divided facility with a railroad grade separation
(bridge), service road realignment under the bridge, and realigning Gribble Road with Industrial
Drive. This alternative will improve the intersections at Old Monroe Road, Stallings Drive,
Industrial Drive, Gribble Road, Smith Farm Road, Matthews Indian Trail Road, and E.
Independence Boulevard. Under this alternative, drivers using Commercial Drive can access
Stallings Road by Smith Farm Road, which will be a full movement intersection. (see Figures
2A, 2B, and 2E; Appendix A). Since the access along the proposed facility will be partially
controlled by a raised grass median and monolithic concrete islands, the following side streets
(y-lines) will have right-in right out only: Stallings Road Extension, Tracy Circle, Commercial
Drive, Spruce Street, Drye Lane and Kincaid Court. The new Gribble Road intersection will be a
full movement intersection; therefore drivers using side streets that access Gribble Road may
have full access at this intersection. The following intersections with Stallings Road will be
signalized: Industrial Drive/Gribble Road, Smith Farm Road, and Matthews Indian Trail Road.
Alternative B is the same as Alternative A minus the service road realignment under the
grade-separated railroad crossing. This alternative will improve the same intersections that
Alternative A improves. The side streets will have the same access as Alternative A, with the
exception that drivers using Commercial Drive may use Old Stallings Road and Spruce Street to
access Stallings Road at a right-in right-out only intersection (see Figures 2A, 2C, and 2E;
Appendix A).
Alternative C is a proposed four lane median divided facility with an at-grade railroad
crossing (see Figures 2A, 2D, and 2E; Appendix A). Alternative C was eliminated from further
consideration due to safety concerns that are discussed later in this document (refer to Section
V. Alternatives for Study, A. Build Alternatives in this Environmental Assessment).
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority has not finalized an alignment for the proposed
Monroe Bypass/Connector project at the eastern terminus of Stallings Road. Depending on
which alternative is recommended, the eastern terminus of STIP U-3825 at US 74 may impact
the Stallings Road design. See Figure 5, Appendix A for the Monroe Bypass/Connector
corridors under consideration.
V. ALTERNATIVES FOR STUDY
A. BUILD ALTERNATIVES
Two build alternatives are being studied for the widening of Stallings Road. Alternative A
proposes widening Stallings Road to four lanes with a raised 23 foot grass median, an 11 foot
inside lane and a 14 foot outside lane with curb and gutter. The outside lane is wider to
accommodate bicycles and side walks are proposed on both sides of the road. A grade
separation (bridge) is proposed at the railroad crossing. Gribble Road will be realigned with
Industrial Drive, and a service road will be realigned by extending it under the proposed bridge.
Alternative B proposes the same typical section as Alternative A, minus realigning the
service road.
Alternative C is a proposed four lane median divided facility with sidewalks on both
sides, 11 foot wide inside travel lanes and 14 foot outside travels lanes to accommodate bicycle
transportation, with an at-grade railroad crossing. This alternative was eliminated from further
consideration due to safety concerns. The exposure index for the Stallings Road railroad
crossing is 238,000. For safety reasons, NCDOT policy requires that a grade separation
(bridge) be considered at a railroad crossing in an urban setting when the exposure index is
higher than 30,000. The exposure index is calculated by multiplying the 2030 ADT (23,800) by
the number of trains per day (10).
B. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM)
Transportation system management was considered for the project. However, the
improvements would not meet the purpose and the need of the project.
C. NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
If improvements are not made to SR 1365 (Stallings Road) the two-lane facility will be
operating at an unacceptable level of service by 2030. The increase in traffic without additional
capacity will hamper traffic flow and may result in an increase in the already high accident rate
along Stallings Road. Mobility and safety on Stallings Road will deteriorate to a point where
through traffic will begin to utilize alternate routes not designed for high traffic volumes.
Therefore, the NCDOT does not recommend implementation of the no-build alternative.
D. ALTERNATIVE MODES
Stallings does not offer public bus service or passenger rail service. Implementation of
these services would not eliminate the need for the proposed project.
E. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
Table 3. Preliminary Project Costs
In Millions
ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION' RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL COST
10
Alternative A, grade-
separated rail crossing & $23.6 M $7.2 M $30.8 M
service road relocation
Alternative B, grade-
separated rail crossing $22.4 M $7.4 M
$29.8 M
Alternative C,
at-grade rail crossing $15.8 M $4.9 M
$20.7 M
uuly
VI. EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT
A. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to NCGS 121-12 (a) which directs the head of any State agency
having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed State or state-assisted undertaking, or the
head of any State department, board, commission, or independent agency having authority to
build, construct, operate, license, authorize, assist, or approve any State or state-assisted.
undertaking, shall, prior to the approval for the undertaking, take into account the effect of the
undertaking on any property listed in the National Register of Historic Places establish pursuant
to Public Law 89-665, 16 U.S.C. 470. Where, in the judgment of the Historical Commission, an
undertaking will have an effect upon any listed property, the head of the appropriate State
agency shall afford the Commission a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such
undertaking.
1. Archaeological Resources
In correspondence dated November 22, 2002 the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) recommended no archaeological survey for this project. A copy of this
correspondence is included in Appendix B.
2. Architectural Resources
On September 18, 2007, NCDOT and SHPO representatives met to discuss historic
architectural resources in Stallings. A signed concurrence form indicates that there are no
historic properties affected by STIP project U-3825. A copy of the concurrence form is
included in Appendix B.
B. LAND USE & COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The unabridged version can be reviewed in the Transportation Building, 1 South Wilmington
Street, Room 447 (Library), Raleigh, N.C.)
1. Community Characteristics
Land use along Stallings Road consists mostly of industrial and other commercial uses
between Kinard Court and Smith Farm Road. AEP Industries, the Stallings' largest industry and
local employer, is located along Stallings Road. Small businesses including local restaurants, a
computer/software store, a canine training center, plumbing supply center, and several
11
automobile maintenance shops are mixed in and among the larger industrial companies found
here.
A residential community exists on both sides of Stallings Road between Smith Farm
Road and Matthews-Indian Trail Road. Homes within this community appear to be well
maintained. Roughly 150 homes comprise these communities, and several vacant parcels are
still found east along Stallings Road. Land use from Matthews-Indian Trail Road to the project's
eastern terminus is a mix of vacant wooded land and more recently-developed commercial land.
Land use is commercially developed at the intersection of Stallings Road and US 74, and
includes two refueling stations/convenience stores, a shed sales center, and an RV sales lot.
Between 1990 and 2000, the population growth for the Demographic Area increased
greatly by 117.6%. Stallings (49.6%) increased at almost double the rate of North Carolina
(21.4%) during the same time period (see Table 1). Local planners noted that Stallings'
population in 2003 was approximately 8,400 residents. This was the result of continued
annexing after 2000, in addition to steady residential growth. Stallings annexed several large
tracts of land and communities east of US 74 in 2001, thereby adding several thousand
residents. Actual population growth for Stallings between 1990 and 2003 is approximately
293.0%. Population for Indian Trail surged between 1990 and 2000, growing by 513%, as result
of increases in new construction as well as several annexations. However, in contrast, Union
County's rate (46.9%) was relatively less than Stallings and Indian Trail, but more than double
the rate of North Carolina.
2. Project Impacts
The final design of the project has not yet been completed. However, it is estimated that
Alternative A which crosses the railroad with a grade separation (bridge), realigns Gribble Road
with Industrial Drive, and proposes to extend the Service Road under the railroad bridge, will
result in the relocation/displacement of thirteen residences and two businesses. Alternative B,
which proposes the same improvements as Alternative A, minus the service road relocation, will
result in the same number of estimated relocations/displacements as Alternative A.
Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies that
publically owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge or land from
historic resources of national, state, or local significance may be used for Federal-Aid projects
only if:
(1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land.
(2) Such highway program or project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm to 4(f) lands resulting from such use.
The Town of Stallings municipal park is located within the project limits near Old Monroe
Road on the south side of Stallings Road across from the new Stallings Town Hall. Each
widening alternative impacts the park equally. The proposed Right of Way acquired from the
park is 6,825 square feet ( 0.157 acres) and the proposed Temporary Construction Easement
12
(TCE) is 3,700 square feet (0.085 acres). The proposed taking would impact approximately 20
parking spaces. The total area of the parkland is 241,736 square feet (5.6 acres). Therefore 4.4
percent of the park land would be impacted by STIP project U-3825.
An avoidance alternative is not considered feasible and prudent. Avoiding the municipal
park completely by shifting the alignment is not a prudent alternative because it would require
taking the new town hall directly across the street from the park, and potentially the business
(bank) on the corner of Old Monroe Road.
Relocations
Additional right of way will be needed to construct the project. Temporary construction
easements will also be required. A relocation report for the recommended alternative was
prepared. This relocation report is included in Appendix D of this report.
When relocation is necessary, it is the policy of NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state and federally assisted
projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three
programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation.
Relocation Assistance
Relocation Moving Payments
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
The noted regulations and programs help ensure that property owners are compensated fairly
for the loss of value to their property.
3. Indirect and Cumulative Effects
a. Indirect Impacts
The proposed improvements to SR 1365 (Stallings Road) will increase capacity and
should improve safety along the project corridor. Land use impacts are likely to occur within a
two-mile radius of Charles Street once the facility is upgraded. The project does not conflict
with the existing and planned land use in the project area.
The properties adjacent to SR 1365 (Stallings Road) consist primarily of single-family
residences, businesses, municipal uses, and industries. The present land-development
patterns will constrain the growth within the project study area. Direct impacts will consist of
single-family residential being converted to business or higher density residential.
The proposed improvements to SR 1365 (Stallings Road) will potentially impact
accessibility during construction. The industrial park, town hall, municipal park, businesses, and
residential properties will be potentially impacted.
b. Cumulative Impacts
The project will improve access to businesses and community resources in the area. It will
allow bicyclists and pedestrians to share the road more safely with vehicle traffic. It will reduce
congestion in the area and allow for easier left turns into the surrounding community. The
13
proposed addition of sidewalks and wider lanes will better accommodate residents' biking and
walking patterns through the community.
C. NATURAL RESOURCES
[The following is an abridged version of the Natural Resources Technical Report. A copy of the
unabridged version can be reviewed in the Transportation Building, 1. South Wilmington Street,
Room 447 (Library), Raleigh, N.C.]
1. Physical Resources
Regional Characteristics
The project study area is located in the southwestern part of the Piedmont Physiographic
Province of North Carolina. Land in the project study area is characterized as gently sloping to
rolling. Elevation average approximately 700 ft above mean sea level (msl). The project is
located on the western edge of Union County in the town of Stallings that is mostly urban. Both
commercial and residential areas surround the project study area.
b. Geology and Soils
The Union County Soil Survey identifies four different map unit symbols located within the
project study area. Of the four different map unit symbols, two, Applying sandy loam and
Applying-Urban land complex, are classified in the same map unit. Helena fine sandy loam and
Urdorthents, loamy comprise the remaining map units in the project study area.
c. Biotic Resources
The project study area is located in a region of mainly residential and commercial land
use. Within the project study area, two land use categories are recognized, maintained/
disturbed land (89%) and early successional growth (11%).
Tahia A I I_3R95 TerrPwtrial Communitv TVDes in PSA
?j Coverage Percent .of
Plant Community Area. acres Total Area
Earl Successional Growth 11 11
Maintained - Disturbed Land 87 89
TOTAL: 98 100 .
2. Jurisdictional Topics
a. Water Resources
No wetlands were observed in the project study area. However, four potential
jurisdictional streams were identified within the project study area. The North Carolina 2006
Final 303(d) list of impaired waters identifies South Fork Crooked Creek from source to SR
1515, approximately 5 miles downstream, in Union County. Therefore, all of South Fork
Crooked Creek within the project study area is on the 2006 Final 303(d) list.
14
Table 5. U-3825 Proiect Studv Area Streams
Site
Map ID Stream Name DWQ Index # Stream
Classification Best Usage
Classification
S-1 UT 13-17-20-2 Intermittent C

S-2 South Forked
Crooked Creek
13-17-20-2
Intermittent
C
S-3 UT 13-17-20-2 Perennial C
S-4 UT 13-17-20-2 Intermittent C
3. Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation measures are not considered until such time that it has been
demonstrated that no practicable avoidance alternatives exist, and that all practicable measures
for minimizing unavoidable impacts have been incorporated into project design. Compensatory
mitigation includes such measures as restoration, creation, enhancement and preservation.
4. Permits
The project may be permitted under multiple Nationwide Permits (NWP) provided
individual impacts do not exceed the NWP maximum threshold. An individual permit will be
required should single project impacts exceed the NWP 14 threshold. This threshold includes
cumulative impacts of streams and wetlands totaling up to 0.5 acre, and, cumulative loss or
degradation of greater than 300 linear feet of one jurisdictional stream.
5. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of endangered (E), threatened (T),
proposed endangered (PE) and proposed threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of December
20, 2007, the USFWS lists three federally protected species for Union County. These species
are listed in Table 6. A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each
species follows, along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact.
Table 6. U-3825 Federally Protected Species for Union County
CommoruName . Scientific Name Federal Habitat or . Biological
Status' Surve Info Conclusion
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata E No habitat
No Effect
Present
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Habitat Present No Effect
Schweiniti s sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E Habitat Present No Effect
'Status Key: E - Endangered
Species: Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
Family: Unionidae
Federal Status: Endangered
Listed: July-24-1992
Best Search Time: Anytime
Distribution and Habitat Requirements:
15
The Carolina heelsplitter is listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as
potentially occurring in Union County. An extant population of the Carolina heelsplitter
occurs in Goose and Duck Creek of the Rocky River subbasin, approximately 11 miles
northeast of the project area in Union County. Populations of the Carolina heelsplitter
mussels typically occur along well-shaded streambanks with mud, muddy sand, or
muddy gravel substrates. However, its preferred habitat is wide, shallow creeks and
rivers with stable banks and substrates. Bedrock with a strike perpendicular to flow and
with a nearly vertical dip is usually found in or near occupied habitats. Extensive
woodlands throughout the subbasin are associated with the best Carolina heelsplitter
populations (Alderman 1995, Alderman 1998, Alderman 1999, Alderman 2002). The
stability of the stream banks appears to be most important to this species.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
A January 23, 2008 review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats
revealed no known populations of Carolina heelsplitter within one mile of the project
study corridor. A mussel screening was conducted on January 07, 2008. Screenings
were conducted on streams that have a low probability of containing mussels. At the
Stallings Road crossing, the stream was dry, less than 3 feet (ft) wide, filled with trash,
had a very small buffer, and the stream is intermittent at this point. South Fork Crooked
Creek at this point could not support a mussel population. A crossing about half a mile
downstream was found to contain water, though very low, has a rocky/sandy substrate,
was about 6 ft wide and was still in an urban area and contained trash. A third crossing
1 mile downstream at Indian Trail road was also found to be urban, 7.5 ft wide, very little
flow, extremely flashy, and adjacent to a sewer line ROW. The substrate here was
sand with some gravel. The banks were eroding and very unstable. No surveys were
conducted at any of these crossings due to the lack of habitat.
A mussel survey was conducted at the Indian Trail Road crossing (approximately 1 mile
downstream from the project area) on September 05, 2003. The survey extended from
the stream crossing to a point approximately 1500 ft upstream and totaled 5 person-
hours. The survey was conducted by wading in the creek while using visual (batiscope)
and tactile methods to survey for mussels. No mussels were observed in the survey
reach.
As a result of the January 7, 2008 survey as well as physical characteristics of the creek
and a review of historical data, it appears the Carolina heelplitter does not exist in the
project vicinity. Therefore, a biological conclusion of NO EFFECT was rendered.
Species: Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Family: Cashew (Anacardiaceae)
Federal Status: Endangered
Listed: September 28, 1989
Best Search Time: During the growing season (June - September)
Distribution and Habitat Requirements:
16
Michaux's sumac is endemic.to the inner Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic provinces
of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Most populations occur in North
Carolina. This species prefers sandy, rocky, open woods and roadsides. Its survival is
dependent on disturbance (mowing, clearing, and fire) to maintain an open habitat. It is often
found with other members of its genus as well as with poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
There is no longer believed to be an association between this species and specific soil types.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
An August 28, 2007 review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats
revealed no known populations of Michaux's sumac within one mile of the project study
corridor. Suitable habitat for the Michaux's sumac was identified throughout the majority
of the project study area in the form of maintained roadsides and disturbed areas.
Three NCDOT biologists conducted Michaux's sumac surveys throughout the project
study area on August 30, 2007 for approximately three hours. These surveys were
conducted by visually searching each plant for the target species in all areas that were
considered suitable habitat. However, no species of Michaux's sumac were found within
the project study area. Therefore, a biological conclusion of NO EFFECT was
rendered.
Species: Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Family: Aster (Asteraceae)
Federal Status: Endangered
Listed: May 7, 1991
Best Search Time: Late summer through frost (August - November)
Distribution and Habitat:
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont physiographic province of North
?I Carolina and South Carolina. Charlotte, NC is considered to be the center of this
species' distribution.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
An August 28, 2007 review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats
revealed no known populations of Schweinitz's sunflower within one mile of the project
study corridor. Suitable habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower was identified throughout
the majority of the project study area in the form of maintained roadsides and disturbed
areas. Three NCDOT biologists conducted Schweinitz's sunflower surveys throughout
the project study area on August 30, 2007 for approximately three hours. These surveys
were conducted by visually searching each plant for the target species in all areas that
were considered suitable habitat. However, no species of Schweinitz's sunflower were
found within the project study area. Therefore, a biological conclusion of NO EFFECT
was rendered.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has been delisted from the Endangered
Species Act as of August 8, 2007. However, it is still protected under the Bald and
17
Golden Eagle Protection Act. No nesting or forging habitat is present within the project
study area for the bald eagle. Therefore, no survey was completed.
D. TRAFFIC NOISE
[The following is an abridged version of the Noise Impacts Report. A copy of the unabridged
version can be reviewed in the Transportation Building, 1. South Wilmington Street, Room 447
(Library), Raleigh, N.C.)
1. General
This analysis was performed to determine the effect on traffic noise levels in the
immediate project area as the result of widening SR 1365 (Stallings Road) from a two-lane
facility to a proposed four-lane median divided facility from SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) to US
74 (Independence Boulevard) in Union County (see Figure N1, Appendix C).
2. Noise Abatement Criteria
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement Criteria
(NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways to determine whether
highway noise levels are or are not compatible with various land uses. These abatement criteria
and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772).
A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table N2
(Appendix C). The Led, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a
given situation and time period has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other
words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise
level with the same energy content.
3. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
if traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise
abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted receptors. There
are no impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project area and therefore no
noise abatement is considered or recommended.
4. "Do-Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative was also
considered. If the proposed widening did not occur, no receptors are anticipated to approach or
exceed the FHWA NAC. Also, the receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in
exterior noise levels of approximately up to a 2 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to
detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.
5. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech
interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be
expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during
grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise
and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be
18
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.
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.
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 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
21
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 Toxics 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.
• 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
22
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 problemst1-. 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 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."
For each alternative in this EA, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to
the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same
for each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than
that for the No Build Alternative, because the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the
roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation network. This increase
in VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for the action Alternative along the highway
corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the parallel routes.
The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased
speeds; according to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs
except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these
speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be
reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.
Because the estimated VMT under each of the Alternatives are nearly the same, it is
expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the
various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower
than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are
projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020. Local
conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT
i South Coast Air Quality Management District. Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study41 (2000); Highway Health Hazards,
The Sierra Club (2004) summarizing 24 Studies on the relationship between health and air quality); NEPA's Uncertainty in the
Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Environmental Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005) with health
studies cited therein-.
23
growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected
reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study
area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases.
The additional travel lane 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 MSATs could be
higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative. 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 would be higher relative to the No Build Alternative,
but this could be offset due to 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.
The USDOT made a conformity determination on the LRTP, the STIP and Union County
projects from the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) on June 29, 2007. For the
donut-areaa of Union County, the projects from the 2007 STIP conform to the intent of the SIP
(or base year emissions, in areas where no SIP is or found adequate). The current conformity
determination is consistent with the final conformity rule in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are
no significant changes in the design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analysis.
B. GEODETIC MARKERS
There is one geodetic survey marker in the project vicinity near the intersection of
Stallings Road and Old Monroe Road, in the west quadrant of the intersection. This marker may
be impacted during construction. The NC Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to the start of
construction.
C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EVALUATION
[The following is an abridged version of the Hazardous Materials Evaluation Report. A copy of
the unabridged version can be reviewed in the Transportation Building, 1. South Wilmington
Street, Room 447 (Library), Raleigh, N.C.
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 7 shows the potential hazardous sites on the project
and any impacts brought on by its construction.
2 Donut areas are geographic areas outside a metropolitan planning area boundary, but inside the boundary of a nonattainment or
maintenance area that contains any part of a metropolitan areas(s). These areas are not isolated rural nonattainment and
maintenance areas. http://Www.fhwa. dot. gov/environmentlconformity/complex/group3. htm
24
2. Summary
Five possible regulated (commercial) UST sites presently or formerly containing
petroleum were identified within the proposed project corridor. Three of these sites may be
impacted during construction. There is still the possibility of unregulated USTs (farm tanks or
home heating oil tanks) being impacted by the project. One site with several large above
ground tanks was also noted.
If any additional USTs or any potential source of contamination is discovered by Right of
Way personnel during their initial contacts with impacted property owners, NCDOT
Geotechnical Engineering Unit will be notified of their presence prior to acquisition. This is so
that 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 Geo-
environmental to make right of way recommendations.
3. Table 7. Underground Storage Tank Facilities
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities
Business Name/Location Number of
USTs
Impacts
Market Express, 2824 Old Monroe Road Four None
Fast Fare Crown NC 634, 2700 Old Monroe Road Four None
Former Stallings Exxon, 2400 Old Monroe Road Four May be impacted, to be determined
Circle K#2705359, 13024 E Independence Blvd Eleven May be impacted, to be determined
Fast Fare #631, 13025 E Independence Blvd Four May be impacted, to be determined
i_Above,Ground Tanks
AEP Industries, Stallings Road Several None
D. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction of the proposed project,
the following standard measures, along with those previously stated, will be enforced during the
construction phase:
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.
25
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.
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 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
preconstruction 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.
6. 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.
9. 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
26
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.
10. 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.
VIII. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. COORDINATION
During the planning phase of this project, NCDOT coordinated with several local, state
and federal agencies. Correspondence requesting environmental input was sent to the
following agencies and replies were received from those marked with an asterisk (*).
US Army Corps of Engineers (Asheville, NC Regulatory Field Office)
US Environmental Protection Agency (Raleigh)
US Fish and Wildlife Service (Asheville)
NC Dept. of Administration (State Clearinghouse)*
NC Dept. of Cultural Resources (Historic Preservation)*
NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources*
NC Wildlife Resources Commission*
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization
Town of Stallings
B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMENTS
NCDOT held a Citizens' Informational Workshop (CIW) on June 18, 2007 from
4:00-7:00 pm at the Town Hall in Stallings. There were approximately 48 citizens in attendance
at the workshop. The handouts provided at the workshop included a comment sheet that
citizens could fill out and submit questions or comments.
During the workshop, the Division of Highways displayed two aerial photographs of the
project area, vicinity maps, and a thoroughfare plan map showing the proposed project. In
addition, the Division of Highways supplied each participant with an information packet
containing general project information, a vicinity map, and a comment sheet. A copy of this
packet is included in Appendix F. Each participant had the opportunity to review the aerial
photograph and maps and ask questions or give comments.
Many property owners currently living along Stallings Road asked about potential
impacts and Right of Way acquisition. There was a Division 10 Right of Way agent available to
address these questions. There was both support and opposition for widening Stallings Road
and several citizens submitted comment sheets. Most citizens acknowledged that something
needed to be done to improve the congestion along the road. Some citizens said that it doesn't
27
make sense to widen Stallings Road to four lanes unless Old Monroe Road is also widened to
four lanes. Some citizens preferred a two lane median divided road that utilized the median for
landscaping and beautification. Most citizens were opposed to a bridge over the rail line.
A public hearing will take place after the publication and distribution of this
Environmental Assessment. At the hearing citizens will be 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, it is anticipated a Finding of No
Significant Impact will be prepared, which will include the selected alternative for this project.
The chosen alternative will be selected based on engineering, environmental information, and
public comments.
IX. 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 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 June 18, 2007. For these reasons, it is concluded that an
Environmental Assessment is applicable to this project.
28

Union Count
AKA
cp

0
END PROJECT

BEGIN PROJECT FNI
13

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
VICINITY MAP
SR 1366 (STALLINGS ROAD)
WIDEN TO MULTILANES
FROM SR 1009 (OLD MONROE ROAD)
TO US 74 (1.4 Miles)
TOWN OF STALLINGS, UNION COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3825
June 2007 FIGURE 1
A-1

w?
D
a
Gribble Rd
ELi •w
r?
D
;ah ? r d .y r- 1 ? ?
-_' -r_. -?'. •SSf,. `lal?'.?.c*95?^ar?-'. _ ._-.CC.. 14-1..?.IIS-Z¢4?- 1
rsir 'n -s.. 'T
d
-ilai
iv ai
,t Tracy Cir ,
.? ?.• J J _
Y rJ?? t (D o
y? '? 1 e?a'fk kJ A
tt,
'1??y',f } r3 T 'J?? ?'M ?"« •^'Yr ?? -i41 ???1 .;x?•?' Y ?v r
+.•-_?-+rrf!.':°`?.ti.Wa? :? _ r y j'r 1 pr, I '?•I::, - - `
4 In7?1 ?.
\- - ?:
,. '
c-
?? .e'1I
I "IMP MOM-
"Am
VIII UG?;
CSX Railline
Commercial Dr
Ta! r ?. ° , ar -lll rya ?ti y ti
T -W
4-0 J)
OL ' J
Smith Farm 1

1.,L ta!?Gp?
YM?..?s ?1 p 1 -
`,' of . ??,; ? yam, 1 } `y??+f'a'° ?,Il 1 ? ? r'.,'
' rr ? li i )+I 'r
jai.. '? y? - ?f'' C ? l1f?I "?.. + ? c •? i
'• t r: 1~F - 71? "? j??lll'HI?I +111 ySj.,
?„ .. '? ? w. it A'[ _ -?, ..-}• 'jt. :+? Y '^?Pr';,.. .? aye -
J_ J`
Spruce Sf
k, -9K/R

' N
r?lir-Wi -,Y 1;'v?gC.y9te.`} f L)y, ^? J _ '?; __ 7- an.' y`' I ?.. ¦ u%
T ?rI?L h + `V °kOLZ+I r; r ¦i '? x. C l I i r f. _
?". '- F.'; ,^.c.??.•-? _.?'- '? 'M-' 71?'
.... a..+:.
.-c y
__ib.... - r vet ? 2?`?y?? y??SII?C?,?y11?•?'." ??' ..• ?2'' I ' Il'rT .Yy! y ? ?,. ????! '?ks?y 1y'?/J? ?q
¢S L
J'-.11.J `il?.. ? ?? ?'(' -..., r? ri ti.+ ' -V R 'a ryWl
Tal-
77
lilt
FA R -- I t_
». * "`"`°?F-? Jf ( •- fi'r'ms-° i _? ?. .1 rJ
r ? « _ .??t `?;: wi t I I' I'ja.' i ? ?''•,, 4r ?,,+•-:. 1?', e? ? ? ??.?' b: ?u
~ ?? >IS a?nJ(jC -_ ?.",y "'.??.p"Il f, ?i_l?'•'``?rj P'. ?'. X3''2_ 4 '?k ?,•[ ?j OF ?, .•?
. Y \
R ?t M l .Y
_ y
ko,
M.MmO•' ,AAG,a,dt.
ilN
rt,
We
fit
17
vow
'17
I
aul
[T? 4 fit':- `,?` - - - ._-- - J f 1 I , `. - - - _ _ _ _ - __ ,??.:?? , - ! ??-? ??? ,• '' _ ^?x
'may JQ e OJGWWOO
t-7
11 1111 1I,' II? ?? •.: ' ' t M Il '. ?.
pd oic1qjo
r417
1 ,' ' C ?r•- h.. 1 ??'" I?I x ?.?- ?" ? li} ?,•`i? =s ? ? r - C ..? a..'?''r'„ ~ L?•?;T?
'Rol
z?a ?c R - ?i ? *?? ? 1 ? fell .:. - t J? ?1. •
j- '7R ??'N q• ? 1 ? 111 I _. ? a ? r
Ix,
fT"q
4. d s
Y ? 1-
rq)41
?,v:? `?? ~ ? "r +d?• ? ??? I G1'?,11 4 ", "14r^_. -1'+ ? . `el'X?i .? ... "' ? Y + jy.
R
. I
" ??J i•
AL. JV
N
6, 317
17, it, >
4OF
+. _
- ? ti? -la J ? I j ? 'MV r C 3 ?
may, ?''! cr,` sp
JMW-
00
Cn r_
A
%
,? ?` ,? .....?+w+++???""" r x?' 1? ?r y, 1 _ i.,:q?M??'?i'- '?' ?}ti'm .?, '.??ys,?,,? e,'I .... " 4 •. wgkl
W xt* 1 'a a? M rn %
O ? ???!''?? "` ??v4 ?`?,?r`aPj,?',n '4?- ,.? _ ?.?. AX41? 4 y
tab
CIF
?I '? 4 ,1? ? ? ? , a - q?M???,y?r ?..?.' .I t e , ???," ? ?II -? ?i y`? ?:? `" ?, ?^? x.?'?' - x . \ . 4? ? ?-' 1` .., ti' =.? '?. ?•.
CID
Trj-
' t.. ,? a?S...?' yam. ?: ? ???~ '}.•[bw~ ,\n,. .. .,.
" ?'?.? ? . 1 .«Iqq? ,.?t. I? -2j I'a I? ?Y! ,? :9E. r'Lh ?. ? y ? ? °'tc
?.2 ??? ? 4 't ?V J ..j ??1}? ??I'Ex41f?? YYY?`a?lT? '.+: ?'!?"V?•?s? ?trkc?? - u'pp? .' ?T
E• l ir+ ;% f1i°!+C 'Stiff'' ?'^' ai
??,• b1t 140%.
.." ". ?•wq .?. ':ice-t 1 i 1 Y_, ?•.- "?r ?yrr s?!?'. G
•.? -. ,,J _ '? ,r.R? ???? _'? ?}. ?ylll ".. ? ?? 'TIC' ... j+„?. '? -? ?` j`\ I -prM•,.1`' ???'?js' _ FF
? .? J v't. ? °j ht r.
s`-
Syr ?? I^: .` v; r" ?`.l?l ' K '? y ? r••r•..; ,?. t Mcltthew23 IIIGiar Trail Rd
-I M7§
:;
y«.a. . ?'•Z". _ A +* e.?da I li ice' ?I. : .. w. - .` ?.; %%W,
i,?.?t. - - - ..".? ?,.'?.? 1 .?i' ?4' to .'r, ?t ?•?r "z vt I."a?,r } `'? `'....-C '7 1 'u to
JJ - • ;d`' ?' _ r - ??.? i:lt}'.:?r _ '- Z1„i Dy p , '` ? ° y ?• ?'"4 a'C - ' - 'iR"
? x•?.ts t _ •r ,?sl+" ?. `? + ??. ' ??i ??sP ?' ?6 •.`? '?'.?? ?t ??`• ?' y ..>t ?.T
7 ,I
? 1d? ?'.l I: Yh7 ' "` ? ? s t ? .'.r?}?y?! Y -i I f ? ?I, ,? .ei?. l?s. -
lab` 1
rr': 'Yfs.r1 c 4F .! w??r k-? rs?• I ? ? i Ij ?4. j,I ? ?f? ? 4"??wy` ,jam "n_ y. 'v
04
"JI 71-
lot
2,?•rr. - ??.• ?I " 'I^l,?t v lp. ?. ?' ;r`..a.,v' _ - -? s s
a
;., y, III I I?l?I .'`s`!t` ... r• ,.?:?Y k s .fit
.Y
Bence Blvd
n
. US 741 E Indepe r„?k
Yr _ •-
J.
:•r t? `?: i+nlr..::,-•...-.?.,, .. ,... •u'-r f..r^+'•::'r':tlc'1`rl«`--,-- ?- ? .. w ? ?'" `, ?e? _
,1111-Cu-I -,...dF'Y' " .? 1•'. g ,?, 4 ' .?
y
PC,
?? ?}. ' 1 i^T ?- n . c - 1 a?? _ q r ra T s + tG cl s
1 ? ' ??y .w,k:~ ?.?C ?+?J"?...?? p.?, I _AM] `•?F - Jai LI
?.'-- x.::?=ti... _ 3,,,r •.,.?_ ?,, ,. ,FC., -•?i,. .'r,'.?:...`t•a. '? ?? - - -' '?q16 :t ? ?.?,_?' cP? ? .=a '?1'L '.? _-
.1 7?
y1?°•?l.. ?•? :,'?.W "Tl ?,Olyt, +.4,.Kv- r=,•`I ?`-I ?,'?:?. I? `?'°' T ?•? ?a
;ts
!1{ , ".? , °, ? ''?, ?Tx.. , ti y„ • 1 1 ? ' r ? ? r?,?__ ?.f??+?'yS,.,r,;iw ,nom, hy*,T ?., ? ? lr
I ? Rx '.? kA. lr ti; ~;{?`y;, - ..- w.r ?ti ti '??^'L"?`^?• ~ ,-i?`,^? ?w ? J t ? r ? -w
_r, sl
_- *w?? - _ ", rr .cep .''r' ? 's V!7[a? i •- N Iy ?{'?.?.w. ?,,.x, ?y.. ,t''k. cc?. ?• "iq:
ti....
Nk'
4.1
,r x x'ttd,. ``r!? ',V,e?. :? ?. ??-- J I "rte '' '.??•-.c? t +. 4.? 't'`'y' k`,
4.4
.:i 3'R Q. bQ,'w`' ; .,p ? ? y ? r„•+, . ' _'? -1; ?T..G '?. 2"_ F4 ?+?t" :•''?.. ?r' 'r? ;., ? +. ?? .g . ,4
` .. } N tqt• ?~ ?, way v??
`1'-tr_•°''''r' -
.^? _ W '? ! ld ..•fK ,t`••. ai, „?'"'tii;a` fu..... 9 „ a, r ,w/• , x r v61S` "- ?{ max` ?' ?`
• m ?., <.? t'+.?, ?',? '.'T?,;,_ _`?rt' T ttll 1,. 7y ''y. I.'' ' . +.. ,n - ri ,, (D { ?l
.-." N,i'-
I .? ? P '? ???. ,;i? .? > ? ..r .T ?? w '?i\ ? „??. "4 ?'? t1'1??2 :a.,.'x s•r ?c?y"'?" '?.? •i
i ` .'.?'+,?:j, ? ????'?R .}.r1? `?Cj.W„? ??"d' d ; Jb'? '• ?? ,1 '? n??l ??`?.. ? ? ?''? ? A? i?r ?''+{?v-L.?* ,??C Z!
a.at 11? .. _r• ?"-..•r. _r.Wi^b r•,. _. rd::._, ,. m._ _.?.. ?. ._ ?., ?.: ?Y?.
Q
M
N
L

N
h
N
w
10 ?5,?1

\ pry ?
Woll's
N
4r4 ?0
VO
N ?1t
N OX&
r?60
00
i
N rr,
J/1
N
rti1
368)
Sg
1e Road ?
r?;S
?o X8,21

y <<S?l4)p v°?l IllJp
d

Q
W ?
.-
rn
c
N Q
N
F'+
W
r`I
?J

p O
_
cc ,°. et N

? N
U ? M
"" '? o z ?
G
_ N r
Uxo•? ? ?? Z ? a

Cl 4.

y o 3 0 0 ?,
F~ o ? ?
_
3
f ?s _pevaa '
Fil
II W
~ 1
x?
w w ?>o V
,x
M
II Q
r`
I
Q
c bd? d Y ;? 60
:tt nor
?o 14- N p 4k It ° (3,3)j0
p1 D o a 7 potterRoad(SR,?
"-0111
d?C"?Crd
?S\ P-
.?v n n I
l( '40?
y ? X o n ? ? ? o C., ? ?? l"V) on
o-A
L
`? ??Vrx may`" Ic
.. x 1
v z
... ?. trJ 'o D ? ,,J. A us??„??
D
Z ?.w c ? 00 ? ,/ a qua ??
C Ci7 II ''
D
I
00
? vdBOry' sTgl?
Y Q?
io i. xl
T O
??2 I Q
'z
Q ?

.. 7 F

? O c ;o? o w ?

7

o
t.A
Cr
° W

N .A. c m o

to O
` CD
c

N
N
N
a°
o°o
o C
C
J
Q
cn
0
oc
t?

? & Ot
a
w
5? `?Sl P?oZl a?QQu9
? l8
o- R
A
0 J
W
c
J1r
x
R
y?
J

??`bl pl
oQ? ?r1Q?` ?t a????tiv
o?11?c11?L St1

?Nf
r?
?c l9 41 pt
? Iv
o
J
N
1J
, J

N

f
a
N ?? N
? tJ
N
Iv '7G
C
CD
W
co
U
c?
a?
LL
4-1
N
/ o
?o
1
4
??1
J? a
7 N
rM
r
N
7
N
f n
k?
`f

fJ ?
N
M
M
O ? n r
n
v? s?
1 ? O
? l1 l rte:
? r.
S`r'u`r? 55
r
M
N
O
- ? n
n?
N
M
o 4f
n

N
J
N ?
l?
o x
T -
G? Road ?5R CpO
n O,d Mo???oe
M
R, 381
d <5
? 1y'l 55
v `7
cn
N
R
x .!,
c
?S) ppo2/ ??110?
01
Wd p9
N
Q
WNW
Q
I?
H
Q
r?
O
I?1
W?
O •-
GYi U
r
O
N
O
M
O
N
M
N
W

C
? O
o ctc p ?,
COO

O ?= a o V vo ? "? M

M ? DD ? ?° [? ? W ~

on o .••,? O
cc? ° w?? V o
°

i
M
C
r1 `~
a, ZK
,7 n V? ` L- C • W
W - G C7v ??U
ADO f ?Zx-?`'?
u _O
vs ?=
d ?s
Roa
460
?p to 11
.4-41

i
a
I
O
O II ? ? ?
^1 w
???CC,,?a C 0.x S b
?., >
7
Y ?Zo
,7 L o ,,,,,3 C?J
y ??xr? ?yxt?
- C ! C y `?
O ? o d?
C ;? u
0
yddd3a , STgr .
ITO . ??y`?'0o ' • J o?o.
?417ON . dd
110
A' cr
. co
rD T
o? ° O
n a
N ? o ? o
O
cn
a
r?
`M
N
O
W
O
l?
O
V
b
cn N
o [i'J
O
y
O
O
l-J
W
R w
pOrterR?a?(S?/?S, \
1
A
r?
N
N w`
A A
N
x
x
r_
A
v
(SN
7
O' R
'n \
I
'? o0
,f
J
N
t?
v?
w ?
NNN
N ? -
J
1
1, sl o
a
55 ?S?QO 5c5cq oo

55 y? ?? 3 ?????"S rs
??S1PgO? `.,
a
09 u?S?1pVZ
ILAc ?gl?Qo-a
,off°vl V o
1b40 ? ?Sl ?vo21 `
c
N
O
S
R
1 O
N
A,-4D%

o
i+
w c
O
J
J
w
?c
w w
?. L SCE
-, f
O Vi
y
W N
A I "••1
o ?
o
?11
.46-
o c,`
I y
z
.y
v.
N
{N
A
'D a

sc;
.f
O
A
A ?^
v
a ?
A
-s
CD
W
W
co
N
i
L1.
A-- ?- I
y?
N
J m
11
J?
o r
m
N
Y
rr .?r
c
N
O
r. v.
r
n
? +On
00
M o vds?ttJ??n??a,\R°a
.? r M ??tth? ?_ , -6p
i ? v I
T
Q m
? Ro
8d `S
F.a? a
4?n,tb
?
\ o
\ N
N ? N `~ 1`, jC101 `
?7 p
n N b\C R°aa
m G?\? r?55
N
o
?J
?_?
? ? rn
O N
o??'• N
a 1t?dt?c<t3? a x
-r
N
r ?-
OQ M
CIC
??
N
by N
° ?pyd ls? \ Op9? ? r
r p\d?°luo
Q f
?S) peon Jal?o?
u
z
w
Q
L
O
'w
Vl
O
I?
U
o
O?
a 7,
O
W Q
Q
z
O
O
x
O
M
O
N
N
r
x

K
"C
c ? O
o ec c ? N
•?y ? p ? V? Z i.
? N
Z ova [-I ?o^, c?
C
c; eta a i ? ? U
? G ? C C rl
0
x
n W c
C
?? Iii n.r
A Wz? ? x? A?
-zoo E?
W 'wz o :rz??-' W
r..I C,C , ? I+i+N ??r7Z
? ? aI ? A o'a '? Q W
M ?
II C
I
Q
D
N
V
I ? s
6
co?
o i
I
I
I z
z
?

I
Z

i
i

o,
?I
I
is u
I
1
a.\
C
D
Cf) \
0
J
' '

i?
1
i
a
O
z
0

c
m

EL
? I
o H "r , l -
c o N - __ \
m U v m W"a %
r S a E _?. / 0 -
EI v o. m _ ow - -
rn V
1
m
Z5
\ ? ?'I rg ? Lg I4ARRIg ROAD ?x\
e\Y? 0 . ? . -? \ W 1 /
%
\ _ Y? d a I
ax ?`
hICINTYRE ROAD
?; ?. ° •? i 9 '
51*
-?? 0
? ypb
Ile,
i
d
G1 \
i
_ \ r ? s
= l">f I '!=obO? r
14-
n . `
' __ . _ z v t •
LLJ
W
a
J t W? r -/ ? -+ r Y
\!'171M - .-_ 'CK.Y RIVER RO r
o I NR O_.. a; /I
- A ?q7
pq?s ? c 7
-- 4
I r WA'NAVJ - IN !?= \ 0 L \ t-1-
? ?
If '0 >•?
y r'
? O
? O
N
R `
i d
CD M
a E
A
O
?Z
co
m
G1
0
'a
d
C
d
E
O
V
N?
I.L
N
N ?
? d n v
O m ee ;
0
a d V ?
Y W m v
Z ° m
T C O i
=H W a m
O ? Y
cr a v
Z df
O w

c?
r
a
tyu,,, .
ate'` .r
r 2004
Mecklenburg-Union
x° ;r e b Metropolitan Planning Organization
e`
Thoroughfare Plan
MPO Adopted November 17, 2004
f
yy. ,
a
? X? r I I i ?i Z ?A % !? ?3 h y ? ? F. ? ? ? '< ?x ? ? ? ? tOawntown Char/o[te, Oownfown Monroe,
a•' y r.Ei , .n } ?A A/ec'k/entwrq County Union County
L -n re'v i U P n ?? { r?\ry LCD
satV
yA E 1 3y a? .?3? y f 5? ? t ? R ? e ? <? f p. Y'C??
jS S . , ? ? f ` ,? avJ"f S?^ 'x v f -?Y ?'?4. ? WI.1111 y. •^R` n"r j. ,. wu '??
'? a ^75y L [? l(py? "?' ?"C? 7 p??. f?'l 4i'Pl b?
s . \?,, `}§? ,? `'? 1 rFY 1r ,??, \ +? ?+? ?• ±lA '3f yf' C* 1`P. E'? ? `?' ``:

jai. ???tC'e? Y> `, (?•°vT {•,?S`/an ? 'IK? b ?. ? ? ? 1 t
ht 1,9
i q?y co mEnc
CL WIC1nOn exismms eweoseo 1 /? Jer y i ,f •?•• w m
sxECw?r Exeuswnv ... c+m..a.. u.ra..a.
w RMO wxc.wE .. ,Yt d: ?° -,.} ? w. e.. Y o:w...'--:
en?ixonorwnon E {' ESP n J`V'' r 1, l,Qh ' r ?t ?..w r ure?wae,?...
u¢rocuxr -3j s4 4 ?? -. _ .. {.5' ?"'a svnocimwwwuvamncc
M i? i0. <wanw<uocrwwccvrars ?....i.s.-.....ss.?.....-....._........-....
E xr.r.nw
\J? Vvn;ER
7j ? 7
> VW\J? r
O ?
MEMORANDUM
?GrG?y
November 12.200?
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director N? 15 40p'
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch 6 &
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator Cval4lo FyLRp? NK'
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for SR 1365 (Stallings Road) from SR 1009 (Old Mo ...?
Road) to US 74, Union County, F.A. Project MASTP-1365(1) State Project No.
8.2692601, TIP No. U-3825.
In reply to your correspondence dated November 1, 2002 (received November 7, 2002) in which you
requested comments for the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project indicates that the
following water resources in Hydrologic Unit 030712 will be impacted:
Stream (index) Water Oualiry Classification
South Fork Crooked Creek (13-17-20-2) C; 303(d) list of impaired waters
NC Division of Water Quality has the following comments:
Environmental Documentation
A. The environmental document 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.
B. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project may be
required.
Design & Construction
A. The DWQ requests that DOT adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, "Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124) and use Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters (March 1997) throughout the design and construction of this project
due to the presence of 303(d)-listed streams.
B. Within the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin, sedimentation and stormwater runoff are major concerns. In
order to reduce sedimentation in receiving waters, same day seeding and mulching is strongly
encouraged. Stotntwater should be directed to grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes
or retention basins rather than routed directly into streams.
C. NCDOT shall be aware that local riparian buffer ordinances may apply to this project. NCDWQ is
working with Union County and local governments to design and implement riparian buffers on
intermittent and perennial streams as a result of the Monroe Bypass and Connector projects (see ?.,
NODE
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 276991650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
g-1
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
D. 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 returned to the
stream.
E. Do not use any machinery in the stream channels unless absolutely necessary. Do not remove
vegetation from the stream bank unless it is absolutely necessary. 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.
F. 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.
G. 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 21-1.0506(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 115A NCAC 21-1.0506 (h)(3)}, the Wetland
Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
H. Onsite wetland delineation shall be performed prior to permit approval.
1. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges.
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 No. 3366/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 that 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 [phone].
Attachment
pc: Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Central Files
File Copy
B-2
JIM
RESOLUTION OF AGREEMENT BY THE CITY COUNCIL
WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
MONROE BYPASS PROTECT AND THE EXTENSION PROTECT
TO THE CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
R-2002-43
WHEREAS, the City of Monroe supports the development and improvement of existing and
proposed roadways serving Monroe and Union County; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monroe recognizes the importance of the Monroe Bypass (TIP R-2559)
and the Extension Project to the Charlotte Outer Loop (TIP R- 3329) for the transportation network
serving Monroe and Union County; and,
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Division .of Water Quality, as part of the environmental
approvals for Monroe Bypass and the future Extension Project to the Charlotte Outer Loop, is required to
issue a 401 Water Quality Certification; and,
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality has indicated that local responsible
governments will need to indicate their willingness to work with the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality to develop and adopt additional water quality protection measures and, in rum, will be able to
issue the 401 Water Quality Certification.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Monroe hereby agrees to work with
the North Carolina Division of Water. Quality to develop and implement mechanisms within the impact
area of those projects which address, to the satisfaction of the Director of the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, the following items:
L Stream Buffers;
II. On-site Stormwater;Management; .
III. Enhanced Sedimentation and Erosion Control from Construction.
. The City of Monroe agrees to work with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality to
properly adopt these mechanisms within six (6 months of written approval of the. final mechanisms by
the Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
The City of Monroe understands that in return the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
agrees that cumulative impact issues concerning these projects are adequately addressed and that the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. will then issue the required 401 Water Quality Certifications
for the Monroe Bypass and Extension projects.
Attest:
Clerk
B-3
Adopted this 1" day of October 2002.
Fa' North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. FuIlaood, Becutixe Director
TO: Ben Upshaw, Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analvsis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator 174" Ua tir.4&_Ze-
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: November 14, 2002
SUBJECT: Review ofNCDOT scoping sheets for widening SR 1365 (Stallings Road) to
multi-lanes from SR 1009 to US 74, Union County. TIP No. U- 3825
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting comments from the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) regarding impacts to fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Staff biologists have reviewed the
information provided on the scoping sheets and have the following preliminary comments.
These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The NCDOT proposes to widen SR 1365 to a 4-lane raised median or 5-lane, with curb
and gutter, facility through Stallings, NC. The project length is 1.4 miles. No control of access,
interchanges or grade separations are proposed. The project will cross the South Fork Crooked
Creek. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program lists a portion of the creek as Significant
Aquatic Habitat. Listed species found in South Fork Crooked Creek include Carolina creekshell
(Villosa vaughaniana) (Federal Species of Concern & State Endangered) and Carolina darter
(Etheostoma collis collis) (Federal Species of Concern & State Special Concern,). Several listed
plant species, including Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) (Federal & State
Endangered), are found throughout Union County. Surveys for all listed species should be
conducted.
We recommend that hazardous spill basins and sediment and erosion control measures
for sensitive watersheds be incorporated in watersheds that contain listed species. Alternatives to
curb and gutter should be developed and storm water treatment should be addressed. The
B-4
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Sen'ice Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: (919) 733-±633 est. 2Sl • Fax: (919) 715-%643
SR 1365. Stallings Rd.
S. Fork Crooked Creek. Union Co.
November 14. 2002
proposed stream crossing structure should be described in the environmental document.
Riparian habitat should be restored within the right-of way.
In addition to the specific concerns listed above, our general information needs are
outlined below to help facilitate document preparation and the review process:
Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern species. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project construction should be included in the inventories. A
listing of designated plant species can be developed through consultation with the
following programs:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. If applicable, include the
linear feet of stream that will be channelized or relocated.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreage impacted by the project. Wetland acreage
should include all project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic change as a result of
ditching, other drainage, or filling for project construction. Wetland identification may
be accomplished through coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). If the USACE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be
identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed
project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. Show the extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of
wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Include the mitigation plan for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and
indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. Address the overall environmental effects of the project construction and quantify the
contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation.
B-5
SR 1365. Stallings Rd. November 14. 2002
S. Fork Crooked Creek. Union Co. 3
8. Provide a discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources. which will result from
secondary development, facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal, or private
development projects, a description of these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages of this project.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DWQ
Marella Buncick, USFWS
B-6

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, .Administrator
chacl F. Easley. Governor
beth C. Evans, Secretary
tree J. Crow, Depute Se cretin
November 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
?C?E C E I l%,^n

TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager A°
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
_
NCD07 Division of Highxvats
FROM: David Brook ?>? ?p\gBtR
SUBIECT: Scoping for SR 1365 (Stallings Road) from SR 1009 to US 74, U-3825,
Union Counn, ER 02-11457
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and located the following structure of historical or
architectural importance within the general area of this project:
Stallings United Methodist Church
Rufus Dr. ve House
We recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identify and evaluate any
structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the
area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for conclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
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-Earlev, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
B-7
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
drainistration 507 N, Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4801
estoration 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801
urvev & Planning 515 N. BIOUN St. Raleigh, NC
are
?L,'?
t ? ?
$ `^°"? ? ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
September 26, 2007
Kristina Solberg
Project Development Engineer
Gregory Smith, LG, PE
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Group Leader
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
(Stallings Road) in Union County, State Project # 8.2692601,
F.A. Project # MASTP-1365 (1), TIP # U-3825
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE/CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
This analysis was performed to determine the effect on traffic noise levels in the
immediate project area as the result of widening SR 1365 (Stallings Road) in Union
County (Figure N1).
CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources including
airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway
noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train,
and tire-pavement interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range of
sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The A-weighted decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise measurements
because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the human ear is
most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using an A-weighted decibel
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
INC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BLDG.
OFFICE OF HUNAN ENVIRONMENT 2728 CAPITAL BLVD
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WNM'..DOT.NC.ORG RALEIGH, NC
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1548
C-1

scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be
expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table
N1.
Review of Table N 1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed to
fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three
things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected,
individuals tend, to accept the noises that intrude into their lives. Attempts have been
made to regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory noise,
railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of
analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement Criteria
(NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways to determine
whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with various land uses. These
abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference
(Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses
is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant
sound which in a given situation and time period has the same energy as does time
varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are
represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
An ambient noise measurement was taken near the mid-point of the project to determine
ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. This noise level information
quantifies the existing acoustic environment and to provides a base for assessing the
impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level in the project area,
measured 50 feet from the edge of existing pavement, was 63.1 dBA. A project
background noise level of 45 dBA was determined for use in areas where traffic noise is
not the predominant source. The ambient measurement location is shown and described
in Figure N1 and Table N3, respectively.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current traffic noise
prediction model to calculate existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels
C-2
actually measured. The calculated existing noise levels averaged less than 1 dBA
difference from the measured noise levels for the location where noise measurement was
obtained. Hence. the computer model is a reliable tool in the prediction of noise levels.
Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic
volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and
single vehicular speed.
PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables that describe
different cars driving at different speeds through a continual changing highway
configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise. The
procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the Traffic Noise Model
(TNM 2.5) software developed by the FHWA. TNM 2.5 uses the number and type of
vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road
(curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable,
barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation to predict future noise
levels.
in this regard, it is noted that only preliminary alignment was available for use in this
noise analysis. The project proposes widening SR 1365 (Stallings Road) from SR 1009
(Old Monroe Road) to US 74 in Union County. This noise analysis evaluated six
alternatives, either a four lane divided or five lane facility in combination with a
symmetrical, north side or south side widening option. Only those existing natural or
man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway sections and
proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis
represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in this
report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the design
year 2030 being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the volumes
resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed limits.
Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report. TNM 2.5 was utilized to determine the number of land uses (by
type) which will be impacted during the peak hour of the design year 2030. A land use is
considered impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA
noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase.
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AND NOISE CONTOURS
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a] approach or
exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of
the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT
definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
C-3
4
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either
category. In accordance with the NCDOT 2004 Traffic Noise Abatement Policv, the
Federal/State governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures
for new development for which building permits are issued within the noise impact area
of a proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public
Knowledge of a proposed highway project is the approval date of CEs, FONSIs, or
RODS. For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing
bodies are responsible to ensure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the
proposed facility.
The number of receptors in each activity category, for each section, that are predicted to
become impacted by future traffic noise are shown in Table N5. These are noted in terms
of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or
exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under
Title 23 CFR Part 772, 21 residences are predicted to be impacted due to highway traffic
noise in the project area with the selection of the four lane divided, symmetrical widening
option, this being worse case based on this analysis. The amount of impacts for each
alternative can be found in Table N5. The maximum extent of the 72-dBA noise level
contour is <60.5 feet from the center of the proposed roadway. The maximum extent of
the 67-dBA noise level contour is 72.4 feet from the center of the proposed roadway.
Contour information in Table N5 is shown by roadway sections. This information should
assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped
lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with the proper
information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent
highway.
Table N6 exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors by
roadway section. There are no substantial noise level impacts anticipated by this project
by the selection of any of the proposed alignments. The predicted noise level increases
for this project range up to +9 dBA. The amount of substantial noise level impacts for
each alternative can be found in Table N6. When real-life noises are heard, it is barely
possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change is more readily
noticeable.
TRAFFIC NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES
If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise
abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted receptors.
There are impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The
following discussion addresses the applicability of these measures to the proposed
project.
C-4
5
Highwav Alignment Selection
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
altemative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between
noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient
distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable
altemative for noise abatement.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system management measures, which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time
of operations, are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic
management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their
effect on the capacity and level-of-service of the proposed facility.
Past project experience has shown that a reduction in the speed limit of 10 mph would
result in a noise level reduction of approximately l to 2 dBA. Because most people
cannot detect a noise reduction of up to 3 dBA, and because reducing the speed limit
would reduce roadway capacity, it is not considered a viable noise abatement measure.
This and other traffic system management measures, including the prohibition of truck
operations, are not considered to be consistent with the project's objective of providing a
high-speed, limited-access facility.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels are often applied with a
measurable degree of success on fully controlled facilities by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures strategically placed between the traffic sound source and the
receptors to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid
mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain uncontrolled or limited control of access, meaning most
commercial establishments and residents will have direct access connections to the
proposed roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade. For a noise
barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction, it must be high enough and long enough to
shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the
barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes
economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at
access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a
concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally
be Q times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located
50' from the barrier would normally require a barrier 400' long. An access opening of
C-5
6
40'(10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA
(FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE. Report No.,
FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-I, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, pages 5-27). Hence, this
type of control of access effectively eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls
as noise mitigation measures.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two
qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
Other Mitigation Measures Considered
The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise impacts is
not considered a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The cost to acquire
impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the allowed abatement cost per
benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future sensitive areas
is not recommended because this could be accomplished through land use control.
The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this project,
due to the substantial amount of right-of-way necessary to make vegetative barriers
effective. FHWA research has shown that a vegetative barrier must be approximately
100' wide to provide a 3-dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to provide a 5-dBA
reduction, substantial amounts of additional right-of-way are required. The cost of the
additional right-of-way and to plant sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the
abatement cost allowed per benefited receptor. Noise insulation was also considered;
however, no public or non-profit institutions were identified that would be impacted by
this project.
"DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative were also
considered. If the proposed widening did not occur, no receptors are anticipated to
approach or exceed the FHWA NAC. These receptors could anticipate experiencing an
increase in exterior noise levels of approximately I dBA. As previously noted, it is
barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change in noise levels
is more readily noticed.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling,
grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech
interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can
be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment

C-6
during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of
construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are
not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural
elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
SUMMARY
Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects
especially in areas where there are no previous traffic noise sources. All traffic noise
impacts identified in this analysis were considered for noise mitigation. Based on these
preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended, and no noise abatement
measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements
of Title 23 CFR Part 772. Unless a major project change develops, no additional noise
reports will be submitted for this project.
C-7
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130 --- ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110 --- -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90 --- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmpK at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70 --- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50 --- --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40 --- --------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------.
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 --- ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
C-8
Figure NI
Project Location & Ambient Measurement Sites
SR 1365 (Stallings Road), Union County
TIP #U-3825
,(2988 3852

1419
(-1422
1419 `
66
End Project

?( 152d yr
r
Mecklenburg County ``?1 / a
?J`/ 1367 1365
G
Setup #1 s
1420 < / f
?'2951 1363
285]
2856
Start Project
1 NEbn irM ra y?p'1 ?

4
6
V Y Iw rr4n
1369 Wcnrcn'
1390 13 8 4 y m
13]1
2586
^
X / 1
1 1391 xzgkz25>9?C \7
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Group
Union County
SR 1365 (Stallings Road)
TIP #U-3825
C-9
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130 --- ------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110 --- -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90 --- ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70 --- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
------------------
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50 --- ----------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40 --- ---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 --- --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
0 THR ESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Hanford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
C-10
TABLE 2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity
Cate orv Le (h) Description of Activirv Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
D - -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 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 Existing Noise
in Le (h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
<= 50 >= 15
51 >= 14
52 >= 13
53 >= 12
54 >= I 1
>= 55 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policv (09/02/04). G1 I
v ^ 00
-O
? O M
W
Z to a_
W W F-
O ? C
(- z v1 p
z ='

M M
O we ?c
z _
z
0

J V
U7
w

r
U
7

U
v
z o
O r

?
O
-? c

m
c
A
in

0

0

m
c_
m
N

w
F -

Liz
O
z
C-12
C
N
w
a
zLij
w w
? N
m
< 0
Z
V
w
F
M
c
H .c
=3
c
C U
V .`
o?
E
- w
y
c p
G
w
h ?
cc
h

w

L ?") l } l T. t } i } + •L + + T t + 'F "F '{' + + + + + + +
.
z i I I '
I I
l I
w
l
p w c ?c ac r c a v v ?c a v ?o r ? ?o m .-, .., ?o v .-, o ? r v

w
_w
O

LLI

U

r_

3
p
?
x _
v,
x
r v
_y =- -
- -
c -
x -
_ o
_ -
z
` -
z
x
=
??
-
-
-
r?
=
-
??
x
r
r
-

- - - - _ - - - -
Z a .a _ - - - _ _ -
. p

? z
j

F 04
Z w J
0 -
W rn w
?
c
o
v
-
N
x
x
x
x
x
c
x
x
-
N
-
o
r
r
r
-
x
r
K
o - ?

0

F 0 Q p v,
u z 3 = - -
04 _
¢ v
O
X
z w w

} w
z
o A
zz ° V m m m c? V m m m m m m m V V V V m m m V m m m u u w
w K

O vwi ? u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
u u
u u
u
w' O „? N U U C u r/ v? r/ v C U U u C U V ? U` u
? y y Vy ?:
? ,/ u
? c? u
? v
U ? ? ?
?O ? ? ? U (J 4! CJ ? ? Y ? U N Y GJ GJ
'
C
'
'O
'O = ? V
2 E- L 'O C C E 72 L ^.. v 7 C C C C 72
7
O
O
C? z _
? _ ?' f ?$ YS ti ? ?$ m m
Q ¢ ? $ > > ' C ? w' w ? u
C M
m ?
m m T
m W
F ..] v] m 04 C4 04 m m a. P Lei. - 1
.1.E
- - - - - - - - -
a
w
?
N -
r' -
? -
h -
V -
!h -
x -
O?
.^
N
n
7
r
?C
r
00
T
C
? N
r^
V v,
?O r

s
3 ?
c
C
?C
C y
v x
A
c
tJ. y
o ?
F c
} Q
m
c n
c V
L T'
c
c n
c4 r
d
u ?
?V
y N
W
3 G
n i'o
O G
O G
G A
CAS ACCS
U CJ
p p'
C-13
N
:J
1.
O
a.
z uX,
w
m ?
O
U
F

Z ?
6.
F -
T3
7
c
U "
v
o?
_ E
W t
en Q
c ?
n c
J
v ?
?O
h
?.. I ? I ? ? I I I I I I I ?• V I I •I

? i i 1 1 1
ii
O u7 Q'
U
jt I+ I
T +
+ j
l

+ I+ It +

+ +
I

+ + j

+

+

+

+

+ Imo. ?'+

+

+ I+

Z Z
l
i
l li
l
I
?
I
I•
?
I
I
? I
II I I I 'I l i I I ? ? l i i II

I I I CI I I
LLU x a a a a l a a a a a • ? a t a Ir a
t
w

w I

c
? ?
C4
?
r
m I I _
F 5
ti
2 -7 ? z C ^? 1' Q' a? C? cr? .1 ?

- .
-
O U ?
F

C
0 LL)
,Z O
1
a z ?

F c

zw-? cc

?
?
°
w v, w y

Q
O

F z Q o r

Q

z
I
LL

O A
z °O Cn g m m co m m m m m m m m m w m m m m m w ? m U m m U U
0 z

F
v
c N

c
U

O vi ? V V a V d V V u u U u V V u u u U u U ? o v V
?- ? ? U U U V U U U U U U U U U U U U u U V ? U U u w
' C C
? 'O ? L T. L 'O 'O L L L T. L 'O L 7 'O O L 5 - 7 .G L L . _
`,F z z ' '
a a z a cr, ? .W z z z C4 ? m m m
4
w
7C
P
-
N
e+.
?
Vl
?O
r
]C
T
'-
-
N
? ? e{
vl
?
r
JG
T
C
.•-?
'
N
tit
V
U N N tom: e+? rv'i e+. ?. rn t? rte, r+: t?? Q O C Q ?O Q C V O V ?l v
? vi v1 ?/l

Q
3 ?
C
G
C
L
C
L C
c
} w
L O
m
c n
U
? L
C cad
C ?
S r
>v> C
N (y
c U
_ N
? C
o G
G
G m
C
Q Q
^1
C-14

K
O
a.
z?
?LLI
m o
Q Z
U
LL
d

?. F
F Ci
3
c 2
U
o?
? O
z
K 'S

?,- J
h
K
N
L
?
LLI LL? ?i x ?N 'Q rC ? x ? x ? x OG i JC C OC ?'C ' a t^.j a1 -1 ?
v Vi? V
L
K
Q
V + - + +
- + + + + r + + + + + + + f + + + + + +
?;] I
z _1 Z
I

F-I
J
1 . . .
z y ?
o

C

F I I
•-• cc
r
_1 K K 1' ..1 _1 - K K -; K _1 K K K K K S C' .?
Q ? - V, V`. Vl Vl V, V'. Vl Vl V, V'. V: Vi V, V`. V) V? V. V'. Vl Vl V. V. V1 ?f? V? V. V:
Q p ? .: r = : `c r r z r x = x N ?'. x ?. v: r. z r. r: N r ? e
-

n
i
C

w?uj C ? V C - N x r DU x x x x ? N "' C r r r - x r V ? - ?

Q -J
Q
}

F V O` v

W Q
K

Z o

Q ?
O 0 0 V m m m U U m m m m m M m 0 0 0 U m m m U m m m U U W

F F
¢ m
Q c

Q u u u u o u u u u u u u u u u u
N" ? y? V: U U U fA u. U U U V U V U v) N fA Vi V CUC U v: CUC U CVC
Z ?p ?$ ? C
C ? YS J ? C
C
U ? C
C
U ? C
C
U C
? ?S ?$ ?S ?S ? U ? ? Y ? U u U
i U y
Y LS > > `3 YS ?f YS `ES > > > - ?S YS YS ?5 m m
Q Q K m K K a o: m m m Ca a o' K p] K K K r h V
F J v? K K K m m K K K
n.
-
N
r.
v
h
?
r
?o
a
o
_
rv

M

v

h

?

r

x

a

-

N

r,

v

r

?

r'
U - - - ? - - - N N N N N N N N

n x
C
K
pC v,
V N
c
? C
{S]
? O
O ?
U
L ?
C
c4 r
u K
y Li.
U
c
n
E
C .'n
O
O C
c ?
C-15
N
O
_L
v)
W
O
L
m
0
Fz
U
tr.

F G
c v
c
V
?z
as
oU O
c
?,5 J
M

LLJ
I

V

II

V I
I

1
? '? ? x I
v ??.. I
r. I v T oc Bl oc v v v e ' v Iv e c r.
>o oc IT IP ? r-. I
r? iv r. II r. x
I
I 1 l
I
p U

Z } } !+ } } } +! + I} I} I} } } } }

I } I } } } } }
1
+1 rt } }
Z .? I
I

I
I
I
?

v ?
?
v

? ??

V I

r I

v1

v)

vt

v)

vl ?

vl I

vl I

V I

? I I

'J

r

T

Q
I I

C I
I
\^ I

C

T i

N

vl
OC I l O l .+ ? .

m ?

I

O Y

_

I

I

I

I

?

?

I

I II I
z } C I I
I I

U I

c 1 I ? I
? F 75

Q ?
w -: y .?_ c o-; = v, v z a .: ? ? v <r e ?n ? v, ?. v; T a e J

? V

F-

c c c c _ _ c _ _ e c _ c C? ,? c c c _
z Q
a z

o I

F C

J u C

Z Q a b

' LU °
o 0

x c
o
O ? m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ? m U m m U v
W
u.
c
U c

ti v u u u u u u u u u u u u u u v u u u u u u
W. U U U U U U :! U U U U U U U U U U U V y? U m U U y m
o F y E B g 5 F E ; ? s
?D 72 72 ?
O ¢ m ?S ?S Yt ?S ?S YJ Yi ?s YS ZS c x ?S =_ =_
a c: C4 ? ? C C X C w a' d' (..) h 6' m ICS C' m m
C
(i7
x
T
.';
-
N
r:
a
wt
?
r
>o
T
-
N
C
O
v,
?
[?
x
T
C
'
-
N
n
R
u N N t^. r': to M, N', n C^. r^. rn O ?S C C O V C R K v
, vl h h h

m
c m
3
r. G
G
o
v
A
0
? y
-? o
C
C? C
W m
C O
U
5 ?C
C r!
3
u?
o V
c ?
'?+ N
A ?
? n
o c
G C
G
j +
C.-16
y
O
z LLJ
j
m ?
U
F Z
U
N
x
a c
F G
c
? U
U
o r?
? c
U ?
cx S
mo
a
J
Q
C

I i l i l l j ? 'I I I I
? i i
i I 'I i ! I Ii I l ? I

LL]
L-.
a ?
a
r.,
Q .
Q ! i
Q i
Q
a I
-•
Q
x I
Q
I
Q ?
Q
I
rn
r• I
x ? i
?-. I
x r,
i
x I
° I r.
mo.
'
O m U
z + + + + I + + il + i + + i + + + + + + + + + + + I+ + + ; +
z J
? i I I
?
,? ?^ .3 0` C ?t N N N N N D\ N ? Q 3 Q Q ?.: Q V1 Q ? Q .? x v'. Q

. . I tl
' ? I I I ? l l !
?

j

0

F
U

I
? ^
?
a.
I i
F
r

_
', ? J C C C J J J J J C J C J C J J C C C J C C C C J J
} F., c

¢ U m
F C ? I
O
LL)
LLI

a Z ^,
-
I
F

It] ?

0
??? G O Q ^ - N x x x x x ^ x x - N O - !? 1? r• - x [? Q ?
`
Qz? ?

I

v
E
Z W C o

C

O U co m m U V m m m m m m m U U U U m m m V m m
m
V
V m
UJ 04
F F m
U
?
?
W
Vl v U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
"
U ? N U U U y N U U U U u U U U V1 V, y y U U U V: U U U
y ? C C C C

Z
-
?
?3
YS R
`8 72
`ES .2
?5
?S
3
Er5
`ES
>
>
YS
3
?f
3
`ES
&
m
m
_
O Q C m 5 > > C C C m m m m x C C m C C C
F J v? C C C m m C C C C ,
a.
-
N
e^
Q
?t
?
r
x
D`
?
?
N
?
Q
vt
?G
t?
x
T
C
-
N
r.
Q
ut
?
r
V , - - .-- - - - N N N N N N N N

y ?
T ?
n x
3
C_
v
? c
C
K
o
c
? c
c v
d
V
c
} LU
? c
? U
L
?. r
CC N
U n
pia
v C
y ?
o V
c ?
n n
3 ?
O G
c c
n.
O C
0 ?

C-J7
N
1
Lil
c
v.
O
Z w
[v ?
J V!
? O
F Z
V
t?
F
N
x
M
s m
y c
F
c
c
C ?
o
c c
?o p
c
Q
fc
c
v;

j
LLI
LL,

a

I

mo: `r

d

''

a

id Id Ild ?

?

r K.I

r I? lir I

d

z + i I I +
_
Z? I i i I i I I 'I

? I I
? I
? N N l o.: ?
a
a
a ? 9
a .^. ? N F. i Q V I d N N ? ?p -

E2 a a a a
a

?I ? l l i I I I I I ? ? I ! I I
i
I I I ? ? I ? I i I I
o ? ? i I i l
I
}
p I I I I I
.!
u E I
? I I
V ? ? I ? ? i ; I I
L I I I
L

F

? c z c z - = = c c c c c of

'

3
p
? a d
r h
Q c
v v-.
Q M .:
hl d
- v=,
Q v
-S :n
d V
R V,
d v
t .n
d v,
V vi
M Q
N c
- ?t v
`
? d
- C
- _
- :n
? d
f
_ . ; . : - _ r
.
V
a ? '
F
a
n p r
w

a z

? I l
I a

z m
LW

?
? F, p
rY l c a c e c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c ? - c o o c c

LLJ
zu?a o

o
Z W c' m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m V m m V V'
O C
,
I .
V ? C
Q
A eJ
O ? ?

? v1
' U o U u a1 c1 v o U o u c1 o U o
U u U
U u
U u
U o
U v
U U
U
- ? ?
?' U
J U
? CU CUC CUC CUC U
? CU
? CUC U
? CU CUC CU CUC C
C CUC C
C C
C C
?
t ?
?D
? VmV'' C
? C t/v?, VVu;;.

p v N U Y N Y U U U U U Y U U U 'U U U
M v 5 Z 'O 'D 9 v Z -. 'J 7 v '9 t 'C 7 'J v C '.? ?. C C

n c c W z ce c c W z z z c z c c c c c V v I m z z co m
l11 N r x' a C -. N Q
V x
N a
N C
M. -?
M N
M M
M Q
r". h
M M r
rr. %l
M a
M C
Q Q Q M
d d
d d Q Q d d :/l N h M
h Vl
LLI
c p
y ?
T ?
m °O
3 ?-
? c
o
o ?
5
L U
G
c v
F ._
? c
-' c
c _
°- U
s 'O
c
v <.
c ?
r
v c
c V
c M
!' N
[J CJ9
` G.
U
C .v
C C
G. ?
O O
p ?
j +
C-18

LQ
LQ
O
Z ux,
LLI ?
-1 N
M
??.. z
U
Lv.
F
h
n

a
F ?
G A
p U
E
N
c
m vt
r?
C
h

L2
In i 'n
o ', U
z + ? + + + + I + + i + i + + + + + i + + i + I, + + + i + i +
z
I I ! I I i j I
',? ? a " ? r c i v a v c mo. e c ?; r ?c ?c ?, N "' I c N rn r I c

N

2

F ? I
ti

Q
3
C] "
? v
x
?, -
oc ri
r
.c
c o
= vi c vi
c -
oc vi
C
a
x
'.-
x
?c
_
Fi
_
?
_
Fi
v,
x
?
?

F P4
x ?
? r

Z
a
c
F ?

tv p

c
1r.1 y Liz `c C c - N x x x x x C x x - N C - r r r - x r e C - ?

F V 4
z 3 r

6
It L
z °
o

F
z W pi U m m m U (
) m m m m m m m U U U V m m m U m m m U V LL)
y ..
F Q

U c

V] v V U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
V"' ? N U U U V
. N U U U U V U V N N N N U U U N :J U U

z. y?
l0
? C C
? r
r//,,
CJ r/
?
U
?
?
? C
Y C
U C
Y
?
? y
GJ r
?
U r/
?
U C
U
?
? r/
U
?
? C
CJ
_
/ ? r? p N
? U
.p 'O G C 'O L ? ".. b 'O ?_.
. .C C C C
. 'p 'O
. _J
. ,C ?
. ?_
. L ? ? ?
?
u? z .--. •V .r/, _
N = .?r//,,'? .r/?
: .tom
l
YS tom
U ?
'? N
'J' N
7
? ?
'J r/,
CJ ?
'J' ./
Cl r/,
U
m
m
t
O
F Q
J W
10 m n' U
C K M M G
W J
W C
a w
LY O-' n' LY m m m m a K C
m
n'
K
C
r
?
U
a
V
-
N
N:
v
h
?o
r
m
rn
c
_
N
r?
v
?
?p
r
x
a
e
-
N
e'e'.
V
?
?o
r

a
r x
3
`c
C p
E
c
{? X
N p
C
y r
G U
v
C tO
U
C N
r
U LY
N lz
U
N ry
O G
.F.
C
C G
.? a
C-19
L
Lcl
a
0
G.
`* X
z w
0
?z
U
Lv.
L+-

a
F O0
>. F
C_ J
0
3
c
v. ?S
m
C
F y?
h

a

r r III

I li
, I ,
" ?'??..,hl-?•:LL..I?
??I?I?L,.?I
? ?Ie `Pr .c? ?„-,.I,.,?? ?? ?,
x
c r
.
I
I
I
T ?
? I
Y I i T
I
i
I I
i
j
I i I
r I

? I
I

? I
I
I

I

n i
?

.
?

n

r i
i

? I

n

n

l I
j

n

n r
i

n

n I
I
I
?c
I

r r

c

I
?
rl

? I i

N I

I
I

j
h x c M e n n c e e N

? ? I I I i i
? Q + + + + + + + tl + + + +i + + j
? i i j j j ? I
u I l I I I

i
O r s I i i

U I I I I I
? I I I I

c i I I
x
F I ?

S' V. n n n - C:. n h h n n n n x Z C 5 OC Y_ G - ?. N rte. .'1 -

a
LL)
c
:
z _
a z
F
I
F ? I 9

j

r

j
O i

z X

Z m ° m m m m m m m m m m m m m m co m m m m m m m V jm m V v
O z

?
ro
j
LLI
VI
V
V
V
V
U
V
V
V
U
U
U
V
U
U
U
:J
U
V
U
V
U
U
?- ? ? pUp Upp pUp ?U? pUp U pUp ppJ pUp pUp Up :pJ U pUp V
? pUp ?V? pUp :pJ
? y?
? pUp uV.. U
J :pJ u,
? v
Y$
D ? U v. U U U V J U W U U U U B N U U U U U GJ U

z !3 Z

._
C
G
O .
F -j v a Q a z z z a z c z a a c c a a ia z z a c> v a m a a m m

e om C
?J N N r'. M M r
+', m t
'. M f^. e e 'C e e e e e e V
l Vl V1 Vl h
LLJ
a o j
m x
3
r C
J C
C ?
v ?
c
c FF
L 3
C? v
U U
O V
v.
? O
c
} [xl
? c
? m
c ?
V
s •O
c
c4 n
U
v ?
c V
c M
? c
? U
C C
U
v,
O C
C t0
O Gf
C-20

v:
Lll
C
0
a
e
z ?
ua
U ?
m O
F z
U

N
W
o.
F
T
c
0
U
r
v:
F
3
r
0
z
?s
J
f ' l l l I l l ? j j j ' l
I
LLJ

r

M.

e

vi

x

x

r

x ?

r

e l

r

v?

n'
I
e r

r

?n l

e j

v,

r l

?n i

e
" I
M. CIO r
n
LL2
i
l
l`
.
I I I + 1 +
I
LL) ' i Yi ?I "Y +
I + }i ce Y } } } I i } } }i }i } 'Y 1
I ? tiT
i
L , I I I I
- ? i ? III

w • - ? I ? I ? `c
?

a I I I I I
? I
v I

i I

a

3
?
? r
?^. x
?.^. x
T r.
^? r
e e?i
x N
x r
x N
x ?
x x
S r
x r
- ?i
?: r.
x ri
?; N
^ x
N x
_. r.,
r. n
?: x
-
- x
,.,
- x
vJ .-.
G N
v. r
v
-
O V ? i

F

? ? rte, I

a z

I
? I I
zm? -
la1 V] la1 ?
C
C
e
^
-
N
x
x
x
x
x _
x
x _
?
N
0 _
n
n
n
-
x
n
Y -
.. - ?

F V ¢ .. I
c c c c c c c c c
U2 a 04 : c c c c c c c c c : c c c c

z ? ?
o I

K r.
O
Z ? ° V m m m V U m m m m m m m U V U U m m m U m m m U U LQ
O a

¢ U
r
(n v l V U V U V U V U V V V U V U V U
?- ? ? u, U U CUC v, v: GUG CVC cUG CUC U CU CUC H
? v.
EI
? CVC CU CUC v,
Y CUC CUC U_
?O ?$ C
C
U C
? U YS uY$ U U U N ? GJ N ? S S S U V U S ` U ?
' v V U
? r, c ? ^? .c c c ? ? o ?o z ? a . c , c c c ?_ _c ?c .5 ? ?_ v_ __ __
.
> ,
> _
YS _
Ys _ > > o ?S G
" 3 G m m
O ¢ m C4 C4 m" m m m co C C C n ?n U;
a z a m m w
W - N r x a` c
- - N
- m
- e
- vi
.- .c
- r
- x
- a
-- c
N I-
N N
N r.
N e
N v,
N
N r
N
U

Ci x
3
G
c c
y
c v.
c
z
c `f
C U
z _
c
U
G_ N
cS r
?i a
v C
v ?
U
cJ tJJ
O G .
F
,v
c c
G m
`CS `CS
C O
? ?
C-21
J
ct
h
Li]
IY
O
w
O
? 0.
zx
w
m ?
O
F z
V
w
K
F
a
L
F m
T ?
J in
.: t
c
?z
m?
C .]
rn ?
r:
N

? !
?i I I
I ?' I it
i
l
' I
? I I ?
? i ! ! I i'
I I
,
v ? „ h r. v ie i e x ? i t e e I v e e v e le ?-. Ix r i t ! l e I `c e L-'
j r'' ?
?
O m v
7 z
z +I +I +
?
T +? +? +?
y +? +I ++ + ala'I + a? ?; +I+? I
I I
I + +I }? ?
_ i I i I I I I i i i I I i I

z
,7

r
,
?

wi
I
? I

v I
I
? I
I
h

b

v

?
I
v,

vi
I
wi

?

e
?
?c

?

?G ?
.
r I
N I
v

-
I
v;

^?
I
a

N

c
? w ? ?

f

o _

v

? z

o
' F ?
C _ C C C C _ U x C C C x C 1' C 2' U _ _7 _ ? C J r C C .?
} _ _

3
q
? 1?
:?
? JC
x r,
c. x
x N
c !?
x N
r x
x x
x S
x X
x x
x S
x S
x x
c Y
r rl
x N
? N
.c f`I
c
a r.
r N
? r.
.r r'.
v- JC N_
. . . , _

I
CC ? r?i 'O

N c c c c _ c a c c e e _ c 0.' J c c e
.
z°
a z
c
I
I
a

` c
Lt] y
W c
_ _

a
g I ? I
'
F V Q o ' I ? v'
_

Z w o? o

o ? ? I
z m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m u
O m a m m m u iU
F F m m

a
V)
o Ln U U U U U U U Y U U W U U Y U U U Y U U U U
J ,? u u u u o u u o u u u u u u u u u u u ,? u ti u u m ,.,

C4 z
¢ ? C a ? C U i m '
.
? n ' K v
i m m
V '
x rn - - N r. e vt ?O r X rn .^ - N .? e ut .c ? x+ ^J? C - N e-i e
?J N N r', t'7 r? rn r'. rv'? r? r, e+'. r. e e e e e e e e ? e h h h
T
0
3 ?
n ?
o ?
`c
v
c
0
L
.. r
v
J
E .u
u
-? c
G C
F m
C ?
r U
C_ N
a
o U
c ?
!? N
C` G
.? E
c .v
a
a n
C CC
? C
C-22
u,
W
z?
ul µ7
F z
U
F
N
W
a
F
T
C
U
C
C
r
C
a
c
c
L
a
v:
cD
c
J
3
U
h
O
CS
J
'
p:
L2 LLI
a
Q
U R

+ I?I

+ r i

+ 7

+ Vij

+ ?, ?

+ .S !

+ v,

+ O

+ r

+ w

+ S,

+ C

+ c

+ C

+ S

+ t??

+ [?

+

+ SI

+ I?

+ r

+ V

+

+
L2
Z J Z i j
j j l i V I I I

v

?

t?

x

?o l

m

r,

N

r
I
N

?

N

?o

v

?,

a V

pl

y

y

vJ?

?

v

r

?n

?

z ?

? i I I ? I I
?
o = ? j
la7 J c
a a

H j

? = c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c o c c
? c
. c
i c c c o 0

Q
(]
? r,
C N
rte. N
?. I?
v. r
x x'
_ X
- r.
N x
_ [?.
N N
'L r
N N
x x
P. f?
? x
4^. x
G? N
C: N
O
P ?'
?. r
Y_ rl
.J N
r^. r
?. x
X- f'^.
J?
-

U
F a ?
uj Eu
u]
a Eu ?
Q

j

F a

ua

c
u
??} G = a C - hl x x S S x C x S C N C C t? [? r - x [? •t ?

Q -?
O
i
F V ¢ p v

?? Q ? ? c c c c c c c c c c : c c c c : :

z w ce o

Li

n
o U m m m U U m m m m m m m V U U U m m m U co m m U V W

F
V ? I

v
v
u
u
u
o
u
u
u
u
u
u
o
u
u
u
u
?" ? N U U U v, m U U U U U :J U V v. N m U U U N :.1 U U
Z ?
c YS F YS J € 6 5 Fi F YS CS ?5 YS ?u F YS

r,
c
?
'c
'c
c
c
?
r.
z
'o u
c
c
c
c
z
c
?o
^_ v
c
_
..
o Ys s ? _
?s ?S S G G ?s ?s ? ? C
" ? m m r
F ¢
? a
?n m" a a a m" m a a a a a a a m m m" m a C
a W
a m a a a L)
a
- N r'. C Jh ?D f? S O? C - N rt O vJ ?G I? S S C - N r', C vl V^ h
U - - ? ? ? ^ N N N N N N N N
Q
a
3 `O
w `c
c
G C_
? U
C
c
L
C
v
Yt ?J
c ?
z c
? G
n m
u
tt U
c
C r
C N
>U>
U 6.
v La>•.
U
v, ry
n G
c va
C
C G
c c
C C
0 0
J +
C-23
N
G
W
C
C)
C)
QX
z?
W
LL)
?-z
U
w
u_
F
N
S
r.
G.
F
T
C
c
v
m
c
3
t
C

i i I I 1 I
I ' -
i I C I
G
.. ? I t
Q I I
r [? t ' I
? Iv. ?Q Q I? Ifs r l i
r fit` IN ?r r l Q Q i? ? Q I ? IQ r .r^1?
.../ W U
z ` ? T Y I Y + 1 i} L i?. -F
I l + I+ Y IY + 1+'I
I
I
I
Y I } I ? i"F
I + + 1
Z J I I I I I I i I
I
I.
I
I I I
I I I I j I i
?
?
? Q ? ?
V h S S OC I N N r? OO JO CG OG OC
? CC 00 f? ? I r.
?I Q V i ? .? vl ^ I
? OC N Q

N C ? ? ? lr l? V? ?i ? ? b? ?? Vi ? lC ?i ? lI+ ? ? ? VJ I ?? ? ?i ?1 IG ; V
I
y ? + + + + t + l a + + + t
cc

..1
W
? L I

r C
I
m I I I I I
? I
I ?
I I 1
I l
? ? I i

a I Q
_

F
I
= ?c _; c c c ? ? _ c c c c c c c c c _ _ _ ? c .a c c c -

Q
3
Q '!
? ?,
p t`
r N
v r
v N
v S
N r
ri Y
C N N
v N
v N
v1 N
v hl
v N N (`I JC S 'JC X C r Q S N
, . , ? . ,

O V
F o I

W
v
i ? ti
? c o c o c c c c _ c c _ _ ? ..] a c e -
z O N
te
P
.. z
c
cS.
F a .
°
Z W a "
o I c
W ? W c

o
F U Q o `o `'

z

}
W LL;

O ? a
O U ? m r2 m co m m m m m m cn m m m m m m m m W ? m V m m V U
u
F F m °°
U c _

O vWi ? o u v u a? v u v u u w u v v u v u v u ? u v u
?- U ,? u u v u u u o v o u u u o u u o u u o ,? u ? u u m

45 :2 7?!
o ¢ o ?S Y ?S Ys Ys ?s ?S ?s a ?S
F a x N c c c c c z z c c c c ,c c Ic c c U h c m x x m m
Q ? ?
U N N tf. Nl C'1 t!, e
+'. t"1 t? r. Q Q C Q Q Q Q Q Q ? vJ vl Vl Yl vl
w
W I
D I
z
.j Q
m ?
3
r C
L
W C
C O
? U
o?
L
u
c
?i
c
} W
C W
c U
L C
y r
v. W
c U
c
m G
3
o
0
? E
ti
C C
c yA
Y
C C

-? t
C-24
J
c
LU
O
z?
111
? y
m O
Fz
U
u.
F
h
M
a
F
c
U
c L
c .m
?z
z
c

I I I
v
O
-
+
?'
+
T
+
+
?
?.
-?' I+
}
.!'
}
1
Y. i
.j.
1
1
-+'
L
+
T
?
T
+
.{.
j '
F-
I I i I i
I I I I I ' I
Vl ? N M O? Q? O? O? O ? a O? M x CO CC N 9? x Vl - M R
C V. ?G ?C lD ?G ?n v? v? v? h V: ?n v? ?L l0 ?L: V' v? ?n v? lO ? ?n I LL` ?G ?C ?
h

> z I I I I I I I I
I I I

0
.
.
z

F
U

. C
te
a
]
L

F ? ? I

U
UJ ?. ? C - N x x x x x x x - N ? = r r r ? x r ?? - - ?
z ?
¢
I

LLI
O n
LU X
Z w o

o ti
m m m U U m m m m m m m U U L) U m m M m m U U LL)

F v 7

n
O LIJ
V] ?. U V U V V V U U V U U V V V V U
{s. ?. U U U y u. CUC U CUC CUC CCJ CUC CUC v, ?n u, v? CUC U CVC v. CUC CUC U
z C
C C
C v v U
C r v C C r ? ? ^. 7
? ? _ G YS ?S > > > > B ? m m t
O ¢ o Ys S
' > > S
' ' ' 0.' Lti n: 6' m m m m 0.' 6' d' m 0.' 0.' r ?n U
F ..] v] m CL K 0. m m. Q C C
0.
V
_
N
M
C
?n
?O
r
x
O?
'J
?
N
M
R
?n
?G
r
x
.T
C
-'
N
M
V
v',
?G
r

y ?
T ?
x
3
v
L
v
^ o
•, c
} 11.1
? a
c
C N
r
r
v ?.
v?
- N
A
3 ?
U
6I C
1C. G
? C
G :+
V
_7 +
r_7S

O
a
Q
z ?
LG ?
O
F Z
U
Lc,
Lc.
F
a
F
T
G
U
c
?z
oD

I I I
v,
N I N I I i I
I I I ' _V I
_ I { i
(/! j? i
? r I I i ? ' ? I
O L U
lIf fIf -'
f i- 1
I
f I
f
+
f
+
f
+I
f -'r +
f; T
f f
t'I f ;
f if
f +?i+
Z U z.

G
vxi
?
vNi
h I,
?L`
?
L I I i I
v: I I ?. c ?
I
U 4
>
i.l
I

O -
r
I
r
I
i
i
r
r
r
'
'
'?
'
} i i
Q G l
' '
U ? I I I I

V I ?
F I I I ?

1? `i'

N p n -
Q
< C) Lj 04
z
o z

c

°
u.l w u C N
70
<z
'
o
.
M

LL) ?.
h
x
?
Z E
u
S ?
r ?y I
C' ? L

Z. O
V ti
CO
d
fn
m
m
M
T
M
m
9
d
CO
D7
CO
Q1
co
m
fL
CG
CD
[0
w m
a°.
m
V
m
W
V
V
O I
F N
c
U c

l
O v, ``"
' ? c V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V v ``"- ' V v u
-
? v
U U U
U
U
:pJ
V
U
? U
U
U
U
U
U
V
U
U
U
J
U
y?
`o
u.)
6
N
6
p O
6
U
8
N
`ES

6

z
ES
y
6
?
U
5
U 6
E
Y
6
5
6
F)
B
E
6
c
F
p `. '
?i ?5 & ?5 ?S Y G ?t _ s o c
O
F ¢
..? z
?n n' N C C4 a x z Qu w C4 1 A C C W c: ? cti U v? K ln K W m m
W JO Q _ N r+'. Q [? Ix D\ _ - N n
Q Q

Q

Q

Q

Q ?G

Q
n
Q C

vl

? N

r V'1 r'i

vt Q

vl
u N N t!. ?+1 Yr m Q Q Q

?. Q
r °O
3
r G
o ?
? c
G C_
N v.
C m
O
o
L
C ?
c?$ v
O U
? c
c
z c
? m
-° U
t ?
C
CV^ ?
U r
?a
c V
3 ?
CJ A
O G
E
v
G G
O C
C ?
f
., t
C-26
r
¢ N
r 00
G
3t
? G
W C
F- 7
O
z?
Z -F
W o
¢-;Z
CID
m
¢ .5
W
cn Ln
O "
zkr)
¢ M
.. C

77
V ~
?
G Z ? C G C
_
? r

O
oUL c c o
m < F5
U _
c
L O N C7 O C C
X F' ?
O
' U H -
a
;v F
Q ? Q o 0 0
Q x o
L:1 a ^ n
2OZ ,^G
<
< F
C)
2 V p
m o
r q ?<.
O
N
r V V

? o

? Q 00 m N

z

? C N O
O
vt V
?O ?n
?L

O o
a ?
n
o

F
o
c
V u, r u.

?
CO ?
? v.
CD
C
o C

r
12
a
u
n G
n a

1
N
3
a
0
u .p
= v.
N
G
j G
a ?
vv
u u
= U
O v
U
v E
u o
u ?
a
E
O u
a E
? u
A
u
E ?
o c
is
A s
v9
u
c ?
G o
a 0
°o m
N a
a r
c .?
" a
C
0
o Q
0]
C a
O N
?n r
N
C-27
N
? °O
M
CL
W T
C
W ?
14:1 U
wz.a
J
m W
E- W -o
W t'
v] tD
._ c
Q
Ur'U
kr)
LL

v ? ? ?? O C

< W W
Z
< , ". O o O
" W 5
n ? U
?oz

r
N
O
O
O
n

L:]
?
< c

LLJ N
p
O
O
O
U
z

W P
>
LL2 h o 0 0

W
U7

Z o 0 0 0
o_ -
0
a

F rn n n

x
o
F
a.
W e
_
N
O
N
y

c
O
V
O
O
O

A

p ?
O ?
O ?'1
cC ? F

zv E E
o
z
_
F' Z ? r r,

F ,p ?p

G N ? N ?
}
VJ ? N
C
W
V1

C W t? C C
r, ? F
U

L
W
W
<_ L
.1 W

4 W L_ o O o
_ W C
in v?U
m o z
z

N C O O
n
L2
1:
?

< c

N
W O O O

U
z

W
> i c o 0
V

W
N
O ?
z o 0 0 0

0
a
W
F
X rn ,? N o
LIJ Y N N
z
0

41 ? c v °

4,
0

V
1
O
O
O

n

O o `n
W
o ? F

V1 N
E E
0 0
F V W W
a n

N W OD R m
W ° ? N C
?3 =0
A _
A

U
C
^ -

Z N

? ? C O C
? N
< n c
_ U

W W
? <
Z
< - W = o o c

?
q Z

O O O
n

W
?
< c
?+%
yi N
O C O O

z

W
>
L ?

_ c o 0
U
W
N
O ?
z o 0 0 0
z
0
a

F p?
V, N
Nl
N e
l+1

a
0

LU 0\
- N,
N
u
z

o

V
O _
n

O
o ? F
? = O

0
0 0
F V W w
n

Z
U W C4
v =
? C?
A
y

C4 w

VI N
z
W
W
d
<
F
W
E
p
U
N
v, z
? W
L
C Q
tO F
:c
'c
? U
A U
T t
o?
D _D
d
c c
< <
- N
C-28
a''
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovmNoR September 26, 2007
MEMORANDUM TO: Kristina Solberg
Project Planning Engineer
FROM: Bobby Dunn
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Group
vc%.cl V CU
Division of Highways
OC T 0 2 1001
Preconstruction
Projed Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Air Quality Analysis
(Stallings Road) in Union County, State Project # 8.2692601,
F.A. Project # MASTP-1365 (1), TIP # U-3825
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 (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate). Automobiles are considered the major source of CO in the project area.
For this reason, most of the analysis presented herein is concerned with determining
expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
Carbon Monoxide
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
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."
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
RALEIGH NC
C-29
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 the North Carolina Department of Environment. Health and Natural
Resources (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).
Ozone & 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 (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NOZ). 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 maybe 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, this
mixture reacts 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.
Particulate Matter & Sulfur
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter (PM) and sulfur
dioxide (SOZ). 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.
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 bum unleaded gasoline, thereby eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead
content of leaded 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
gam 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.
C-30
Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause
the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
Attainment Status
The project is located in Union County, which is within the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
nonattainment area for ozone (03) as defined by the EPA. The area was designated moderate
nonattainment for O3 under the eight-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2004. Section
176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the
intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any
transportation control measures for Union County. The Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan
Planning Organization 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the 2007-2013
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT made
a conformity determination on the LRTP on 6/29/2007 the TIP on 6/29/2007 and Union County
projects from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) on 6/29/2007. For the
donut area of Union County, the projects from the 2007 STIP conform to the intent of the SIP (or
base year emissions, in areas where no SIP is approved or found adequate). The current
conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51
and 93. There are no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the
conformity analyses.
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.
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 in 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, including 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:
C-31
4
U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000-2020
VMT
(trillionslyear)
D P VWWJc
Poroaneiyrk
1161TiUk1e
Prukl?
?00,000
00,000
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 S04 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) that will address these issues and could adjust the
full 21 and the primary 6 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:
Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete: Evaluating the environmental
and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve
several key elements, including 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 then final determination of health impacts based on the
estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings
or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT
health impacts of this project.
Emissions
(tons/year)
C-32
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
5
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.
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.
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.
C_33
6
These difficulties are magnified for 7n-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 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 Toxics 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.
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.
C-34
7
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
Reasonablv 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 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."
This document provides a quantitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the various
alternatives and acknowledges that some of the project alternatives may result in
increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations
and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects
from these emissions cannot be estimated.
As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions and 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 C_35
DR'IS10'`1 OF H1CHW'AYS REI.OC4710N PRO . 4MS
. With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes.
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving exprnc'c encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rtmt property of higher con or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or
Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to 522.500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to 55,250 to tenants who arc eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-
13S-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At I= one
rclocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
advison• services Mithoui regard to race. color. religion. sex, or national origin. The
NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and
sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-d2y written notice after
NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas
not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and :otnm::ial facilities. Rent
and sale prices of replacement property will be within the financial means of the families
and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
cmplovmenL The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-
mroat o-gaaizations. and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement
promern'.
P11 tcna^.t and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
cxpianauon regarding ail available vr..,as, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
(_) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-
occumant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
i fn.:.,ation conce ping other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced
prrsonS and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships
to displaced peons in adjusting to a new location-
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee
for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as anomey's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
cxmertses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner- occupants for
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase .
expenses may not exceed S22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort
housing provision-
D-1
It is s policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOTs state or
federally-assisted enasrntenon projects unless and until comparable replacement housing
bas been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior
to displacement No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the
purposes of the lntrtnal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social
Se:eurxty Act or any otbe federal law.
Lan Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is
not available. or when it is unavailable within the displaeee's financial means. and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad Wirudes in methods of implementation by the state so
that decent, safe. and sanitary replacement housing can be provided.
D-2
EIS RELOCATION
REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
© E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR
? DESIGN
WBS ELEMENT: 34982.1.1 COUNTY Union Alternate A of C Alternate
T.I.P. No.: U-3825
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR1365 (Stallings Rd.) widen to multilanes from SR 1009 (Old Monroe Rd) to US
74 (E. Independence Blvd.)

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0- 55M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0
Businesses 1 0 1 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20N 0 so-160 0 0-20r 0 so-ISO 0

Yes No ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
Explain all 'YES' answers. 2040M
40-70r 0
0 150-250
250400 0
2 20-40N
40-70M 10
18 IW-250
250-400 0
18
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M If 400-600 0 70-100N 18 4OD-600 18
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 0 600 up 0 100 UP 25 600 uP 15
displacement? TOTAL 0 2 71 51
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Res pond by Number)
after project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
3. Little impact on business community.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 4. A metal business with one occupant will need to be relocated.
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? It is a car repair shop with about 4 employees.
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 6. MLS, newspaper, realtors, and publications.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 8. Last Resort housing will be administered according to slate law.
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 11. Public Housing is available in Union Co.
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 12. If current trends continue and given adequate lead time,
financial means? housing should be available.
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list 13. See # 8 above.
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12 14. Yes, same as #6
64-V- 1„1_ 6/16/08 .
Anita Lee Date
Riaht of Way Actent
? y
D-3
EIS RELOCATION
REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportatio-
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGrir
Z E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR
? DESIGN
NBS ELEMENT: 34982.1.1 COUNTY Union Alternate B of C Alternate
F.1.P. NO., U-3825
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR1365 (Stallings Rd.) widen to multilanes from SR 1009 (Old Monroe Rd) to
US 74 (E. Independence Blvd.)
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES I INCOME LEVEL
Type of
3isplacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 8 5 13 0 0 5 3 5 0
Businesses 2 0 2 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20r 0 so-150 p 0-20M 0 so-ISO
p
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 p 20-40M 10 150-250 0
Yes No Explain all -YES" answers. 40-70M 2 250.400 3 40-70r 18 250-400 18
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100w 3 400.600 2 70-100r 18 400-600 18
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 2 600 UP 0 100 UP 25 600 UP 15
displacement? TOTAL 8 5 71 51
x 1 Will business services still be available
after project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list

15. source).
Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12

6/16/08
Anita Lee Date
REMARKS (Respond b Number)
3. Very minor impact on business community.
4. Two buiness will be affected, one is a metal car repair with
about 4 employees and the other is a tram print shop with about
4 employees.
6. MLS, newspaper, realtors, and publications.
8. Last resort housing will be administered according to state law.
11. Public Housing is available in Union Co.
12. If current trends continue and given adequate lead time,
housing should be available.
13. See # 8
14. Yes, same as #6
i'N?
Date
D-4
EIS

® E.I.S. RELOCATION REPORT

? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT: 1 34982. 1.1 COUNTY Union Alternate C of C Alternate
T.I.P. NO.: U-3825
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 1365 (Stallings Rd.) widen to multilanes from SR 1009 (Old Monroe Rd) to US
74 (E. Independence Blvd.)

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 8 5 13 0 0 5 3 5 0
Businesses 2 0 2 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 o-tor 0 $0-150 0 0-20r 0 so-ISO 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40r 0 160-250 0 20-40r 10 150-250 0
Yes No Explain all 'YES' answers. 40-70r 2 250-400 0 40-70r 18 250-400 18
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-1DOr 4 400600 5 70-1o0r 18 400E00 18
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 2 600 up 0 100 up 45 600 up 15
displacement? TOTAL 8 5 71 51
X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Res pond by Number)
after project? 3. Very minor impact to business.
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 4. Two buiness will be affected; one is a metal car repair with
6. Source for available housing (list). about 4 employees and the other is a fram print shop With about
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 4 employees.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered7
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 6. MLS, newspaper, realtors, and publications.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 8. Last Resort Will be administered according to state law.
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 11. Public Housing is available in Union Co.
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 12. If current trends continue and given adequate lead time,
financial means? housing should be available.
X 14. Are.suitable business sites available (list 13. See number 8.
. source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCAT10N7 12 14. Yes, same as 86

6/16/06 t? i1ti ?` .? E 3 Y'
Anita Lee Date
Richt of Way Abent
_ Relocation Cdordinator Date
FRM15-E
D-5

pr 1 , ?,
SfArL ()F Nr;lt'rli G\I:C;1,1`n
UEPARTMEN1' OF TRANSPORTA710N
11!i'n V I P. Ifntii I \ L) ?L* IIPPEi I
November 7. 2007
rIP Project. .1
Division: Ill
County: Union
Description: SR 1365 (Stallings Road) from SI% 1009 (Old Monroc Road) (o I;S 74 (East
Independence Boulevard)
MEMORANDUM
Thorpc. Ph-D..
and Enmonniental
Analvsis ntB`mD,rcctor \\N0. k CPA??
7'O: Grcuov
P
Attention.: Rristina L. Solberg, Y.L.. Project Development Logineer
S E
FROM: Erin M. Hendee- P.E., Plan Review Project Dcsngn Lneunecr '?41oJ
Crntt_+cstion Manacumcni Section
SUBJECT: Preliminar, Rcvicw of'U-'S2S H !v'f, H ?';\v\??
- /-ll--? /;tlnlltt\
The Plan Review Group of the 'l raffic L•nzinecring and Safety Systems Branch has complctcd a
re\'iew of this pioicct. As icquestcd, we pcrfutmcd a mainline and intersection analysis usin, the
200 and 3030 design year traffic proicction;, dated March. ?. 2005- provided b}' the
I ranspurtatiun Mainline Branch to determine the Icvels of service (LOS). Based on Our analvsis.
we of er the fi+Iluwinc comments that should enhance the traffic sufeiy and operation of this
Iacilav.
Our recommendations and or eonttmcets mentioned below include intersection analyses tit the
2005 No-Build, 20:0 No-Build and the 2030 Build Scenarios.
This mcnmrandum can he found eleclronical1v oil the prgjcct server under the following:
dot-ccc.lfstll':DPSRgot01`d'rot`+l'IYProjeets-LI',U3S2i Traffic\,C'onL,nn.onyigmt'.Doc'%
Recommendations
MAINLINE: ANALYSIS (No-Build Conditions)
SR 1365 (Stallings Road)
Projected mainline volumes alumL SR I :65 (Stallings Road) in the project area range from 5.400
vehicles per day cast of J :S 74 to 131.000 vehicles per day west of Industrial Drive in 20t?N.
Capacity analysis results indicate that the existing two-lane undivided facility is expected to
operate at a LOS E in the 2008 No-Build Scenario. Mainline volianes for Alternative D-2 along
MAILING ADDRESS:
L:e•-?:: Be"+,c ?i-::?nec ¢... C:. S•??:a<_3gmi
i.:.K
C.

LOCATION:

E.1
G. J. Thorpe. Ph.D.
November 7, 2007
Paee 2
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) in the project area are expected to range from 9,200 vehicles per day
east of US 74 to 25,800 vehicles per day west of SR 1368 (Gribble Road) in the 2030 No-Build
Scenario. Capacity analysis results indicate that the existing two-lane undivided facility is
expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2030 No-Build Scenario. Mainline volumes for Alternative
E-3 along SR 1365 (Stallings Road) in the project area are expected to range from 9,500 vehicles
per day east of US 74 to 25,800 vehicles per day west of SR 1368 (Gribble Road) in the 2030 No-
Build Scenario. Capacity analysis results indicate that the existing two-lane undivided facility is
expected to operate at a LOS F in the 2030 No-Build Scenario.
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS (No-Build Conditions)
The following section provides a discussion of each individual intersection analysis for the 2008
and 2030 No-Build Scenarios. As requested, we analyzed two alternatives as well for the 2030
No-Build Scenario. Alternative D-2 is defined as the existing conditions plus the assumption that
the US 74 Monroe Connector (R-3329) is constructed as a multilane freeway and ties into US 74
north of SR 1365 (Stallings Road). Alternative E-3 assumes that the US 74 Monroe Connector
(R-3329) ties into US 74 south of SR 1365 (Stallings Road).. Table 1, attached, displays the
levels-of-service for the 2008 and 2030 No-Build Scenarios.
When the expected queue exceeds the allowable limits for the programs calculations a statement
of "a 951h percentile queue of an undetermined amount" will be utilized.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) - Signalized
Given the existing geometry, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS F in the
2008 and 2030 No-Build Scenarios.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at Community Park Drive - Unsignalized
Given the existing geometry, the eastbound shared left-tum, through movement is expected to
operate at a LOS A in the 2008 and LOS B in the 2030 No-Build Scenarios. The southbound
shared left-tum, right-tum movement is expected to operate at a LOS D in the 2008 No-Build
Scenario. The southbound shared left-rum, right turn movement is expected to.operate at a LOS F
with a 95`h percentile queue of four (4) vehicles in the 2030 No-Build Scenario.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at Industrial Drive - Unsignalized
Given the existing geometry, the eastbound shared left-tum, through movement is expected to
operate at a LOS A in the 2008 and LOS B in the 2030 No-Build Scenarios. The southbound
shared left-tum, right-tum movement is expected to operate at a LOS F with a 95 h percentile
queue of eight (8) vehicles in the 2008 No-Build Scenario. The southbound shared left-tum, right-
turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F with a 95Th percentile queue of an undetermined
amount in the 2030 No-Build Scenario.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at SR 1368 (Gribble Road) - Unsignalized
Given the existing geometry, the westbound shared left-turn, through movement is expected to
operate at a LOS A in the 2008 and LOS C in the 2030 No-Build Scenarios. The northbound
shared left-tum, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F with a 95`h percentile
queue of eleven (11) vehicles in the 2008 No-Build Scenario. The northbound shared left-tum,
E-2
I
G. J. Thorpe. Ph.D.
November 7. 2007
Page 3
right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F with a 95'h percentile queue of an
undetermined amount in the 2030 No-Build Scenario.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at SR 1366 (Smith Farm Road) - Unsignalized
Given the existing geometry, the westbound shared left-tum, through movement is expected to
operate at a LOS A in the 2008 and LOS B in the 2030 No-Build Scenarios. The northbound
shared left-rum, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F with a 95`h percentile
queue of twelve (12) vehicles in the 2008 No-Build Scenario. The northbound shared left-turn,
right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS F with a 95'h percentile queue of an
undetermined amount in the 2030 No-Build Scenario.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at SR 1365 (Matthews Indian Trail Road) - Unsignalized
Given the existing geometry, eastbound shared left-turn, through, right-rum movement is expected
to operate at a LOS A in the 2008 and LOS B in the 2030 No-Build Scenarios. The westbound
shared left-turn, through, right-turn movement is expected to operate at a LOS A'in the 2008 and
2030 No-Build Scenarios. The northbound shared left-tum, through, right-turn movement is
expected to operate at a LOS F with a 95`h percentile queue of fifteen (15) vehicles in the 2008
No-Build Scenario. The southbound shared left-turn, through, right-turn movement is expected to
operate at a LOS F with a 95`h percentile queue of seven (7) vehicles in the 2008 No-Build
Scenario. The northbound and southbound shared left-turn, through, right-tum movement is
expected to operate at a LOS F with a 95`h percentile queue of an undetermined amount in the
2030 No-Build Scenario.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at US 74 - Signalized
Given the existing geometry, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS F in the
2008 No-Build Scenario. For the 2030 No-Build Scenario, it is assumed the US 74 Monroe
Connector (R-3329) will be constructed and tie into US 74. With the northern alignment,
Alternative D-2, of the US 74 Monroe Connector (R-3329), the intersection is expected to operate
at an overall LOS F in the 2030 No-Build Scenario. With the southern alignment, Alternative E-
3, of the US 74 Monroe Connector (R-3329), the intersection is expected to operate at an overall
LOS F in the 2030 No-Build Scenario.
MAINLINE ANALYSIS (Build Conditions)
SR 1365 (Stallings Road)
Projected mainline volumes for Alternative D-2 along SR 1365 (Stallings Road) in the project area
are expected to range from 9,200 vehicles per day east of US 74 to 25,800 vehicles per day west of
SR 1368 (Gribble Road) in the 2030 Build Scenario. Capacity analysis results indicate that the
proposed four-lane divided facility is expected to operate at a LOS E in the 2030 Build Scenario.
Mainline volumes for Alternative E-3 along SR 1365 (Stallings Road) in the project area are
expected to range from 9,500 vehicles per day east of US 74 to 25,800 vehicles per day west of SR
1368 (Gribble Road) in the 2030 Build Scenario. Capacity analysis results indicate that the
proposed four-lane divided facility is expected to operate at a LOS E in the 2030 Build Scenario.
E-3
G. J. Thorpe. Ph.D.
November 7. 2007
Pare 4
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS (Build Conditions)
The following section provides a discussion of each individual intersection analysis for the 2030
Build Scenario. As previously stated, the Plan Review Group analyzed to two altematives for the
2030 Build Scenario. Alternative D-2 is defined as the Build conditions plus the assumption that
the US 74 Monroe Connector (R-3329) is constructed as a multilane freeway and ties into US 74
north of SR 1365 (Stallings Road). Alternative E-3 assumes that the US 74 Monroe Connector
(R-3329) ties into US 74 south of SR 1365 (Stallings Road). Table 1, attached, displays the
levels-of-service for the 2030 Build Scenario.
When the expected queue exceeds the allowable limits for the programs calculations a statement
of "a 95`h percentile queue of an undetermined amount" will be utilized.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) - Signalized (Recommended)
With the increase in traffic anticipated by the traffic forecast and the proposed four-lane typical
section on SR 1365.(Stallings Road), the eastbound approach should provide a minimum of 600
feet of left-tum storage and 100 feet of right-turn storage. The westbound approach should
provide a minimum of 350 feet of dual left-tum storage and 675 feet of right-turn storage. The
existing lane storage lanes will remain for the northbound and southbound approaches since the U-
3825 project is only widening SR 1365 (Stallings Road). With these improvements in place, as
shown in attached Figure 1, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS E in the
2030 Build Scenario.
This intersection will require additional improvements to operate at an acceptable LOS. The
improvements necessary to achieve an acceptable LOS for this intersection is beyond the scope of
the project, which is to widen SR 1365 (Stallings Road). The above recommended storage lengths
provided assume SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) is not improved to provide additional capacity and
that any improvement to increase the capacity on SR 1009 (Old Monroe) may change the
recommended storage lengths substantially.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at Community Park Drive - Unsignalized (Recommended)
This intersection meets the NCDOT Median Crossover Guidelines and in the 2030 Build
Scenario we recommend that this intersection have full movement access. With the increase in
traffic anticipated by the traffic forecast and the proposed four-lane divided typical section on SR
1365 (Stallings Road), we recommend that eastbound approach should provide a minimum of
100 feet of left-mm storage. The westbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of
U-tum storage. With these improvements in place, as shown in Figure 2, the southbound shared
left-tum, right-tum movement is expected to operate at a LOS F with a 95`h percentile queue of
two (2) vehicles, which is acceptable in the 2030 Build Scenario. The eastbound shared left-rum,
through lane is expected to operate at a LOS A in the 2030 Build Scenario.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at Industrial Drive - Signalized
This intersection meets the NCDOT Median Crossover Guidelines and in the 2030 Build
Scenario we recommend that this intersection have full movement access. With the increase in
traffic anticipated by the traffic forecast and the proposed four-lane divided typical section on SR
1365 (Stallings Road), the eastbound approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of shared
G. J. Thorpe. Ph.D.
November 7, 2007 -
Page 5
U-turn, left-turn storage. The westbound approach should provide a minimum of 300 feet of U-
turn storage and 100 feet of right-turn storage. The southbound approach should provide a
minimum of 300 feet of left-turn storage. With these improvements in place, the intersection is
expected to operate at an overall LOS B in the 2030 Build Scenario.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at SR 1368 (Gribble Road) - Unsignalized
This intersection which is approximately 850 feet west of SR 1366 (Smith Farm Road)
intersection, does not meet the NCDOT Median Crossover Guidelines and we recommend that
this intersection not have full movement access in the 2030 Build Scenario.
With the increase in traffic anticipated by the traffic forecast and the proposed four-lane divided
typical section on SR 1365 (Stallings Road), the northbound right-turn movement is expected to
operate at a LOS B in the 2030 Build Scenario.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at Industrial Drive/SR 1368 (Gribble Road) - Signalized
(Recommended)
The Plan Review Group, as part of the proposed project also analyzed the realignment of SR
1368 (Gribble Road) to the Industrial Drive intersection in the 2030 Build Scenario. With the
proposed realignment of SR 1368 (Gribble Road), the eastbound approach should provide a
minimum of 100 feet of shared U-turn, left-turn storage and 100 feet of right-turn storage. The
westbound approach should provide a minimum of 200 feet of left-tum storage and 100 feet of
right-tum storage. The northbound approach should provide a minimum of 200 feet of left-tum
storage. The southbound approach should provide a minimum of 200 feet of left-turn storage.
With these improvements in place, as shown in attached Figure 3, the intersection is expected to
operate at an overall LOS C in the 2030 Build Scenario.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at SR 1366 (Smith Farm Road) - Signalized (Recommended)
This intersection meets NCDOT Median Crossover Guidelines and in the 2030 Build Scenario we
recommend that this intersection have full movement access. With the increase in traffic
anticipated by the traffic forecast and the proposed four-lane divided typical section on SR 1365
(Stallings Road), the eastbound approach should provide a minimum of 275 feet of U-turn storage
and 100 feet of right-turn storage. The westbound approach should provide a minimum of 250
feet of left-tum storage. The northbound approach should provide a minimum of 300 feet of left-
turn storage. With these improvements in place, as shown in attached Figure 4, the intersection is
expected to operate at an overall LOS C in the 2030 Build Scenario.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at SR 1367 (Matthews Indian Trail Road) - Signalized
(Recommended)
With the increase in traffic anticipated by the traffic forecast and the proposed four-lane divided
typical section on SR 1365 (Stallings Road), the eastbound approach should provide a minimum
of 200 feet of left-turn storage and 150 feet of right-tum storage. The westbound approach should
provide a minimum of 125 feet of left-tum storage and 100 feet of right-turn storage. The
northbound approach should provide a minimum of 275 feet of left-turn storage. The southbound
approach should provide a minimum of 100 feet of left-tum storage. With these improvements in
E-4
G. J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
November 7, 2007
Paee 6
place, as shown in attached Figure 5, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS D
in the 2030 Build Scenario.
SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at US 74 - Signalized (Recommended)
With the increase in traffic anticipated by the traffic forecast and the proposed four-lane divided
typical section on SR 1365 (Stallings Road), the eastbound approach should provide a minimum
of 1,150 feet of dual left-turn storage and 400 feet of right-turn storage. The westbound approach
should provide a minimum of 500 feet of left-tum storage and 125 feet of right-tum storage. The
existing lane storage lanes will remain for the northbound and southbound approaches since the U-
3825 project is only widening SR 1365 (Stallings Road).
With these improvements in place, as shown in Figure 6, the intersection is expected to operate at
an overall LOS F in the 2030 Build Scenario, with the northern alignment, Alternative D-2, of the
US 74 Monroe Connector (R-3329). With the southern alignment, Alternative E-3, of the US 74
Monroe Connector (R-3329), the intersection is also expected to operate at an overall LOS F in
the 2030 Build Scenario.
This intersection will require extensive improvements on US 74 for the intersection to operate at
an acceptable LOS due to the heavy traffic from the US 74 Monroe Connector. The improvements
necessary to achieve an acceptable LOS for this intersection is beyond the scope of the project,
which is to widen SR 1365 (Stallings Road). The above recommended storage lengths provided
assume US 74 is not improved to provide additional capacity and that any improvement to
increase the capacity on US 74 may change the recommended storage lengths substantially.
If.you have any questions, please contact Bao Long Le, Plan Review Design Engineer, or me at
[phone].
EMH/bgLalg
cc: B. S. Moose, P.E. (Attention: T. Kirk)
J. A. Bennett, P.E. (Attention: R. D. Allen, P.E., G. W. Mumford, P.E.)
T. Hart, P.E. (Attention: J. F. Bridges, P.E.)
J. K. Lacy, P.E., CPM
T. M. Hopkins, P.E. (Attention: A. D. Wyatt, P.E., PTOE, B. K. Mayhew, P.E.)
R. A. Mason
P. L. Alexander, P.E.
C. L. Evans (Attention: L. E. Neal)
J. H. Dunlop, P.E.
R. W. King, P.E.
J. S. Bourne, P.E.
M. L. Orr, A1CP
E-5

0 N
LL

0 LU Q LL m m U U 0
N ?
a
pp y J N N Q)
N

d
c c
c
c
p co m L3) CO 0) 0)
co W C/) co Z co U) 0.
o i
C LL m LL m LL Ua m LL m Q LL LL.
N

7 LL Q in Q LL Q LL Q LL Q Q LL LL LL
CIO
N

Z
J J J Cf J (If
U
. E .- J J J J •-

?
d C O? LY] m m m m co
m
?
m
Z
c]
m
?
m
Z
CO
h

c)
co W U) LL U Z j W S

O

N ? ?O

G>i o ? a C` c '°

tp
O
,C L
lL
?
r

m y
..

N
? .p ." y C` m E y 7
7 to
`
t
1?0

G O^ O O O

d y ep tp O L7 M O)
m v cx
v ,
?

O w
O Ip
..
= A
d:
rn ?
tm C

Lo w b
to cn
em ' W,
to `.

to
r
y (
y LO
6
h
C h
N
y to
y r
? r
N cx
U)
LL
O
N
Q
O
U
m
c
c
0
U
a?
0
c
0
O
C
E
Q
c
t
0
0
U)
N
E-6
SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road)
400'
(existing)
0
n'
`u
MOO
.600' 2030 LOS E
675'
r 350'
r 350'
100'
150'
(existing)
SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road)
0
co
5
A
v,
Figure 1 : Intersection of SR 1365 (Stallings Road)/SR 1357 (Potters Road) at SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road)
U-3825 All storage lane dimensions are in feet NOT TO SCALE
Community Park Drive
m
0
C
. ... ..............
100'
rn
fA
100'
'o
m
rn
y
Figure 2: Intersection of SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at Community Park Drive
U-3825 All storage lane dimensions are in feet NOT TO SCALE
E-7
C
cL
n
Y

Industrial Drive
200'
100'
n
Y
m
n
? r
200'O .. . ......
2030 LOS C h
+1 f*
200'
SR 1368 (Gribble Road)
Figure 3 : Intersection of SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at Industrial Drive/SR 1368 (Gribble Road)
U-3825 All storage lane dimensions are in feet NOT TO SCALE
Y
:n
Y
U-3825
8 40M
MOO r 250'
2030 LOS C
100'
300'
SR 1366 (Smith Farm Road)

a
m
0
Y
m
Figure 4: Intersection of SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at SR 1366 (Smith Farm Road)
All storage lane dimensions are in feet NOT TO SCALE
E-8
----------------
275'
SR 1367 (Matthews Indian Trail Road)
100' N
100'
n ?
C
R
o r S
rN
M
250J
2030 LOS D
150'
275'
SR 1367 (Matthews Indian Trail Road)
Figure 5 : Intersection of SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at SR 1367 (Matthews Indian Trail Road)
U-3825 All storage lane dimensions are in feet NOT TO SCALE
US 74
200' 450'
(existing) (existing)
1 1 125'
o C
C
m O en
c ?
a p
`;. 1150' O 500'
v 1150 J 2030 LOS F
41
400'
t
525' 250'
existing) (existing)
US 74
Figure 6 : Intersection of SR 1365 (Stallings Road) at US 74
U-3825 All storage lane dimensions are in feet NOT TO SCALE
E-9
Appendix F
Citizens' Informational Workshop
Notice and Handout
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP FOR THE PROPOSED
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO STALLINGS ROAD FROM SR 1009 (OLD
MONROE ROAD) TO US 74 IN STALLINGS
TIP No. U-3825 Union County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold the above
Citizens Informational Workshop on June 18, 2007 between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and
7:00 p.m. in the Town of Stallings Town Hall located at 315 Stallings Road, Stallings.
The purpose of this workshop is for NCDOT representatives to provide
information, answer questions, and accept written comments regarding this project. The
opportunity to submit written comments or questions will also be provided. Interested
citizens may attend at any time during the above mentioned hours.
NCDOT proposes to improve Stallings Road by adding additional travel lanes
between SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) and US 74 in Stallings. The purpose of the
proposed project is to reduce congestion along this segment and improve safety.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Kristina Solberg, Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, at 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
NC 27699, phone [phone] ext. 259, or email klsolberg(@dot.state.nc.us.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with
Disabilities Act for disabled persons who wish to participate in this workshop. Anyone
requiring special services should contact Ms. Solberg as early as possible so that
arrangements can be made.
F-11
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
?tf1QTL
SR 1365 (STALLINGS ROAD)
WIDEN TO MULTILANES
FROM SR 1009 (OLD MONROE ROAD) TO US 74
UNION COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3825
JUNE 2007
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
200 copies of this document west printed at a cost of 10 cents each.
F-2
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
SR 1365 (STALLINGS ROAD)
WIDEN TO MULTILANES
FROM SR 1009 (OLD MONROE ROAD) TO US 74
UNION COUNTY
STATE PRo.TEcr No. 8.2692601
FEDERAL AID No. MASTP-1365(1)
TIP No. U-3825
PURPOSE OF THE CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
The purpose of the Citizens Informational Workshop is to involve the public in the
project planning process. If you have questions, comments, or suggestions about the, proposed
improvements described in this handout, please inform a representative of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT). A comment sheet is provided for you to write down
your questions or concerns so that we can keep a record of, and fully consider; your ideas,
comments, and suggestions.
NCDOT realizes individuals living close to a proposed project want to be informed of the
possible effects of the project on their homes and businesses. However, exact information is not
available at this stage of the planning process. Additional design work is necessary before
alternatives and actual right of way limits can be established. More detailed information will be
available at a later date.
Written comments on this project may be left with NCDOT representatives at the
Citizens Informational Workshop or submitted through the mail. If additional information is
needed or you would like to submit comments after the Workshop, please address your requests
and comments to:
Write: Dr. Gregory Thorpe, Manager
Attn: Kristina L. Solberg, P.E.- Engineer
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Call: Kristina L. Solberg, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
(919)-733-7844 Extension 259
Email: [e-mail]
F-3
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
PROJECT PLANNING
Planning and environmental studies for this highway project will comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The type of document published will be an
Environmental Assessment (EA). This document will fully discuss the purpose and need for the
proposed improvements, evaluate alternatives, and analyze the project's impacts on both the
human and natural environment. Some topics the document will address include:
- Efficiency and safety of travel
- Neighborhoods and communities
- Relocation of homes and businesses
- Economy of project area
- Historic properties and sites
- Wetlands
- Endangered species
- Wildlife and plant communities
- Water quality
- Floodplains
- Farmland and land use plans of project area
- Hazardous materials involvement
- Traffic noise and air quality
Following the completion of the EA, NCDOT will conduct a Public Hearing to review the
proposed project design.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's 2007-2013 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) proposes to widen SR 1365 (Stallings Road) to multilanes from the
intersection of SR 1009 (Old Monroe Road) to US 74, a length of approximately 1.4 miles. See
the attached vicinity map.
PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of widening Stallings Road is to improve the safety of the existing roadway
and improve the traffic flow along the roadway. This section of Stallings Road has an accident
rate approximately 30% higher than the statewide average for roadways of this type. Currently,
Stallings road carries approximately 11,400 vehicles per day, and the projected traffic volume is
expected to more than double to 25,400 vehicles per day by the year 2030.
F-4
PROJECT SCHEDULE
EA
Public Hearing
FONSI
Right of Way
Construction
* Denotes Federa
CURRENT STATUS
June 2008
Summer 2008
March 2009
FY 2009*
FY 2011*
1 Fiscal Year
Currently, planning and environmental studies are in progress. An Environmental
Assessment (EA) is scheduled to be completed in June 2008. The EA will address impacts the
proposed roadway widening may have on the human and natural environment.
After completion of the EA, a public hearing will be held at which the alternatives will be
presented to the public. At that time, the public will have an opportunity to review a map with
the proposed design(s). Factors that may affect the design of this project include engineering
criteria and environmental factors such as relocation of homes or businesses, wetlands, historic
sites, etc. A form is available from NCDOT representatives if you feel you have, or know of, a
structure that has historical significance. The proposed project currently under investigation is
described in the next paragraph.
PROPOSED PROJECT
This project involves widening Stallings Road (SR 1365) from a two-lane to a multi-lane
facility. The.project will widen approximately 1.4 miles of Stallings Road between Old Monroe
Road (SR 1009) and US 74/ East Independence Boulevard. Two alternatives are being studied at
the existing railroad crossing on Stallings Road. Improvements to the existing at-grade crossing
and a bridge carrying Stalings Road over the rail line will be considered.
ANTICIPATED RIGHT OF WAY IMPACTS
Please note that the designated study corridor does not represent the proposed right
of way needed to build the project. The study corridor represents an area large enough to
accommodate the proposed project, while allowing the flexibility of altering the design to
minimize impacts to existing development and the environment. Until both environmental
studies and preliminary designs are completed, specific right of way impacts to individual
properties cannot be determined. As planning for the project continues, we will include all
comments and suggestions received at this workshop and afterwards to the extent possible.
Anticipated impacts to individual properties will be presented at the public hearing, which is
expected to be held in Summer 2008.
F-5
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN STUDIES
In the coming months NCDOT environmental specialists and survey crews will be
studying the project area. During this period, these NCDOT personnel may be on citizens'
properties in order to complete their studies. The purpose of these studies is to gather
background information that will be used in making recommendations on the proposed project.
No decisions on the final design of this project have been made.
TIP PROJECTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA
U-3809: SR 1008 (Indian Trail Road) from SR 1009 (Old Charlotte Highway) to US 74. Widen
i to multi-lanes. Indian Trail, Union County.
Right Of Way FY 2011
I Construction FY 2011
U4713: SR 3440 (McKee Road) Extension, SR 3457 (Campus Ridge Road) to SR 3448
(Pleasant Plains Road). Two lanes on multi-lane Right of Way on new location. Matthews,
Mecklenburg County.
Right Of Way FY 2012
Construction FY 2012
R-211EC: I-485/SR 3468 (Weddington Road). Construct interchange. Mecklenburg County.
Right Of Way FY 2008
Construction FY 2010
U4913: Idlewild Road (SR 3174/Sr 1501), I-485 to SR 1524 (Stevens Mill Road). Widen to
multi-lanes. Mecklenburg and Union Counties.
Right Of Way UNFUNDED
Construction UNFUNDED
F-6

1 M1.
e?
.f
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
NCDOT provides a number of opportunities for citizen and interest group participation
during project planning. Some of these opportunities are listed below:
SCOPING LETTER Published in N.C. Environmental Bulletin. This letter notifies
agencies and groups on the State Clearinghouse mailing list that a
project study has been initiated and solicits comments from them.
CTFU ENS
INFORMATIONAL Informal meeting with the public. NCDOT staff conduct these
WORKSHOP workshops to speak one-on-one with citizens about projects.
Comment sheets are provided for citizens to write down their
questions, comments, and concerns. The number of workshops
scheduled for a project depends on the scope and anticipated
impact of the project.
DOCUMENT Copies of environmental documents are submitted to the State
DISTRIBUTION Clearinghouse for distribution and a notice is published in the N.C.
Environmental Bulletin. Upon request, NCDOT will provide
copies of the document to the public. Copies are available for
public viewing at NCDOT Raleigh and Division offices; the State
Clearinghouse office; local government offices, including the local
council of government office; and local public libraries.
PUBLIC HEARING One or more formal public hearings for the public record are held.
Format typically 'involves a short. presentation followed by an
opportunity for citizens to comment.
CITIZEN LETTER Citizens are encouraged to write NCDOT and provide information
and express concerns regarding proposed improvements.
Correspondence from citizens and interest groups is considered
during the course of the planning study and is included in the
project file.

F-7
si
Environmental Planning Process
for Transportation Projects
STEP 1 Describe the Transportation Problem
Identify Existing and Future Transportation Problems, Define Study Area, Prepare a
Statement of Purpose and Need
e s. _ e
e w a e a e
STEP 3 Study the Alternatives that meet Purpose and Need (STEP 1) in detail.,
Perform engineering studies and environmental studies.
STEP 4 Publish the Environmental Assessment (EA) document.
The EA summarizes STEPS 1 - 3.
STEP 5 Hold a Public Hearing
Present alternatives to the public. This is an opportunity for citizens to comment on the
proposed transportation improvements.
STEP 6 Select a Preferred Alternative
Review comments from the public and .federal, state, and local agencies on the EA
(STEP 4) and transcript from the Public Hearing (STEP 5), select a preferred alternative.
STEP 7 Prepare the final environmental document, the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI). The FONSI describes the selected alternative and summarizes the responses to
comments received during the Public Hearing and the EA review period. Publish the FONSI.
BEYOND Following publication of the FONSI, final engineering design plans are prepared
for the selected alternative, after which, right of way acquisition and construction of the
roadway takes place.
F-8

' COMMENT SHEET
SR 1365 (STALLINGS ROAD) WIDENING
UNION COUNTY
TIP NO. U-3825
NAME:
(Please Print)
ADDRESS: _
CITY _
EMAIL:
TE MP.
Comments, concerns and/or questions regarding TIP Project U-3825:

Engineer: Solberg
------------
(Please continue on back if you need additional spar
i
4I
Send comments to: Dr. Gregory Thorpe, Manager, Attn: Kristina L. Solberg, P.E.- Engir
Division of Highways, North Carolina Department of Transportation
I
I(
Union Cou
A,&A
G°J
?eG
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
VICINITY MAP
SR 1365 (STALLINGS ROAD)
WIDEN TO MULTILANES
FROM SR 1009 (OLD MONROE ROAD)
TO US 74 (1.4 Miles)
TOWN OF STALLINGS, UNION COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3825
June 2007
FIGURE
Citizens Informational Workshop
Comment Sheet (Continued)
. TIP U-3825
Was the project adequately explained to you? Yes ? No ?
Were NCDOT representatives understandable and clear in their explanations? Yes? No ?
Please explain
Were NCDOT representatives courteous and helpful? Yes El No ?
Please explain
Were display maps and handouts easy to read and understand? Yes Q No ?
Please explain
How might we better present proposed projects and address citizen's concerns in future
informational workshops?
How did you hear about this meeting today?
Do you feel that the workshop was adequately advertised?
Please explain
Based on the information provided, were all substantial questions answered? Yes ? No ?
Please explain
What was the most helpful aspect about the workshop today? What was the least helpful aspect
about it?
Please indicate any additional comments or suggestions regarding our public involvement
process:
Thank you for attending the workshop.
Your comments are very important in the planning process.
Yes ? No ?
F-i i