NC 18

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number: 10-0083 County: Wilkes Date Received: 09/01/2009
Due Date: 10/7/2009
Project Description: Environmental Assessment(Finding of No Significant Impact -
Improvements to NC 18 in Wilkes County: TIP- R-3405
s roJec is emg reviewe as m ica e below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville Air _ Soil & Water _ Marine Fisheries
_
Fayetteville Water _ Coastal Management _ Water Resources
_
Mooresville Aquifer Protection _ Wildlife _ Environmental Health
_
Raleigh Land Quality Engineer ? Wildlife - DOT _ Solid Waste Mgmt
_ ? Forest Resources Radiation Protection
Washington
_ Other
Land Resources
Wilmington _
-
/ Parks & Recreation
Winston-Salem
Water Quality
Quahty-'DOT
W ater
£???"n
?
Y
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
_ No objection to project as proposed. _ No Comment t?
Insufficient information to complete review _ Other (specify or attach 5
SEP -.A 2009
If you have any questions, please contact: DENR-WATER QUALITY
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail] V&TLkyogANDSTORONTERBRANCH
SE P 0 4 ?OOg
JJFti... ,.
AVS
NC 18 (Sparta Road) IMPROVEMENTS
FROM SR 1002 (MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD)
TO SR 1717 (YELLOW BANKS ROAD)
WILKES COUNTY
WBS Element 35579. 1.1
State Project No. 6.761019
TIP PROJECT R-3405
c?h ?7
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/ FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
NOM8113AMVINOIS ONV SOWLW
unino 831VM - aN3a
6001P - d3S
IRIAOwd
APPROVED:
3?() Uhl ?-Gc,?.oo? (??
Date ?Pregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
NC 18 (Sparta Road) IMPROVEMENTS
i
FROM SR 1002 (MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD)
TO SR 1717 (YELLOW BANKS ROAD)
WILKES COUNTY
WBS Element 35579.1.1
State Project No. 6.761019
TIP PROJECT R-3405
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
June 2009
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
ly' or \/ G? G
Elmo E. Vance
Project Development En ine
.......... %
=,JJOHN
CONFORTI nz
Jo w, M 9766
d'"•.
eve opment Group Leader "•,,, / REP
r`%A Crw/0?
f•/ G ????2? SSSi
Teresa Hart, PE, CPM fs `
PDEA Western Project Development Unit Head SEAL 3
025460 j
ce 125 ? oq
Date
(. 121 ) ol
Date
4?;i - te
D
M.
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NC 18 (Sparta Road) IMPROVEMENTS
FROM SR 1002 (MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD)
TO SR 1717 (YELLOW BANKS ROAD)
WILKES COUNTY
WBS Element 35579.1.1
State Project No. 6.761019
TIP PROJECT R-3405
GeoEnviron mental Section
Based on field reconnaissance and a database search, twelve (12) Underground Storage Tank
(UST) sites were identified that could pose environmental concerns for the proposed project. All
twelve (12) sites presently or formerly contained underground storage tank (UST) facilities. The
Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project corridor. If further design
studies indicate right of way from subject properties is to be acquired, preliminary site
assessments for soil and groundwater contamination will be performed prior to right of way
purchases.
Hydraulics Unit and Construction Unit
Best Management Practices for the protection of High Quality Waters will be adhered to
throughout construction.
A State Stormwater Permit may be required since this project is within one mile and drains to
High Quality Waters.
Green Sheet
T.I.P. Project R-3405
Environmental Commitments for the State Environmental Assessment/ Page 1 of ]
Finding of No Significant Impact (SEA/FONSI)
PROJECT COMMITMENTSi
SUMMARY ............................................................PAGE
1. Type of Action ........................:..................... ...................... i
2. Description of Action ....................................... ..................... i
3. Summary of Purpose and Need .....................„..... ...................... i
4. Alternatives Considered ..................................... ...................... i
5. Summary of Environmental Effects ...................... ...................... ii
...
7. Coordination ................................................. ......................tti
8. Contact Information ........................................ .......................iv
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ...............................1
A. General Description ................................................................1
B. Historical Resume and Project Status ...........................................1
C. Cost Estimates ...................................................................... 1
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ....................................1
A. The Purpose and Need ...................................................... .......1
1, Description of Existing Conditions ................................... ....... 2
a. Functional Classification ........................................... .......2
b. Physical Description of Existing Facility ........................ .........2
1) Roadway Cross-section ........................................ ........2
2) Right of Way and Access Control ............................. ........2
3)S peed Limit ....................................................... ........2
4) Intersections and Types of Controls ........................... ........2
5) Railroad Crossings ............................................... ........2
6) Structures ......................................................... .........2
7) Utilities ........................................................... ........3
8) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways ................ .........3
c. School Bus Usage ................................................... ........3
d. Traffic Carrying Capacity and Level of Service (LOS) ........ ........3
B. Accident Data and Analysis ............................................... .........4
C. Transportation and Land Use Plan ........................................ ........5
D. Benefits of Proposed Project .............................................. .........5
III. ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................5
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives ......................................................5
1. Alternative Modes of Transportation .........................................5
2. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) ...............................5
3. No-Build Alternatives ..........................................................6
B. Detailed Study Alternatives.. , ........................................................ 6
1. Altemativel "Best Fit" (Recommended) ......................................6
2. Alternative 2 Symmetrical Widening ...........................................6
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ..............................................6
A. Roadway Cross-section and Alignment ........................................6
B. Right of Way and Access Control ...............................................6
C. Speed Limit ........................................................................7
D. Design Speed ......................................................................7
E. Types of Intersection Control ....................................................7
V. EVALUTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................7
A. Land Use Planning ...................................................... .........7
B. Historic and Cultural Resources ....................................... .........17
C. Farmland ................................................................. ..........18
D. Natural Resources ........................................................ ..........18
E. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis ...................................... ..........28
F. Air Quality Analysis .................................................... ......... 28
G. Hazardous Material Involvement and UST Involvement .......... ......... 28
H. Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties ......... ......... 28
I. Geodetic Markers ....................................................... .......... 28
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ....................................29
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies............ 29
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .............29
TABLES
Table 1 Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections .............. ....... 4
Table 2 Accident Rates for NC 18 ....................................... .......4
Table 3 Population Growth, 1990-2000 .................................. ......7
Table 4 Population by Race, 2000 ........................................ .......8
Table 5 Population by Age, 2000 ......................................... .......9
Table 6 Median Household Incomes, 1989-1999 ....................... .......9
Table 7 Percentage Below Poverty Level, 1990-2000 ................. .......10
Table 8 Unemployment Rate, 1990-2000 ................................ .......10
Table 9 Person 16 Years and Older ....................................... ...... 12
Table 10 Estimated Areas of Impact to Terrestrial Communities ...... .......22
Table 11 Stream Classification Within Project Vicinity ................. .......23
Table 12 Federal Species of Concern for Wilkes County ............... .......26
Table 13 Soils List for NC 18 Improvements in Wilkes County ....... .......27
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Proposed Improvements
Figure 3 Proposed Typical Sections
Figure 4 - Thoroughfare Plan for Region D
Figure 5 Traffic Forecast for 2003/2030
Figure 6 Intersection Configurations
Figure 7 100 year Floodplain Limits
Figure 8 Underground Storage Tank Facilities (UST's)
APPENDICES
Appendix A Comments Received from Federal, State and Local Agencies
Appendix B Relocation Report and Relocation Assistance Programs
Appendix C Traffic Noise Analysis
Appendix D Air Quality Analysis
Appendix E Citizens' Informational Workshop Notice and Handout
SUMMARY
NC 18 (Sparta Road) IMPROVEMENTS
FROM SR 1002 (MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD)
TO SR 1717 (YELLOW BANKS ROAD)
WILKES COUNTY
WBS Element 35579.1.1
State Project No. 6.761619
TIP PROJECT R-3405
1. Type of Action
This is a State Highway Administration Action, Environmental Assessment/
Finding of No Significant Impact (SEA/FONSI).
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve NC 18
(Sparta Road) to a multi-lane facility from SR 1002 (Mountain View Road) to SR 1717
(Yellow Banks Road) Wilkes County. The project is approximately 3.33 miles in length
(Figure 2).
This state project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
Draft 2008-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). It is currently
scheduled for right of way acquisition to begin in 2009 and construction to begin fiscal
year 2010. The STIP allocated $6,373,000 for the proposed project including $500,000
for right of way acquisition, $5,200,000 for construction and $673,000 for prior years
spending.
3. Summary of Purpose and Need
The accident rates along this section of NC 18 are higher than the state wide
average for similar rural routes in North Carolina. The purpose of this project is to
improve safety along this section of NC 18.
4. Alternatives Considered
Alternate modes of transportation, two build alternatives, and the "no-build" were
considered for the purpose of the project.
Alternate Modes of Transportation
Alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations are not presently being used within the project boundaries. No transit
system exists within the project area. These alternatives would not address the accident
concems along the studied portion of NC 18 and were not proposed as part of this project.
Therefore, this alternative is not recommended.
Alternative 1-"Best Fit' (Recommended)
The typical section for this alternative is a 40-foot three lane section with one 12-
foot lane in each direction and one center turn lane and 2-foot paved shoulders. NC 18
(Sparta Road) will be widened utilizing a "best-fit" method that includes symmetrical, east
side, and west side widening; thereby, minimizing impacts to existing properties located
along the project. The estimated cost of this alternative is $6,373,000.
Alternative 2-Symmetrical Widenine
The typical section proposed for Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1. However, NC
18 (Sparta Road) would be symmetrically widened throughout the entire length of the
project. This alternative would result in more impacts to the natural environment and
properties located along the project than the "Best-Fit".Altemative. Therefore this
alternative is not recommended.
No Build Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid the environmental impacts that are
anticipated as a result of this project, there would be no positive effect on the safety of the
roadways associated with this project. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended.
5. Summary of Environmental Effects
The table below contains a summary of the impacts associated with the "Best-Fit"
Alternate. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are detailed in
Section VII of this document.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
"Best-Fit" Alternative

_Envtronment
Feature
a`Irc?
n:..,R'fx ?^r..i:..-3?x3titi:_ m He . g N

u x • Ifrrpacts'
r..-i-s..:.1:-...=d.'..
Length 3.3 miles
Wetlands 0.0 acres
Streams 0.0 linear feet
Buffers 0
Relocations 21
Hazardous Material Sites 12
Noise Receptors 71
Prime Farmland 0
Forested 64.98 acres
Endangered Species 1
National Register Eligible Property
Section 4(f) Impacts 0
Schools 1
Churches 1
EJ communities 0
Air Quality No
Critical Water Supplies No
Total Cost $6,373,000
Outstanding Water Resources* 0
Wildlife and Scenic River* 0
Natural and Scenic River* 0
6. Permits
No Section 404 permit from USACE or Section 401 certification from DWQ will
be required prior to construction activities. Direct impacts to jurisdictional surface waters
or wetlands are not anticipated from the proposed project. A State Stormwater Permit
maybe required.
7. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
Federal Aviation Administration
*N. C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
III
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
*Division of Water Quality
*Division of Environmental Health
*Division of Forest Resources
*Division of Parks and Recreation
*Division of Land Resources
*Division of Soil and Water Conservation
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Written comments were received from agencies noted with an asterisk (*). Copies
of the comments received are included in Appendix A.
8. Contact Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information concerning the
proposal and assessment:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
iv
NC 18 (Sparta Road) Improvements
From SR 1002 (Mountain View Road)
TO SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Road)
Wilkes County
WBS Element 35579. 1.1
State Project No. 6.761019
TIP PROJECT R-3405
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve NC 18
(Sparta Road) to a multi-lane facility from SR 1002 (Mountain View Road) to SR 1717
(Yellow Banks Road) in Wilkes County. This existing two-lane roadway will be widen
to a three-lane facility with one-lane in each direction and a center tum-lane. The project
is approximately 3.33 miles in length (Figure 2).
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
1. Thoroughfare Plan
This section of NC 18 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the September
1993 Thoroughfare Plan for Region D. The multi-lane cross section proposed for this
project is in conformance with this plan. The widening of NC 18 will be a step toward
the implementation of this Thoroughfare Plan.
2. Project Status
The estimated project cost is $6,373,000, which includes $500,000 for right of
way acquisition, $5,200,000 for construction and $673,000 for prior years spending.
Right of way acquisition is currently scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2009 and
construction is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2010.
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
A. The Purpose and Need
The purpose of this project is to improve safety on NC 18. The accident rates
along this section of NC •18 are higher than the state wide average (Table 2).
1. Description of Existing Conditions
a. Functional Classification
This section of NC 18 (Sparta Road) is classified as Rural Major Collector.
b. Physical Description of Existing Facility
1. Roadway Cross-section
This section of NC 18 (Sparta Road) is a two-way, two-lane
roadway with a pavement width of twenty feet and ten foot grass
shoulders.
2. Right of Way and Access Control
There is no recorded right-of-way; however, NCDOT's Division
I I provides maintenance for approximately 20 feet on each side of the
centerline of the roadway. No control of access exists along this section
of NC 18 (Sparta Road).
3. Speed Limit
The current posted speed limit ranges from 35 mph to 45 mph
within the proposed project area.
4. Intersection and Types of Controls
A total of eighteen (18) at grade intersections are located within
the project area. Only one (1) intersection is currently signalized which is
located SR 1002 (Mountain View Road).
5. Railroad Crossings
No railroad crossings are located within the project study area.
6. Structures
No structures are located within the project study area.
2
7. Utilities
i
Above ground and sub-surface utilities are located along the
entire-length of the project. Utility poles carry power, telephone, and
limited fiber optics lines parallel to NC 18 (Sparta Road).
8. Bicycle and Pedesttian Facilities/Greenways
There are no sidewalks or bicycle accommodations on NC 18
(Sparta Road) within the project area. There are no greenways located
within the project area.
c. School Bus Usage
Approximately 10 school buses, making two trips per day, use NC 18
(Sparta Road) to access schools in the project area.
d. Traffic Carrying Capacity and Level Of Service (LOS)
Traffic volumes in the project area were generated for the base year (2003)
and the design year (2030). Traffic volumes for the base year (2003) range
from 2,500 vehicles per day (vpd) at the northern end of the proposed project
to 8,300 vpd at the southern in of the proposed project. In the design year
(2030), traffic volumes within the project limit range from 5,400 vpd to
17,000 vpd. Truck traffic percentages vary along the project, consisting of
4% Duals and 2% TTST along most of the route.
Projected traffic volumes, major turning movements, truck data and design
hour data are shown in Figure 5.
For the base year (2003), all intersection movements operate at a LOS D
or better with the exception of one (1). This intersection, located at NC 18 &
SR 1703 (Elledge Mill Road) currently operates at a LOS F.
For the design year (2030) "Build" scenario all of the unsignalized
intersections will operate at a LOS E or LOS F.
3
Table 1. Level of Service for Unsianalized' Intersections
Mt ?""r gt t.£.rykn Ha".,.xr} .ya a vw

Y W ? 'P4'r
IIVTEiLSECTIONx ?h
y'i5 h tt .Wp"` .I? X y dray} a ae t *LY
?i3°'4?3. w??? s f?,. ,!Xhtf ??11.. .w.h.h' y`Es

s Yzi
Approachr
Ni.,t yk .ty
qy ,114f 3..t
X2003 (
$.
?Etast ng
+
hv?S?.SA. *y 4ya ^S ?,"5 rts
r } <
133?.tsx ?-? 4
„y ?To"Budd LOS
F
Yy??M.m-iv?a= i 3"' u?}id rk
r a
? t 0 ?t,51

} +
wildLOS° » i
3Sy'tl f-f? x?_v+?. ?,
NC IS & SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Rd) WB C F F(B)
NC 18 & SR 1619 (Mulberry Park Rd) EB B E E
NC 18 & SR 1537 (Mullberry School Rd)
Entrance EB
-
NC 18 & SR 1537 (Mulberry School Rd)
Exit EB B E
E
NC 18 & SR 1719 (Tabernacle Rd) WB B E - E
NC 18 & SR 1718 (Mulberry Mill Rd) WB C F F(A)
NC 18 & SR 1536 (Baptist Home Rd) EB C F F(B )
NC 18 & SR 1703 (Elledge Mill Rd) WB F F F(C)
NC 18 & SR 1518/1789 EB D -
F
(Lankford Rd/ WM Harold Dr) WB D F
NC 18 & SR 1600 (Northwood Hills Rd) EB C F F
NC 18 & SR 1534 (Ruritan Parkl Rd) EB C F F
NC 18 & SR 1774 (Wildwood Dr) WB C F F
NC 18 & SR 1602 (Monticello Dr) EB D F F
NC 18 & SR 1803 (Carpath Rd) WB D F F(D)
NC 18 & SR 1532 (Bird Ridge Rd) EB D F F(F)
NC 18 & SR 1700 (Fankey Rd) WB D F F
NC 18 & SR 1531 (Foster Rd) EB D F F
t 1- mmcates me aestgn year overall intersection Level of Service it operation is controlled by a traffic signal
C. Accident Data and Analysis
The project study area is located within mountainous terrain. An accident study
for the project area was conducted for the time period from June 1, 2005 to May 31,
2008.
A summary of the number of accidents, the accident rates for each route and the
statewide rates are listed below (in accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (MVM)).
Table 2. Accident Rates for NC 18 (Der 100 million vehicle milec)
}yf?5 ?" C c +t> `?"?
I -mot,
? 4 i0." n Yi- .rv?2q
}?,Fj/r1°t' a ""?
?
4? ? }. Y 1 'yFVT a F
m+ r.>p ?tv?v .A v1 of of ti$
' c
7
? ^?'W? ? Tx? x?
? 4? 4TF
1?
g pA?pa??
yjp?,?
„'?`'R'r t¢ i CrasLes
B1l
?TC
lp 7 J'Td ? ?
e.IuClie
T
}+t'«ef?ia'?X?"a. Slf$?awid ?lia
?
€ Eav

All Accidents 78 229.80 175.41
Fatal 1 2.95 2.14
Non-Fatal Injury Crash 34 100.17 66.12
Night time 22 64.81 60.38
Wet Conditions 13 38.30 26.41
2005-2007 statewide crash rate for rural 2-lane, undivided North Carolina (NC) routes
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d
0
0
0
Seventy-eight (78) accidents occurred along this section of NC 18 during the
above-mentioned three-year period. The overall rate during this period was 229.80
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (acc/100MVM). The overall accident, non-fatal
injury crash, night time and wet conditions are higher than the statewide average for rural
two-lane NC routes during the period from 2005-2008. All Accident Types are above the
Statewide Rates.
Thirty-one (31) of the total accidents (39.74%) involved rear end, slow or stop
movements. Sub-standard lane widths and wet pavement were determined as the primary
causes for the noted accidents.
The proposed typical section coupled with intersection, horizontal and vertical
curve improvements will potentially reduce future occurrences of rear end collisions.
D. Transportation and Land Use Plans
This section of NC 18 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the 1993
Thoroughfare Plan for Region D (Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Mitchell, Watauga, Wilkes
and Yancey Counties). The proposed project is in conformance with the Thoroughfare
Plan.
E. Benefits of Proposed Project
The proposed improvements to NC 18 (Sparta Road) will benefit the region and
local communities by providing safer and more efficient travel through the region.
Geometric and alignment improvements to address sight distance problems will improve
safety for drivers along the corridor.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives
Alternative Modes of Transportation
Alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations are not presently being used within the project boundaries. No transit
system exists within the project area. These alternatives would not address the safety
concerns along the studied portion of NC 18 and were not proposed as part of this
project. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended.
Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
This section of NC 18 (Sparta Road) is a two way, two-lane roadway with
a pavement width of twenty feet and ten foot grass shoulders
No-Build Alternatives
Although this alternative would avoid the human and natural impacts that
are anticipated as a result of this project, there would be no positive effect on the safety of
the roadways associated with this project. Therefore, this alternative is not
recommended.
B. Detailed Study Alternatives
Alternative 1 "Best Fit" (Recommended)
NC 18 (Sparta Road) will be widened utilizing a "best-fit" method that
includes symmetrical, east side, and west side widening, thereby minimizing impacts to
existing properties located along the project. The typical section for this alternative is a
40-foot three lane section with one 12-foot lane in each direction and one center turn lane
and 2-foot paved shoulders. The project will be constructed within an 80-foot right or
way width. The current estimated cost of this alternative is $6,373,000.
2. Alternative 2 Symmetrical Widening
The typical section proposed for Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1. NC
18 (Sparta Road) would be symmetrically widened throughout the entire length of the
project.
This alternative would result in more impacts to the natural environment and
properties located along the project than the "Best-Fit". Therefore this alternative is not
recommended.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway Cross-section and Alignment
NC 18 (Sparta Road) will be widened to a three-lane facility with 2-foot paved
shoulders. The anticipated width for the typical section is 40-feet from edge of pavement
to edge of pavement. The alignment will be a combination of symmetrical widen and
"best fit" throughout the entire length of the project.
B. Right of Way and Access Control
Eighty-feet of right of way will be acquired to accommodate the proposed
improvements. Temporary construction easements will be required at various locations
along the project. No control of access is proposed for the project.
C. Speed Limit
I
The current speed limit will likely be maintained with the proposed improvements
along NC 18.
D. Design Speed
The proposed design speed is 50 mph.
E. Tunes of Intersection Control
With the exception of SR 1002 (Mountain View Road), all intersections for this
project will remain stop-sign controlled.
V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Land Use Planning
1. Community Profile
Wilkes County, predominantly rural in character, is located just east of the
foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains along the Reddies and Yadkin Rivers.
2. Population
Population growth within the project study area demographic was much
lower than that of the nearest town, North Wilkesboro, as well as Wilkes County
and North Carolina. The demographic area population grew by 2.1 % during the
1990s, compared to 21.4% for the State of North Carolina as a whole. Wilkes
County grew 10.5% during the same time period, roughly half that of North
Carolina.
Table 3. Population Growth, 1990-2000
s
,? k E
1 _

Demographic 6,645 6,784 139 2.1%
Area
Town of North 3,384 4,116 732 21.6%
Wilkesboro
Wilkes County 59,393 65,632 6,239 10.5%
North Carolina 6,632,448 8,049,313 1,416,865 21.4%
Source: US Census Bureau
7
The majority of people in the demographic area in 2000 were White
(90.7%). In contrast, North Wilkesboro (13.7% Black or African American and
11.3% Hispanic or Latino) and North Carolina (21.4% Black or African American
and 4.7% Hispanic or Latino) reflected much higher racial diversity than the
demographic area).
'r-t.1o n ^rnnn

7 ?, r
?fAS :h.. 1 3.
White 6,151 90.71%1, 2,977 72.3% 59,977 91.4% 5,647,155 70.2%
Black or
African
American 368 5.401o 564 13.7% 2,719 4.1% 1,723,301 21.4%
Hispanic
or Latino 199 2.97o 464 11.3% 2,262 3.4% 378,963 4.7%
American
Indian/
Alaska
Native 10 0.1% 13 0.3% 84 0.1% 95,333 1.2%
Asian 10 0.1% 30 0.7% 213 0.3% 112,416 1.4%
Native
Hawaiian/
Pacific
Islander 0 0.0% 1 0.02% 6 0.0% 3,165 0.0%
Two or
More
Races 5 0.1% 58 1.4% 336 0.5% 79,965 1.0%
Other
Race 41 0.6% 9 0.2% 35 0.1% 9,015 0.1%
ffl?' T "A IM", WO
2
Source: US Census Bureau
Age characteristics of the demographic area were very similar to that of the other
three geographies, with the highest percent of the population in the 20-44 years of age
category. Overall, the percent of elderly residents (65 years of age or more) within the.
demographic area (15.3%) was higher than that of North Carolina as a whole (16.0%) and
had a median age of 39.2.
8
Table 5. Population by Aee. 2000

Of a? I F

19 years and
under 1,663 24.5% 1,077 26.2% 16,332 24.9% 16,386 26.1%
20-44 years
2,324 34.3% 1,505 36.6% 23,203 35.4% 21,161 33.6%
45-64 years
1,759 25.9% 844 20.5% 16,851 25.7% 15,285 24.3%
65 or more
years 1,038 15.3% 690 16.8% 9,246 14.1% 10,067 16.0%
_. _.. ?3

Median Age 39.2 35.3 38.5 39.2
Source: US Census Bureau
3. Income, Poverty Status and Unemployment
The median household income for the demographic area grew by 45.5%
between 1989 and 1999, increasing from $23,910 to $34,791. The county grew at
a similar rate (54.3%) during the same time period, and much more than the Town
of Wilkesboro (28.5%). However, all household incomes are less than North
Carolina, which is more consistent with a rural area.
Table 6. Median Household Income, 1989-1999

Demographic Area $23,910 $34,791 $10,881 45.5%
Town of North
Wilkesboro
$17,747
$22,813
$5,066
28.5%
Wilkes County $22,261 $34,358 $12,097 54.3%
North Carolina $26,647 $39,184 $12,537 47.0%
Source: US Census Bureau
In 1990, the percentage of the demographic area population that lived
below the poverty level was 13.1%, a percentage that was consistent with both
Wilkes County (13.3%) and North Carolina (13.0%), but lower than North
Wilkesboro (22.6%). Between 1990 and 2000, poverty rates decreased for all
four geographies, with the demographic area leading the way with the highest
decrease (16.8%).
9
Table 7. Percentage Below Povertv Level, 1990-2000
1"Mr,
t
Demographic Area 13.1% 10.9% -2.2% -16.8%
Town of North
Wilkesboro
22.6%
21.2%r
-1.4%
-6.217b
Wilkes County 13.3% 11.9%r -1.4% -10.5%
North Carolina 13.0% 12.3% -0.7%
Source: US Census Bureau
In 1990, the demographic area had an unemployment rate of 4.4%, which was
consistent with North Carolina (4.8%). However, it was average when compared to the
Town of Wilkesboro (5.5%) but higher than Wilkes County (3.5%). Between 1990 and
2000, the unemployment rate for the State of North Carolina and Wilkes County grew
10.4% and 8.6% respectively, which is reflective of the manufacturing and textile mill
closings. However, the unemployment rate for the demographic area decreased by
15.9%, going from 4.4% to 3.7%, the lowest among all geographies analyzed. This may
have been attributed to the expansion of food processing plants in North Wilkesboro.
Table 8. Unemulovment Rate. 1990-2000
Demographic Area 4.4% 3.7% -0.7% -15.9%
Town of North
Wilkesboro
5.5%
5.9%
0.4%
7.3%
Wilkes County 3.5% 3.8% 0.3% 8.6%
North Carolina 4.8% 5.3% 0.5% 10.4%
Source: US Census Bureau
4. Housing Characteristics
Households in the demographic area grew at a much lower rate (7.3%)
than North Wilkesboro (11.4%), Wilkes County (15.8%), and the State of North
Carolina (24.4%) between 1990 and 2000. However, because demographic area
households grew at a faster pace than population between 1990 and 2000, the
average household size decreased from 2.54 persons to 2.41 persons (see Table
7). The same is true for all the other geographies except North Wilkesboro,
whose population growth rate outpaced that of its household growth rate, slightly
increasing its average household size from 1990 to 2000.
10
O
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Business Activity/Employment Centers
i
Table 9 shows employment growth figures for Wilkes County between
1990 and 2002. The health care and social assistance industry added the most
jobs (890) during that time period, while manufacturing and retail trade lost a
combined total of 3,310 jobs. According to local planners, approximately 2,500
of these lost jobs were due to several textile plant closings.
Tyson Foods and Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse are the largest
employers in the area. However, Lowes, originally headquartered in North
Wilkesboro, is in the process of relocating its national headquarters from North
Wilkesboro to Mooresville, North Carolina, located just north of Charlotte. The
relocation of Lowes has.had a negative impact to Wilkes County, resulting in
sizeable job losses and/or job relocations. Tyson Foods, on the other hand, has
actually grown in size with the expansion of several chicken processing plants.
Wilkes County planners also noted they have seen an increase in smaller,
population-serving companies in the past several years, which may have
contributed to the increase (over 117%) in professional and technical
employment. Local officials mentioned health care services have grown
favorably in recent years.
Table 9. Employment By Industry Sector,
Persons 16 Years and Older

h n?
Agriculture 549 375 -174 -31.7%
Construction 695 922 227 32.7%
Mining N/A N/A N/A N/A
Manufacturing 8,666 6,235 -2,431 -28.1%
Utilities 72 49 -23 -31.9%
Transportation/
Information/
Warehousing 778 929 151 19.4%
Wholesale Trade 635 1,092 457 72.0%
Retail Trade 4,049 3,170 -879 -21.7%
FIRE 872 1,123 251 28.8%
Professional and
Technical Services 203 442 239 117.7%
Management of
Companies and
Ente rises N/A N/A N/A N/A
Administrative and
Waste Services 307 534 227 73.9%
Educational
Services N/A 2,313 N/A N/A
Health Care and
Social Assistance 1,347 2,237 890 66.1%
Arts, Entertainment,
and Recreation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Accommodation and
Food Services 1,320 1,466 146 11.1%
Other Services, Ex.
Public
Administration 469 450 -19 -4.1%
Public
Administration 1,040 1,159 119 11.4%

Jource: Norm Carolina Employment Security Commission
* Total employment does not equate to the sum of sector employment as
displayed in the table due to some sector employment unavailability
(designated by "N/A").
12
A
O
O
O
d
0
O
O
0
A
Q
O
O
O
O
A
O
A
O
A
A
A
O
O
O
0
O
6. Public Facilities, Schools and Institutions
There are a number of prominent public facilities within the project study
area, including (See Figure 2.):
• Mulberry Elementary School
• North Wilkes Middle School
• Baptist Home Church
• Mount Lawn Cemetery
• Mulberry-Fairplains Water Association
The Mulberry-Fairplains Water Association covers the entire project
corridor; its limits are bound by North Wilkesboro to the south, the Reddies River
to the west, Tumbling Shoals Creek to the north, and Mulberry Creek to the east.
Police, Fire, EMS and Public Services
The Mulberry-Fairplains Fire Station is located within the project study
area, across from the intersection of NC-18 and Elledge Mill Road (SR 1703).
The local hospital, Wilkes Regional Medical Center, is located on West D Street
in North Wilkesboro. The North Wilkesboro Police Department is located in
downtown North Wilkesboro on Main Street.
Water service exists in unincorporated Wilkes County and is provided by
the Mulberry-Fairplains Water Association and the Blue Ridge Water
Association. Water lines are located within the project study area, with service
extending along several developments off of NC 18. Sewer services are primarily
limited to the municipalities.
Areas served by centralized sewer are primarily limited to the, North
Wilkesboro municipal boundary. The only location within the project study area
where sewer service is provided is in proximity of the southern terminus of the
proposed project along NC-18 (Sparta Road) and Mountain View Road (SR
1002).
8. Existing/Future Land Uses and Present/Future Zoning
The land use in the vicinity of the project is mostly residential with an
active commercial development near the intersection of NC 18 and SR 1002
(Mountain View Road).
According to interviews with the Transportation Planner for the City of
North Wilkesboro and the Transportation Planner for the High County RPO in the
foreseeable future the city plans to annex land along NC 18 into the city limits up
13
to about a mile north of the intersection with SR 1002. The land will be zoned for
commercial development.
Local/Regional Land Use and/or Development Plans
Wilkes County does have planning documents guiding growth. None of
the planning documents forecasts or calls for changes in the zoning or land use
patterns within the proposed project area.
10. Project Impact Assessment
Considering the overall nature of the proposed project (widening project
and extending the existing right-of-way) coupled with current existing
development regulations, it is unlikely that this project will create any disruptions
to existing land use patterns or future land use plans.
Nearly all of the existing land surrounding the proposed project area is
rural or low density residential. No zoning or land use data exists in this specific
region of Wilkes County,
11. Economic Development
The proposed improvements will not impose upon any interchanges and it
will not provide new access to undeveloped land. Therefore, the project will not
dramatically enhance or curtail the prospects of specific economic development
opportunities along NC 18 (Sparta Road).
The potential for future development in the immediate vicinity of this
project is likely, due to the high availability of land.
12. Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion
Impacts to communities and neighborhoods can include the following:
splitting neighborhoods, isolating portions of a community, generating new
development or changing development patterns, changing property values or
creating a barrier separating residents from community facilities.
As proposed, the road improvements will not split or isolate existing
neighborhoods or communities along the project route.
The proposed project would not generate new development or alter
existing patterns of development which might disrupt the surrounding community
14
0
a
0
0
0
a
a
a
a
0
0
0
0
a
a
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
0
O
a
O
0
O
13. Relocation Impact
The proposed project involves at most 12 residential, 5 tenants and 4
business relocations. A relocation report for the preferred alternative is included
in Appendix B. Also included in Appendix B is a discussion of the Relocation
Programs offered by NCDOT to minimize the inconvenience of relocation.
14. Visual Impacts
One of the most readily apparent visual impacts may be the loss of
vegetation (trees) along the project route.
As the proposed improvements may involve the removal of mature trees
lining Sparta Road, depending on the final design, any substantial loss of
vegetation will be readily apparent.
15. Scenic Rivers and Water Supply Watersheds
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended, declared it the
policy of the United States to preserve certain selected rivers, "which, with their
immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational,
geologic, fish and wildlife, historic cultural, or other similar values." The Act
established the Wild and Scenic River System. The Natural and Scenic Rivers
Act of 1971 declared it the policy of North Carolina to retain "the natural and
scenic conditions in some of the State's valuable rivers by maintaining them in a
free-flowing state and to protect their water quality and adjacent lands by
retaining these natural and scenic conditions." At present, designated state
Natural and Scenic Rivers are identical with designated federal Wild and Scenic
Rivers.
The proposed project will not encroach on any wild and scenic rivers as
designated by the United States government.
16. Title VI and Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and related statues, requires there
be no discrimination in Federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color,
national origin, age, sex, or disability. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations," provides that "each federal agency make achieving environmental
justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of its
programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations." The Executive Order makes clear that its provisions apply refers to
the equitable treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income with respect to
15
the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations and policies.
The proposed improvements do not appear to place disproportionately
high or adverse impacts upon any areas having low income and/or minority
populations which may be located near the project.
In addition, there do not appear to be any concentrated areas of minority
populations living within the immediate vicinity of the project. County planners
indicated that there may be some areas with low-income populations within the
project study area, most likely in the few adjacent manufactured home parks. A
majority of this community's residents who fall within legal working age are
employed by local poultry processing facilities.
As the project entails the widening of existing road, impacts are generally
distributed to all properties which immediately adjoin the project right-of-way.
No evidence or indication of discrimination on the basis of race, color,
national origin, age, sex, or disability has been found.
17. Secondary/Cumulative Impacts
The likelihood of secondary/cumulative impacts appears to be generally
low for this project.
Secondary effects are indirect impacts which are caused by or result from
the project. The secondary effects may be later in time or further removed in
distance, but they are still reasonably foreseeable. .
Cumulative effects are the results of the incremental impacts of the project
when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities,
regardless of which entities undertake these other activities. Cumulative effects
can result from individually minor but collectively significant activities taking
place over a period of time.
One unintended consequence of roadway improvements can be the
encouragement of unplanned development and sprawl. Improvements to levels of
service, better accommodations of merging and exiting traffic, and reductions in
travel times can have land development impacts outside of the project area.
As the project consists of widening the existing road in order to improve
safety, it is not expected to attract additional traffic or development. The land use
patterns currently in effect have occurred without the proposed improvements.
16
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
_O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Furthermore, the proposed improvements will not dramatically alter the
surrounding land use, provide pr impose new intersections, increase access to
undeveloped lands, or initiate new development patterns and trends.
In addition, those factors in place which are likely to limit development,
low density residential zoning and the lack of sufficient sewer and water
infrastructure, will limit the potential for secondary and cumulative activity and
effects along the project corridor.
For the long term outlook, many of the'uhimate consequences of road
improvement projects are dependent upon a variety of issues and decisions which
are not part of the actual road construction process, but have much to do with a
myriad of decisions made by the local government(s) at a later point in time.
In addition, improvements to a particular road's level of service, better
accommodation of merging and exiting traffic movements, and reductions in
travel times can have impacts to surrounding land use which lied beyond the
immediate project area. However, due to the limited scope of this proposed
project, it is not likely that the improvements proposed will have a significant
impact on the surrounding communities' development plans.
18. NCDOT Environmental Justice Position Statement
Environmental Justice (EJ) embraces the precept that all people and
communities are entitled to equal protection under our environmental, health,
employment, housing, transportation and civil rights laws. The three basic
principles of EJ are to: (1) Engage low-income and minority populations in the
transportation decision-making process; (2) Identify and address
"disproportionately high and adverse" impacts of transportation programs,
policies, and activities on low income and minority populations; and (3) Evaluate
the benefits and burdens upon low income and minority populations of
transportation programs, policies and activities.
B. Historic and Cultural Resources
Architectural Historic Resources
This project is state-funded and free of Federal permits, therefore NCGS
121-12(a) applies for historic properties. There are no National Register listed
properties in the project area and no effects discussion with the Historical
Preservation Office (HPO) is required. (Appendix A)
]7
Archaeological Resources
The HPO requested a comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted
for this project in correspondence dated March 26, 2003 (See Appendix A).
NCDOT completed the requested survey in September of 2003, and identified two
sites within the project's Area of Potential effects. Neither site was recommended
for any additional investigations. The HPO concurred that no further
archaeological investigations are required for this project in correspondence dated
July 8, 2004.
C. Farmland
No prime or important farmland will be impacted by the proposed project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. North Carolina Executive Order Number 96,
Preservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to
consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime.farmland soils,
as designated by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These soils
are determined by the SCS based on criteria such as crop yield and level of input of
economic resources. The Wilkes County Soil Survey, in GIS format, was used for this
analysis. The original soils analysis was completed in 1983.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is designed to minimize the degree to
which federally sponsored programs contribute to the "unnecessary and irreversible
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses," and ensure that these programs are
consistent with state, local and private programs to protect farmland.
D. Natural Resources
Biotic Resources
Terrestrial and aquatic communities are included in the description of
biotic resources. Living systems described in the following sections include
communities of associated plants and animals. These descriptions refer to the
dominant flora and fauna in each community and the relationships of these biotic
components. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context
of plant community classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and
Weakley (1990) and ABI (2001) where possible. Scientific nomenclature and
common names are used for the plant and animal species described.
18
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
4
Q
O
O
0
0
0
O
Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct. communities exist within the NC 18 improvement
area: Mixed Forest, Evergreen Forest, and Maintained/Distributed.
Mixed Forest
Signs of logging within the last 25 to 40 years are evident with the
Mixed Forest community. This community has diminished and become
heavily fragmented within the project area as a result of conversion to
residential land use. Dominant canopy species include white oak (Quercus
alba), red oak (Q. rubra), black oak (Q. velutina), southern red oak (Q.
falcate), red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
white pine (Pinus strobus), short-leaf pine (P. echinata), Virginia pine
(Pinus virginiana), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga Canadensis). The
understory species include flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboretum), redbud (Cercis Canadensis), hickory (Carya
spp.) and American beech (Fagus grandifolia) saplings, clubmoss
(Lycopodium spp.), violets (Viola spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), grape (Vitis spp.).
Most of the Mixed Forest community closely represents the Dry-Mesic
Oak-Hickory Forest natural community closely described by Schafale and
Weakley (1990), however, in a more disturbed state. The closest ABI
classification for the Mixed Forest community is I.C.3.N.a.21, Pinus
strobus-'Quercus (alba, rubra, velutina) Forest Alliance.
Evergreen Forest
The Evergreen Forest community consists of mature white pine
and eastern hemlock trees. It occurs in a small pocket surrounded by the
Mixed Forest community located along the west side of NC 18, just south
of SR 1718 (Mulberry Mill Road), near the northern end of the project area.
The White Pine Forest community as described in Schafale and Weakley
(1990) occurs along walls of gorges and other steep exposed slopes. Like
most white pine-dominated stands occurring in mountains, the white pine
community located along NC 18 most likely resulted from disturbances
such as clearing and therefore is not a part of the White Pine Forest natural
community described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
The Evergreen Forest community most closely resembles the ABI
classification of I.a.8.N.b.13, Pinus strobus-Tsuga Canadensis Forest
Alliance. Communities of this alliance are commonly established
following disturbance, either natural (fire, windthrow, castrophic flood
events) or anthropogenic (logging) (ABI, 2001).
19
Maintained/Disturbed Community
The Maintained/Disturbed community is the dominant community
within the project area!, It encompasses habitats that have recently been or
are currently impacted by human disturbance, such as maintained roadside
right-of-ways, power-line corridors, and residential land use property.
Because of mowing and periodic clearing, this community is kept in a
constant state of early succession. The roadside community is
predominantly made up of fescue (Festuca spp.), wild onion (Allium spp.),
plantain (Plantago spp.), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), white
clover (Trifolium repens), and wild geranium (Geranium carolinianum).
As the roadside community transitions into lesser-maintained
communities, such as power-line corridors, Japanese honeysuckle, poison
ivy, Virginia creeper, blackberry (Rubus spp.), greenbrier, and Virgina
pine saplings become prevalent.
Residential land use property throughout the project area is
landscaped with fescue, varieties of privets (Ligustrum spp.), Chinese
hollies (Ilex cornuta), Japanese hollies (Ilex crenata), junipers (Juniperus
spp.), azaleas (Rhododendron spp.), rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.),
forsythia (Forsytia spp.), willow oak (Quercus phellos), sugar maple
(Acersaccharum), red maple, red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), southern
magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), flowering dogwood, oriental cherry
(Prunus serrulata), and flowering crabapple (Malus spp.). Transitions of
the Maintained/Disturbed community with other communities (Mixed and
Evergreen Forest) also exist.
b. Wildlife
Maintained/disturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts
provide rich ecotones for foraging, while the forests provide forage and
cover. Common mammals and birds associated with ecotones and forest
communities are eastern cottontail rabbit (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), least shrew
(Crypototis parva), southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina polyglottos),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis), turfted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura), nuthatches (Sitta spp.) common flicker (Colaptes
auratus), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata),
European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), common grackle (Quiscalus
quiscula), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).
20
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
6
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
Reptiles likely tp be found in the project area include the five-lined
skink (Eumeces fasciatus), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulates),
eastern box turtle (Terrapene.Carolina), black rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta), ring-neck snake (Diadophus punctatus), garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and
copperhead (Agkistrodon contorti.r). Common amphibian residents in the
project area may include American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad
(B. woodhousei), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) upland chorus frog
(Pseudacris triseriata) wood frog (R. sylvatica), slimy salamander (P.
glutinosus), and red salamander (Pseudotriton rubber).
C. Aquatic Communities
No direct impacts to aquatic communities are anticipated from
project construction since no surface waters or wetlands are located within
the project area. However, since the project is located in a sensitive
watershed, strict enforcement of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
HQW waters to control sedimentation during project construction should
be implemented.
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction will have various impacts to the previously
described terrestrial communities. Any construction activities in or near
these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This
section quantifies and qualifies potential to impact biological functions.
This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural
communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the
plants and animals affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered here along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate
impacts.
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted
permanently by project construction from clearing and paving and loss of
the terrestrial community area. Estimated impacts are based upon a 200-
foot corridor width for the project area. Table 10 lists the potential
impacts fro each terrestrial community. However, project construction
often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts
may be considerably less.
21
Table 10. Estimated Areas of Impact to Terrestrial Communities

WMA. 1,
i
6+?, ....sU-..
Mixed Forest

.64
Evergreen Forest 0.54
Maintained/Disturbed 61.8
Total Impact 64.98
2.
Destruction of natural communities within the project area will
result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal
species that utilize the area.. Animal species will be displaced into
surrounding communities. Adult birds, mammals, and some reptiles are
mobile enough to avoid mortality during construction. Young animals and
less mobile species may suffer direct loss during construction.
Water Resources
This section contains information conceming those water resources likely
to be impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical
aspects of the resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage
Standards and water quality of the resources.
a. Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The entire proposed project is located within the Upper Yadkin
River Basin, DWQ subbasin 03-07-01 (USGS 8-digit Hydrological Unit
03040101). The two major tributaries within the project region are the
Reddies River and Mulberry. Creek.
No surface waters are located within the project area; however,
fifteen USGS blue-line streams are located in the project vicinity. These
include two unnamed tributaries to the Reddies River, seven unnamed
tributaries to Mulberry Creek, five unnamed tributaries to Lousy Creek,
and Lousy Creek. This river and its associated tributaries are adjacent to
the project and are not located within the project limits. Therefore this
project will not impact any jurisdictional surface waters. The nearest
stream locations are illustrated in Figure 1.
22
Table 11. Stream Classifications within the Proiect Vicinitv
UT 1 Unnamed Tributary to Reddies River 12-40-(9.5)* WS-11 HQW CA
UT 2 Unnamed Tributary to Reddies River 12-40-(9.5)* WS-H HQW CA
UT 3 Unnamed Tributary to Mulberry Creek 12-42* C
UT 4 Unnamed Tributary to Mulberry Creek 12-42* C
UT 5 Unnamed Tributary to Lousy Creek 12-40-8* WS-II HQW
UT 6 Unnamed Tributary to Lousy Creek 12-40-8* WS-II HQW
UT 7 Unnamed Tributary to Mulberry Creek 12-42* C
UT 8 Unnamed Tributary to Lousy Creek 12-40-8* WS-II HQW
UT 9 Unnamed Tributary to Lousy Creek 12-40-8* WS-11 HQW
UT 10 Unnamed Tributary to Mulberry Creek 12-42* C
UT 1 I Unnamed Tributary to Lousy Creek 12-40-8* WS-H HQW
UT 12 Unnamed Tributary to Mulberry Creek 12-42* C
UT 13 Unnamed Tributary to Mulberry Creek 12-42* C
UT 14 Unnamed Tributary to Mulberry Creek 12-42* C
Lousy Creek 12-40-8 WS-H HQW
3. Jurisdictional Tonics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses for two federal and
state regulatory issues: "Waters of the United States" and rare and protected
species.
a. Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). These waters are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE). Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill
material into surface waters or wetlands is subject to these provisions.
23
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
No surface waters or wetlands are located within the project area.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No wetlands or surface waters will be directly impacted by the
proposed project.
d. Permits
Direct impacts to jurisdictional surface waters or wetlands are not
anticipated from the proposed project. No section 404 permit from
USACE or Section 401 certification from DWQ will be required prior to
construction activities. A State Stormwater Permit may be required since
this project is within one mile and drains to High Quality Waters.
C. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concepts
of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is
to restore and maintain the physical, chemical and biological integrity of
"Waters of the United States," specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoidance of
impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing
impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each
of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered in sequential order. Mitigation efforts
should not be required since this project does not directly impact wetlands
or surface waters.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining either as a result of
natural forces or their difficulty competing with humans for resources. Rare and
protected species listed for Wilkes County, and any likely impacts to these species
as a result of the proposed project construction, are discussed in the following
sections.
24
0
0
0
0
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
0
Q
d
a. Species Under Federal Protection
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.
The only species that the USFWS lists under federal protection for
Wilkes County as of January 29, 2003 (reverified April 2009) is the bog
turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii). It is listed as Threatened Due to
Similarity of Appearance [T (S/A)]: a species that is threatened due to
similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its
protection.
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements
of the bog turtle follows, along with a conclusion regarding potential
project impact.
Glyptemys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle) Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance
Bog turtles are small (3 to 4.5 inches) turtles with a weakly keeled
carapace (upper shell) that ranges from light brown to ebony in color. The
species is readily distinguished from other turtles by a large, conspicuous
bright orange or yellow blotch on each side of its head. Bog turtles are
semi-aquatic. and are only infrequently active above their muddy habitats
during specific times of year and temperature ranges. They can be found
during the mating season from June to July and at other times when the
humidity is high (April to October), such as after a rain event, and when
temperatures are in the seventies Fahrenheit range. Bog turtle habitat
consists of bogs, swamps, marshy meadows, and other wet environments,
specifically those that have soft muddy bottoms. The southern
populations of bog turtles (VA, TN, NC, SC and GA) are listed as
threatened due to similar appearance to northern bog turtles that are listed
as threatened. The southern bog turtle population is not fully protected
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), but may not be possessed, sold,
traded, or collected.
The NHP files indicate a known population of bog turtles just
outside of the project area. As more detailed design information becomes
available, more intensive surveys for the bog turtle may be recommended
in the inhabited area adjacent to the project area.
A Biological Conclusion is not required since T (S/A) species are
not afforded full protection under the ESA.
25
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Status
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under
the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Table 12 includes FSC species listed for
Wilkes County and their state classifications. Organisms that are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened.(T), or Special Concern (SC) on the N11P list
of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-
listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Notes:
E
SR
T
W5A
Table 12. Federal Species of Concern for Wilkes Count
Vertebrates
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler SR No
Invertebrates
Speyeria idalla Regal fritillary butterfly SR Yes
Speyeria dana Diana fritillary butterfly SR Yes
Plants
Juglans cinerea Butternut W5A No
Pycnanthemum torrei Torrey's mountain-mint SR-T Yes
Orthotrichum keeverae Keever's Bristle-moss E No
An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's
flora or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy.
A Significantly Rare species is not listed as "E", "T", or "SC", but which exists in the state in
small numbers and has been determined to need monitoring.
A Threatened species is any native or once native species that is likely to become an Endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that
is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
A Watch Category 5A species is a species that has declined sharply in North Carolina, but which
does not appear yet to warrant site-specific monitoring.
No FSC species have been recorded within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the
project area based upon the NHP database checked on March 20, 2003.
26
5. Physical Resources
i
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed
below. Soils and availability of water directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
a. Regional Characteristics
The project area is located in central Wilkes County within the
Northern Inner Piedmont eco-region. The terrain within the project area is
mostly rolling and hilly. Elevations range from 1280 to 1340 feet above
sea level.
b. Soils
The project area includes one main soil association: the Pacolet-
Rion association. The Pacolet-Rion association is comprised of gently
sloping to steep, well-drained soils that have a predominantly clayey or
loamy subsoil located on piedmont uplands. Major soil series within this
association include Pacolet (67%) and Rion (20%). These soils are all
formed in material weathered from gneiss and schist. Minor soils (13%)
in the association include Chewacla, Tocca, Wateree, Hibriten, and
Masada.
Table 13. Soils List for NC 18 Imorovements in Wilkes Countv

7
aD acolet sand loam 15-250/. tee , very deep, well-drained soil on side slopes in the Piedmont.
cB2 acolet sandy clay loam -8% emly sloping, very deep, well-drained soil on ridgetops in the
iedmont.
cC2 acolet sandy clay loam -15% trongly sloping, very deep, well-drained soil on side slopes and
id eto s in the Piedmont.
rC acolet-Urban land complex -15%o Very deep, well-drained Pacolet soil and areas of Urban land on gently
loping to strongly sloping ridgetops and side slopes in and around small
owns and housing developments in. the Piedmont.
nE ion fine sand loam 5-60% Steep, very deep, well-drained soil on piedmont side slimes.
6. Flood Plain Involvement
There are no major stream crossings involved with this project. The
terrain in the vicinity of the project is rolling with natural systems and draws
located such that the project may be drained without difficulty. No jurisdictional
streams will be affected by the project. The project may be drained without
difficulty. The Wilkes County is currently participant in the National Flood
27
Insurance Regular Program. This project will not affect any identified flood
hazard areas.
E. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis
Seventy-one traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur with this project. Based
on the Traffic Noise Analysis, and in accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise
Abatement Policy, traffic noise abatement measures are not considered feasible or
reasonable for this project due to uncontrolled or limited control of access. Therefore, no
noise abatement is recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. The
Traffic Noise Analysis is located in Appendix C.
F. Air Quality Analysis
The project is located in Wilkes County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is
located in an attainment area; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this
attainment area. The Air Quality Analysis is located in Appendix D.
G. Hazardous Material Involvement and UST Involvement
Based on field reconnaissance and a database search, twelve (12) Underground
Storage Tank (UST) sites were identified that could pose environmental concerns for the
proposed project. All twelve (12) sites presently or formerly contained underground
storage tank (UST) facilities. The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted
for the project corridor. If further design studies indicate right of way from subject
properties is to be acquired, preliminary site assessments for soil and groundwater
contamination will be performed prior to right of way purchases. See Figure 8.
H. Landfills and Other Potentially Contaminated Properties
The Geographical Informational Service (GIS) was consulted for the project
corridor. The research shows that no regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites
occur within the project limits.
I. Geodetic Markers
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
28
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Comments were received from the following federal, state, and local agencies.
Copies of comments received are included in Appendix. These comments were taken
into consideration in the planning of this project and the preparation of this document.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
Federal Aviation Administration
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*N. C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources .
*Division of Water Quality
*Division of Forest Resources
*Division of Parks and Recreation
*Division of Land Resources
*Division of Soil and Water Conservation
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
A Citizens' Informational Workshop for the proposed project was held on August
14, 2003. The meeting was conducted in the Cafeteria of the Mulberry Elementary
School from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. NCDOT representatives from the Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, the Roadway Design Unit, and the
Division 1 y Office were available to explain the project, answer questions, and receive
comments. Approximately 127 citizens attended the workshop. Workshop attendees
were able to review preliminary project information and comment on the project.
Comments and questions were primarily related to property impacts and right-of-
way acquisition and relocation issues.
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in this assessment and
upon comments received from state and local agencies and the public, it is the finding of
the North Carolina Department of Transportation that this project will not have a
significant adverse impact upon the human or natural environment. The project is not
controversial from an environmental standpoint. The proposed project is consistent with
local plans and will not disrupt communities. In view of the above evaluation, it has been
determined a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable for this project. Therefore,
29
neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental analysis will be
required.
30
Figures
TIP Project R-3405
Mlles {fie:
0 0.25 05 1 1.5 F
LEGEND
oo TIP Project R-3405
Hydraulic Feature
J-1
Municipal Boundaries
S
_Gk
L
E IS
Rii
® NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 18
SR 1002 (MOUNTAIN VIEW RD)
TO SR 1717. WIDEN TO THREE LANES
WILKES COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-3405
I FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP I
HONVUS SISAIVNV 1V1N3WN08IAN3 S3NVI 332iH1 Ol N3aIM
6 j aNV 1N3WdOl3A30 1O3ro8d (pa S)INVS MO-1-13A) LbL4 US
n? S.IVMHJIH :JO NOISIAIa Ol (ON M31A NIV1Nf10IN) 2004 as W0213
NOIlVIdOdSN"i d0 84 ON
1N3Wi8Vd3o VNIl08V0 H18ON
to
o

M CD
,
N y

?
m U ?
L N
? Q
a?
u o a
00

F
t

a
?,• a ., ? ?+ . t ..
. ? ? • ice}
a<_ -
• j J,
R
4
Ile

J' .
A. 4
F 7_?

AM? .
?.
ilk_
Z ?n
n
N
n
' o
y v
J
0
_,Pik c°.
If TT
,4 14?
Y
41
man&
M .'-?r ~' J '' / ? y •? r ?, SAS . ?F "?".k
f~''? Via. ??a'• ?;'' - ?4'? a?
s, j
F rli ,' . Div?
Awl
y!' t• ? O ? O ? O f?
--[( y O coC - t6 O_ E T
T'1:'?' 'r ! Y + _. qT
- r V• O ` U
w a rn ? v ° r
CL I
32 2
c: C
AF 0
U) co
05
y y? R
y. y
+•'. T• t- 4,, .?. ;} O_ a a s a a a a a E O O N
'?-'- ;r .. .? ??i,... S r .^f • O O O O vO inO O O O m in
s '' gyn. • 7 '' v * a d d ? v? m m a i= U
40
.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
HONVMS SISAI`dNV "IVIN3WNONIAN3 S3N`d-l 33HH1 Ol N301M
8 y `d ONV'1N3MOI3A301O3f'Obd (ON SANVS MO-1-13.0 L6L6 HS
S IH d0 N
MI =10 Ol (ON M31A NIViNnow) 2006 aS woH=i
N0IIV12?OdSNV21 d0
NOllb'
1N3WINVd30 V'NIIOdVO HiHON 86 ON
N1U0"

Y Ln
o

M
?
rn
CD

N

N

-? ^
M
U
Q

N
U o? 5 m

HON` 88 SISAIVNVIVIN3WN081AN3 S3NVI 33MH1 Ol N301M
4NV1N3WdOl3A30103f'0Zid (ON SNNVS MO?-13.1) LULL 2!S
?ll SkVMHEJIH d0 NOISIAIO Ol (ON M31A NIV1Nnow) zon Ns W02i3
NOIIVl8OdSNV81 30 SL ON
1N3Wl8Vd3Q VNIIOZIVO H18ON
/I IN1M
Lo
0
?
rn
o
N °' M

J
U
CD
SS
S Q LL
?-
? M ?
U ? S O

+A?b,wb fo',NTy^ HONVNS SISAI`dNV IVIN3WNONIAN3 S3N` 133UH1 01 N301M
4v ONVIN3Wd013A301ODroNd WN SANVS MO-1l3Jl) L?L6 US
SAVAAHJIH d0 NOISIAIO
N011VIZI0dSN` 81. d0 Ol (ON M31A Nlb1Nf10W) 2006 Ns W0m3
1N3WINVd30 VNI106VO HiHON 86 ON
o a,
CD
Lo _
C6 _
M Q
N
LL

? ?
U O ?

?o^`"""•o`" H0NVM8 SISAIVNV IVIN31AINONIAN3
''teA S3NVI 33bH1 Ol N301M
a (INV 1N3WdOI3A30103rONd W N S)4NVS MO-1-13A) L6L6 NS
SAVMHJIH 30 NOISIA10 Ol (ON M31A NIV1Nnow) 2006 Ns woN-i
Fuu[»Lo
N0I1V1210dSNVMI AO
1N3WIHVd30 VNIIONVO HIMON 86 ON
by

U)
w Cl rn
O
CZ)
N

CD Lo
CD
Y w Z
M Q N

4
wy ?'
- if
r4l
•.- Yu
4r M,
Now AL

HONVNEI SISAIVNV 1d1N3WNMIIAN3 S3NVI 33NH1 Ol N301M
ONVlN3WdOl3A30103ro8d (ON SMNV8 MO-1-13A) L6L6 ZIS
SAVMHJIH d0 NOISIA10 Ol (ON M3IA NIV1NnOW) 2006 Z!S wo8=i
NOllVl8OdSN"l 30
a 1N3WIUVd30 VNI-IONVO HINON 86 ON
L
ID
0
M

°
C0 ? `_ o
N d

? M Q L N
?

o•?'"+tll'D`" HONVHS SIS.IIVNV lb'1N3WNONIAN3
S3NV1 33ZIH1 Ol N301M
ONV1N3WdOl3A30103rodd (08 SNNVS M011BA) L6L6 HS
SAVMHJIH =10 NOISIAIO
a I
N0I1VlN0dSNVN1 =10 Ol (OH M31A NI`d1Nf10W) 2006 Hs WO8:i
1N3UUlHVd30 VN110aVO H12iON 86 ON
w uov
LO
0
m
o
M ?

Q M N

U ? ?
O O
"7 7
.2 S
ftA U) >. COO
'r : .p m O E >, 8
-tf
U U Y Y Y
} f -.., .i
C C f0 co N Z C3) C U) -0 2 (D
156 -j
Q. cif 2!1
?7 0
. M 000000000 CL a a a a Q
AWO
!k o. , Q. a E
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m
-10
Vl-
_ -.-
'.+ r. !??
!- MN
AA
I.W., WA
tit
:?cc'.,.ra., 7 3
MI&
A-0 C, .4
Al -
Olt
4A.
, k14
"i Q
0 T'.
4, V-
. . ,.-
?.
Ai -4
1# At
- ? t
4.
r,v,
_,. ? i?'A??y . fit. '.3... .. [t??..i.' ? ? - ..S :.'? i CCC 1 - - •??
000000000000000000000••o••i••••••••••••••••
?a^6"J"`"`"yy HONVbS SISAIVNV IV1N3WNO AIAN3
S3NVI 332iH1 01 N301M
0NV 1N3UM013A30 103robd (pb SANVB MO-1-1-:3,k) LLL4 ?!S
NOllb'l8 1?1OdSNV81 Lll dO
SAVMH d0 N =10 Ol ((Ib M31A NIV1NnOW) ZOOL HS W02id sore o'~ 1N3W1NVd3O VNII08V3 HINON $L ON
? M1NON ?
Lo
o
'T
M
m
CD
O
N

a ? Q N
? ? cc
w C

NC 18
SR 1002 (MOUNTAIN VIEW RD)
TO SR 1717. WIDEN TO THREE LANES
WILKES COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-3405
L FIGURE 3: wmrAL SECTION

TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1
-L- STA. 10+00.00 TO STA. 33+65.00
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2 1.>
-Ir STA. 33+65.00 TO STA. 175+00.00 0.02
12" 6
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 3
--L- STA. 175+00.00 TO STA. 184+50.00
m

® 6' VAR 10'- 29' AR 10'- 2 ' 6'
0'-8' R 2' AR 10'-2' 0'-8'
VAR VAR

° 1
0.02 3
0
02 0.02
.
4
® 6' 12"
12' 6'
4 0
19 GRADE TO THIS UNE
® TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1
-L- STA. 10+00.00 TO STA. 33+65.00

8' SHOULDER 18' 18' 8.
III/W GR SHOULDER
6' 2' 8' 10' 10' 6' 8'

0.08 0.02 0.02 0.08
= 4.1
12' 12'
GRADE TO THIS UNE
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2 ?.?
4- STA. 33+65.00 TO STA. 175+00.00 0.02

12' 6`
8' SHOULDER VAR 10'- 18' VAR 10'- 18' 8'
i1 /W GR
1 SHOULDER
0'- 8'
6' 10-2' 10' 10' 0' - 8' 0-2' 6' e'
VAR
P.S.
VAR
1
0.08 0.02 02 0.08
J.., .? ?. - 4:7 1'1
12° 12'
GRADE TO THIS UNE
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 3
-L- STA. 175+00.00 TO STA. 184+50.00

OFTPAIIDNTA,pN
,aR
rROCrroEVDarNTxrun
??NR>rtK?rou
NC 18
SR 1002 (MOUNTAIN VIEW RD)
TO SR 1717. WIDEN TO THREE LANES
WILKES COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-3405
FIGURE 3: TYPICAL SECTION
0
0
I?
O
O
Q
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

SR 1518-01d
Lankford Rd.
NC18
c l- - - - T - - - - C
2 .
,
a3?n
46 j 46
r
46 1
j?
t -1?T?
-? t t
46
47 1
47
'I
SRI 600 -
2
Northwood t- J
Hills Rd.
i ,
PAI
63 ?IJ
(3,1)
1€
=1r
€
48
52 f
j 47
?T
47
48
52
Yage 3 of IU

PN
li)?' X63
, SR1789-
W.M. Harrold Dr.
=13
B --- L ---_ B
NC18
LEGEND
_ LOCATION:

'
2003 Estimated ADT NC18-Sparta Rd. from SR1002-Mountail
pad I
PD---- a OF VEHICLES PER DAY IN'100'S View Rd. to SR1717-Yellow Banks Rd.
ddd - MUCH LESS THAN ddd I'PD
x MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
'
'
PROJECT:
ONEAV
.AI
MOVEMENT
ouV
a"-*- o Widen roadway and provide turn lanes
DHV l
DESIGN HOURLI"VOLUME ('/.)=K30 along NCI 8
K30= 30'TH HIGHEST HOURIA VOLUME
COUNTY: WILKES
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT ?? DIV.: I1 DATE: August, 2003
? INDICATES DIRECTION OF D e
REVERSE FLOW FOR ANT PEAK
(d,n DUALS, TT-ST'S (r) TIP d R-3405 W. O. N 6.761019
Figure 5c
U --- ---- D
31 j 31
??3 r
31
1- ? 1-
1 ?. 1
}r ,
1 1
31 a "a?as
:1s 32 _32
i L 1
31 r 2 3
1
1 ?.1 3
2 „-??
31
8
33 33
32
1
7
SR1536 - 14
Baptist Home Rd. 1 J
7 6
r^? 6
aF u
32
S
38 38
1a
36
2 i 2 12
r 10
12
10
36 u -A p?
r..
8
46 1 46
C -_-_ C
NC18
•
•
2 SR1719 -
Tabernacle Rd*
•
•
6 SR1718 - •?
Mulberry Mill Rd91
•I
v'
•
•
•
•
•
24 SR1 703 - •
Elledge Mill Rd•
•
I
I
Figure 5d
D LOCATION:
LEGEN 2003 Estimated ADT NCIS-Sparta Rd. from SR1002-Mount
ppd %'PD---- p OF VEHICLES PER DAY IN 100'S Vie"' Rd. to SR1717-Yellow Banks Rd.
dda MUCH LESS THAN #0H VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED PROTECT:
ONEAVAY MOVEMENT
pap a^? p Widen roadway and provide turn lanes
' ' along NC18
Dlil YOLL'MEI%)=130
DESIGN HOURLI
K30= 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLI' VOLUNIE COUNTY: WILKES
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT DIV.: I1 DATE: August, 2003
? INDICATES DIRECTION OFD
REVERSE FLOW FOR AAI PEAK t
f
Id,p DUALS, TT-ST'S (%) r. TIP N R-3405 W. O. # 6.761019.
49
0
0
1®
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
11 25 25
20
? 5 1,_ 5
10
T10
20
8
30 T 30
31
1
1
SR1619 - 1
1- 1
Mulberry Park Rd. -- 11.
1 7.
1-
I: P"mss 30
30 30
29
f-3
SR1537 -
Mulberry School ooF_:J }
Rd. n
2
30
8
li 31 32
PN
tJ -? IOJ
SR1537 -
Mulberry School 1 1
Rd. 33
2
31
. ?. f
- 31 I 31
-
Pace, 5. of 10 ..
15
!-
u P?a
D'----L - -- D
NC18
30 SR1717 -
Yellow Banks Rd.
LEGEND LOCATION:

' 2003 Estimated ADT NC18-Sparta Rd. from SR1002-Mountain
40 VPD---- # OF VEHICLES PER DAI
1N 100'S Vie.' Rd. to S]11717-Yellow Banks Rd.
eMn - MUCH LESS THAN nad VPD
x MOVEMENT PROHIBITED

ONEdV.AI' MOVEMENT PROJECT:
aav D Widen roadway and provide turn lanes
DHV DESIGN HOURLI' VOLUME (%)=K30 along NC18
100= 30'TH HIGHESTHOURLI' VOLUME

Pnl
D
PM PEAK PERIOD
DIRECT
O COUNTY: WILKES
I
NAL SPLIT (%)
DIV.: 11 DATE: August
2003
0 INDICATES DIRECTION OFD i
/ ,

REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK '
(d,0 DUALS, TT-ST'S (o) TIP # R-3405 W. O. 4 6.761019
Fiqure 5e

/? ({._ nl.. Pagc6of 10 •
C 8
114 114
1; .
1,2 •
2
•
1

SR1532- 34 1

Bird Ridge Rd.
-?
2 t
•
7 15
5
•
65 ?1- I] 112
I
. 4 1271 127
.

127
,.
1
•

2 SR1700- •
} Fankey Rd.

127 ,]`Pn?as •

126 128
128

SR1531- 2 ? 0,
Foster Rd. 1- J •
1

PM ,
•
.53
li ,2H
I
129 128 •
N 4
125
45 49
r- .
Y
98 SR1002-
ii 49 Mountain View Rd.

- 45
125 X53
(],')
•

1701 1170 •

NC 18 •
1
II
I
II Figure 5f
LOCATION:
LEGEND NC18-Sparta Rd. from SR1002-Mount
' 2030 Estimated ADT
dap IN 100'5
VPD---d OF VEHICLES PER DAI ( View Rd. to SRl717-YellowBanks Rd.

pad-
MUCH LESSTHAN aad VPD -
A MOVEMENT PROHIBITED PROJECT:
ONE-WA) n10VEMENT -
uxv IM a
, 11 P.-
dk Widen roadway and provide turn lanes
DHV DESIGN HOURLI' VOLIId1E(%)-K30 along NCIS .
K30- 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLI' VOLUME COUNTY: WILKES
-
PSI PM PEAK PERIOD `
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%) DIV.: l1 DATE: August, 2003
INDICATES DIRECTION OF D i j
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK c?,.If
(d.) DUALS, TT-ST'S (%) TIP P R-3405 W.O. N 6.761019 a

10
O
IO
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
a
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
. -1,, _,
•1i 108 106
106
2
8

SRI 534 - 16
Ruritan Park Rd. _ 2 1 4 }
8 6
6
PM
bs f-IJ 106
1
1,21 I 112
_
3
N

3
2
1 ?
.
?.

3
1
P
2 OS
g
113 113
w 113
1 1'

SR1602- 2
Monticello Dr
?T

I]
r•,n
-
1113
8
114 114
..Na
4
110 4 8
4 ..
1 T /-?
8
a
110
s
„4.1 114
A- A'
NC18
rngc,W 1V
6 SRI 774 -
Wildwood Dr.
16 SRI 803 -
Cartpath Rd.
LEGEND LOCATION:
: NC18-Sparta Rd. from SR1002-Mountain
' 203 Estimated QDT
adp YPD---a OF VEHICLES PER DAY IN IBO
S View Rd. to SR1717-Yellow Banks Rd.
ddd - MUCH LESS THAN ddd VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED PROJECT:
ONE-WAY MOVEMENT
aa Widen roadway and provide turn lanes
DH\' DESIGN HOURLY \'OLUDIE(Y.) =IJ0 along NC18
ICIO= TO'TII HIGHEST HOURLYN OLUNIE WILICE$
COUNTY:
PM1I PM PEAR PERIOD
DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (°.:)
DIV. : 11 DATE: August, 2003
? INDICATES DIRECTION OFD >f
REVERSE FLOV, FOR AM PEAK t, J
(dd) DUALS, TT-ST'S (%) I TIP ft R-3405 W. 0. #6.761019
Figure 5g
,,, .. Page S of 10 •
NC18

•

}} 96 ? 96 •
?I; I •
96 •
1
• / 1 l ~- t
t
•
Y Y
SR1518-Old 2 •
Lankford Rd. _? 1 } SR1789 -
t t- -? t t W.M. Harrold Dr. •
6i-0-I] 96

•
S

1 ? •
97
97 ?? ?
; •
97 •
t

SR1600 - 2
Northwood t- 1
Hills Rd. -?
1
1 ? t
es f-Il 97 •

_ 98 98 •

•
•
•

108 108

= s
•
B - ------- - B.
•
NC18 _
LEGEND LOCATION:
NL
O
O
eee 1TD
a
F V
' 2030 Estimated ADT C
MSparta Rd. from SR1002-Mountai
O
EHICLES PER DAY rN 700
----
5 View Rd. to SRI 717-Yellow Banks Rd. •
aaa - MUCH LESS THAN aua 1'PD
S
?)• NIOVENIEN'T PROHIBITED
' PROJECT:

ONE-WAYMOVENIEN
T •
oac a=' n Widen roadwa}' and prolide turn lanes
DHV DESIGN HOURLI'VOLUME(°:)=K30 along NCI8 •
K30= 307H HIGHEST HOURLYVOLUNIE

PNI
PM PEAK PERIOD COUNTY: WILKE$ .
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT
(%)
0 INDICATES DIRECTION OF D

'J,lfl
DIV. 11 DATE: An usl? 2003
g

.
REVERSE FLOW FOR ANI PEAK
Id,lt DUALS, TT-ST'S (%) I TIP N R-3405 W. O. # 6.761019 Ab
;Figure 5h .
O
O
IU
'
io
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
.(V- I
SR1532 - 16
Bird Ridge Rd.
SR1531- 2
Foster Rd.
4 55 ?. .... ?55

54

6

? 1

8 7 7
F\I li
(:, I I 54
.?3 61 61
1

6, 4? , 1
1 2
? SR1700-
. T Fankey Rd.
, I

61 P.4
13
(..I I
62 162

1 62
1

1
PM
-i ss 62

63 63
M
2
62
21 23
.
I 2

I
ii 46 SR1002-
*
?
Mountain View Rd.

r 23 3
21 a PM se
62
S
?? 83 1 83 -
-
NC18
LEGEND LOCATION:
NCIS-S
arta Rd
f
SR1002
M
i

90 I'PD---- # OF VEHICLES PER DAY IN 1001S 2003 Estimated ADT p
.
rom
-
ounta
n
View Rd. to SR1717-Yellow Banks Rd.
kaa. MUCH LESS THAN 0#4 VPD '
S MOVEMENT PROHIBITED

ONEAVA1' MOVEMENT PROJECT:
aav da ,) r n Widen roadway and provide turn lanes
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)a K30 - - along NC18
K30 - 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLI"VOLUME

PM1I PAI PEAK PERIOD COUNTY.: WILKES
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%)
IN E
DIV.: 11 DATE: August, 2003
0
DICATES DIRECTION OFD
REVERSE FLOW FORA01 PEAK
(d,0 DUALS, TT-ST'S (%) - TIP # R-3405 W. O. ft 6.761019
Figure 5a
.
.
...
A.
7
52 ? 52
51
1
4
, .? 1
SR1534 - S
Ruritan Park Rd. 1 1 1
4
rnl 3 Z I
3
1 51
8
54 54
„ x

1
1
53 1

1
y
i I
1
53

54
54
s
t.
y
54
1 1
t
SR1602- 2
Monticello Dr

VM
-n
1-. I 1
54
2
f-
2
vn?
ss
u -?
_I' 55? ?55
2
53 2 4 14 2
l?
4
2 M
53 ss
55 55
A---- ---- A'
NC18
•
•
•
•
s
•
•
•
4 SR1774- •
Wildwood Dr.01
0
•I
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
S SR1803 - •
Cartpath Rd.•
•
0
•
Figure 5b

LEGEND LOCATION:
t
2003 Estimated ADT NC1S-Sparta Rd. from SR1002-Moun
### I"PD---=# OF VEHICLES PER DAY TN 100'S View Rd. to SR1717-Yellow Banks Rd..
### MUCH LESS THAN ### VPD
NIOVEAIENT PROHIBITED
' PROJECT:
ONE-w'Al
AIOVEPIENT
aMr
eM
a Widen roadway and provide turn lanes
j
) along NC18 .
DHV DESIGN HOURLY \'OLC#tE(%)-K30
K30= 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLI' VOLUME I COUNTY: WILKES .
PAI PPI PEAK PERIOD
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%) DIV.: II DATE: August, 2003
- ?' INDICATES DIRECTIONOF D
REVERSE FLOK FOR ANT PEAK ?•?

(e,n
DUALS,n-ST'S(r) „
TIP# R-3405 W. 0. #6.761019.

0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
A
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
0
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
A
O
O
O
O
i
SR1536 - Baptist
Home Rd.
24
LEGEND
kpp %-PD---- # OF VEHICLES PER DA1' IN 100S
909. MUCH LESS THAN ### VTD
s MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
oNr-WA1 MOVEMENT
One Pn D
(a, u
DHY DESIGN HOURLYVOLUME(%I=EJO
K30 = 307H HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAR PERIOD
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%)
- INDICATES DIRECTION OF D
REVERSE FLO\V FOR AM PEAR
(d,0 DUALS, TT-STS (%)
75
l2 4
1 Y ` 21
T21
75

,
f-. 11
6
16
66
1i (2. 1
)
25
25
1) 60
1:,11
$
96 96
C ---- ---- C.
NC18
Page, 9 of 10
2 SRI 719 -
Tabernacle Rd.
12 SR 1718 -
Mulberry Mill Rd.
LOCATION:
2030 Estimated ADT NC18-Sparta Rd. from SR1002-Mountain
View Rd. to SR1717-Yellow Banks Rd.
PROJECT:
Widen roadway and provide turn lanes
along NC18
t, rnTWTV. UILI Ire
DIV.: 11
TIP N R-3405
50 SR 1703 -
Elledge Mill Rd.
DATE: August, 2003
W. 0. N 6.761019
Raure 5i
D_- -.- -- --t)
$ 611 68

= 68

l Y ,? 1

68

69 69
•i
2
67 4
2

l T?
4
67
$
71 1 71

69
2
12
1
2 1
2
D
i
10
P"
69.
8

t 79 1 79
? ?
Figure 5j
V
54 54
45
l10 10
1 Y r X22
Z 22
45
uf
67 67
5
i;

7 67
1
SR1619 - t

Mulberry Park Rd.
-?
1- 1
t-
67

s
6
t 7 67
u
?
66
t
3
SR 1537
Mulberry School 11 20 }
Rd. "
2
67

66 69
34? iW
SR1537 -
Mulberry School 1 1
Rd. 3
2
68
s
68 68

LEGEND
ppa VPD---- # OF VEHICLES PEA DAI' IN 100'S
aap - MUCH LESS THAN Nna 1'PD
x MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
ONE-WAYMOVEMENT
oar aM n
DH1' DESIGN HOURLI' VOLUME (%) K30
130=30'711 HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
Psi Phl PEAK PERIOD
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%)
? INDICATES DIRECTION OF D
REX'ERSE FLOW FOR AN] PEAK
(d.0 DUALS, TT-ST'S (%)
32
32
2
1
U. U
D-----L - --- D'
PaGF_L0 of_•
.
.
.
64 SR1717 -
Yellow Banks
.
.
.I
.I
.
.
.I
•
.
.
.
•
LOCATION:
2030 Estimated ADT NC18-Sparta Rd. from SR1002-Mountaf
View Rd. to SR1717-Yellow Banks Rd. •
PROJECT: .
Widen roadway and provide turn lanes
l
NC18 .
a
ong
COUNTY: WILKESS
??
DIV.: 11 DATE: August, 2003

TIP # R-3405 W. O. # 6.761019
.
Proposed
Intersection Configurations
R-3405
Figure 1
R-3405
NC I8
I
LOS B I„
i4
o SR 1717
Ilt
II
II
II
NC 18
Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
NC 18 and SR 1717
2030 Design Year NOT To -HrL
NC 18
SR 1619
LOS E
r
II
L
II
NC 18

Figure 2: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
NC 18 and SR 1619
R-3405 2030 Design Year Nn7 ,,-, sC
Figure 6a
ProposedIntersection Configurations
R-3405
NC 18
II
4 ?
III
SR 1537
ENTRANCE
r
?I
?I
P3I
II
II
II
SR 1537
EXIT LOS F;
? II
II
NC 18
Figure 3: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
NC 18 and SR 1537
R-3405 2030 Design Year NOT TO SCALE
NC 18
hl
II
N
?Q O LOS E
SR 1719
III
II
41
II
II
NC 18
Figure 4: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
NC 18 and SR 1719
R-3405 2030 Design Year NOT TO SCALE
Figure 6b
Proposed
Intersection Configurations
R-3405
NC 18
?I
III
I
I
a
a
14
c 745
°o r SR 1718
fi z
NC 18 .
Figure 5: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
NC 18 and SR 1718
R-34M 2030 Design Year NOT TO SCALE
NC 18
of
r
SR 1536 _ g LOS B
Z
h t
a
0
I
I
NC 18
Figure 6: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
NC 18 and SR 1536
R-340e 2030 Design Year NOT TO SCALE
Figure 6c
Plroposed'
Intersection Configurations
R-3405
NC 18
LOS C
0
0
+4
0
°o SR 1703
1
I
NC 18
Figure 7: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
NC 18 and SR 1703
F-3405 2030 Design Year Not 1o SCONE
NC 18 /
I /
LOS D
c
0
14
t- 125'
0
°o SR 1803
}lo
NC 18
Figure 8: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
NC 18 and SR 1803
8.3405 2030 Design Year NOT TO SCO LE
Figure 6d
Proposed
Intersection Configurations
R-3405
NC 18
LOS F
0
SR 1532
ton J ?
Z h }
NC 18
Figure 9: Recommended Laneage and Storage (in feet)
NC 18 and SR 1532
R-3425 2030 Design Year NOT T2 SCALE
Figure 6e
R-3405 GeoEnviron mental Site Map
nALLEGHANY
AA SHE
ATAUG CALDWELL
N NGUOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit
Geo Environmental Section ?w
WE
??FF''11VV?F'IVlll''''''''?YY R-3405 ?
S
NC 18 From SR 1002 (Mountain View Road) to SR 1717
(Yellow Banks Road)
1 0.5 0 1
"M I Miles
Figure 7
APPENDIX A
Comments Received in response to the
Environmental Assessment
TIP Project No. R-3405
?=u>;e t
6
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
February 11. 2003,
Mr. Mark Pierce
NC DOT, PDEA
Transportation Building
1548 MSC
Raleirah, NC
Dear Mr. Pierce:
^t s.o 2l/¢103
/Z - 3 4-G'S
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
Re: SCH File # 03-E-4230-0189; Scoping, Improvements to NC 18 in Wilkes County: TIP- R-3405
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 1 liA-10. when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Police Act. Attached to this
later for your considcration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If an- further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for interrgovernmental review.
Should you have anN' questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region D
;1luilm-Address: Telephone: [phone] Locnlino A ddress:
1702 Mad service Center Fes (919)733-9i71 116 west Jones Slreel
NC 27699-1302 Stale Couriersi1-01-00 Raleiuh. North Carolina
e-nmil Gaps. Oaggerl4,:nc...oihvi
An Equrd OVporlunilr/:I(?rmoire :I[rmn fmploter
A-1

Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
January 7, 2003
Mr. Mark Pierce
NC DOT, PDEA
Transportation Building
1548 MSC
Interoffice
Dear Mr. Pierce:
Subject: Scoping - Improvements to NC 18 in Wilkes County: TIP- R-3405.
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 03-E-4220-0189. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
North Carolina
Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
' •
•
?. -" ? Q•O rj-
•
•
•
Review of this project should be completed on or before 02/07/2003. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
A9oilin(, Add, vs:
1302 Mail service Center
Pileioh, NC 27699-1302
Telephone: [phone]
Fax[phone]
State Cornier #51-01-00
e-mail: Chrys.6aoeell o ncnriil.act
Location Address:
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
A_' An Cyuol OppommaylAffirmcrlive Acomr bnp/ove,
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
R -mod o5
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook. Administrator
echael F. Easley, Governor
68beth C. Evans, Secretary
frey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
O "C4-4 ? Z/oi -I` ?
Q
O MEMORANDUM
O TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
0. NCDOT Division of Highways
O FROM: David Brook
O SUBJECT: NC 18 Improvements, R-3405 Wilkes County, ER 03-0040
O
O 2JZl X03
Q Thank you for your letter of December 30, 2002, concerning the above project.
O . A
O There are no know-recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the
project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of
Q archaeological resources.
A We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to
identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by
Q the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the
Q initiation of construction activities.
Q Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site
Q forms, should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in
Q advance of any construction activities.
Q A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in
Q North Carolina is available at www.arch.dcr.state.nc.us/consults. The archaeologists listed, or any
Q other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
Q While we note that this project review is only for a state action or permit, the potential for federal
Q permits may require further consultation with us and compliance with Section 106 of the National
Q Historic Preservation Act.
Q
www.hoo.dcr.state.nc.us
(? Loestlon Milling Addreu Telephone/Fax
(RbMINISTRATION
STORATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N, Blount St, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994613 (919) 7334763 • 733.8653
[phone] • 7154901 A-3
RvF.Y & PLANNING
O 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 46 18 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 276994618 [phone] • 7154801

0
0
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O

North Carolina DIepartment of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. s,ndberk, Ad-nm latm
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Usbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
December 8, 2004
MEMORANDUM
Office of Archves and History
Division of Histoncal Resources
David Brook, Director
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck % f
SUBJECT: Historic/Architectural Survey Report, NC 18 (Sparta Road), from SR 1002 (Mountain View
Road), to SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Road), R-3405, Wilkes County, ER 03-0040
Thank you for your letter of October 28, 2004, transmitting the survey report by Vanessa E. Patrick for the
above project.
.For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Sulphur Springs Academy, west side of NC 18, approximately 450 feet south of SR 1717, is eligible for the
National Register under Criteria A and C, as significant locally in the areas of education, social history, and
architecture. The founding of the academy transformed Mulberry into something of an educational center and
contributed to its social development. The unaltered school is an outstanding example of an architectural type
and is believed to be the oldest surviving purpose-built schools in Wilkes County. We concur with the
proposed National Register boundaries as described and delineated in the report.
Jones Farm, west side of NC 18 for a distance of approximately 2390 feet, just south of the present Mulberry
Elementary School, is eligible for the National Register under Criteria B and C, as significant locally in the
areas of agriculture and architecture. John R. Jones was a locally prominent lawyer and dairyman. He
transformed the original c. 1917 moderate farm into a large dairy farm operation. The farm was one of the
leading commercial dairies in western North Carolina. The farm complex displays the distinctive
characteristics of a dairy farm and retains both a fairly intact agricultural landscape and an intact dairy barn, a
rare survivor in the region. We concur with the proposed National Register boundaries as described and
delineated in the report.
location Mailing Address Telephone /Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Sueet, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Cent,, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653 _
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Service crone, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-48111 A
4
A
SURVEY & PUNNING 515 N. Blount Sneer, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mad Serv&c Centeq Raleigh NC _7699-4617 _
[phone]!715-4801
Cross Roads Primitive Baptist Church and Cemetery, west side of NC 18, approximately 475 feet north of SR
1720, is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for architecture and Criteria consideration A for
religiouq properties. One of the earliest Primitive Baptist churches in the county, the Cross Roads Primitive
Baptist Church is a representative example of a building type and retains high integrity. In addition, the
church displays a continuity of historic design. We concur with the proposed National Register boundaries as
described and delineated in the report.
The following properties are determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
Properties
1-2, 4-7, 9-69, 71-72
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
A-5
O
O
O

O
O
%MEMORANDUM
a0: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs

O ROM: r
Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources /.
(VUBJECT: DOT Scoping for Improvements to NC 18; Wilkes County
p
PROJECT
03-0189 and TIP # R-3405
O
2/r4-Oo?'
14 -3?5

`7he North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced Scoping document and
Offers the following continents that should be addressed in the EA concerning impacts to woodlands.
o Impacts to forest resources may occur as a result of this project. To help us evaluate the loss of timber
O production the EA should list the total forest land acreage by type that is removed by right of way
O construction. Efforts should be made to align corridors to minimize impacts to woodlands in the
O followir.e order ofpriotity:
• Managed: high site index woodland
O • Productive forested woodlands
O • Mw aeed. lower site index woodlands
O Jniyltc forest ecosystems
• Unmanaeed, fully stocked woodlands
O Unmar.aged, cutover woodiands
O Urban woodlands
02, The productivity of the forest soils affected by the proposed project as indicated by the soil series.
O -
03. The EA should state the provisions the contractor will take to utilize the merchantable timber
O removed during construction. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products However, if the
wood products cannot be sold then efforts should be made to haul off the material or tum it into
O mulch with a tub grinder. This practice will minimize the need for debris burning, and the risk of
U escaped fires and smoke management problems to residences, highways, schools, and towns.
04. If debris burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and regulations of open burning
O as covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through G.S. 113-60.31. Wilkes County is classified as a non-high
hazard county, and G.S. 113-60.24 requiring a regular bummg permit would apply. Local DFR
angers and other local agents are authorized to issue this permit.
0
O
O
O 1616 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
0 o t o _ 733-2162 \ FAX: 919 - 733-0138 \ Internet: www.dfr state nc.us
l r 7)ON EMPLOYER - 509 RECYCLED / 10% POST
O
O
O
0
O
0
A-6
Division of Parks and Recreation
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, DENR Environmental Coordinator l
1
FROM: Brian Strong, DPR Environmental Review Coordinator
i
DATE: January 21, 2003
•
M5? 2ji4?
i4 -3¢oS
•
•
•
•
s?SUBJECT: NC 18 Improvments in Wilkes County. State Project No. 6.761019, TIP Project
No. R-3405. Project No. 03-E-0189. •I'
A-7
o?
The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) appreciates the opportunity •
to comment on the NC 18 improvements in Wilkes County, State Project No. 6.761019, TIP •.
Project No. R-3405. The NHP has a record of the bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) from an
area about 0.25 mile east of NC 18 and just south of SR 1718 (Mulberry Mill Road). This is a SI
population found in 2000 and is a fairly good population. In addition, the bog turtle has been
found at several other sites recently in the northern half of Wilkes County, including a site •
very close to NC IS (but north of this project area). Thus, it is possible that there could be bog •
turtles in the project area closer to NC 18 than the site listed above. As this species is State •
Threatened and Federai Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance, a survey for bog turtle, or
at least potential habitat, may be warranted. •
NHP suggests that DOT contact Mark Cantrell at the Asheville office of Fish and Wildlife OI
Service (828-258-3939) about this project. Also, because of the sensitive nature of bog turtles
and their habitat, in terms of illegal poaching, we request that DOT not publicize the location of •
,his population (such as using these comments directly) in any draft or final document about this •
project. •
If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact me at
[phone].
cc: Project files (2)
•
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
O
•
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
0
0
v
i%s'° 214/03
NCDENR -3¢°s
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
I
Michael F. Easley, Govennor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FRCM:
RE:
DATE:
4AN 20o3 yr
?ECEIVED
"gdry ? OJ?g
MCA
Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
Melba McGee\W
Project Revi
03-0189 Scoping for improvements to NC 18, Wilkes County
January 30, 20112
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed project. The attached comments are a result of this review.
More specific comments will be.provided during the environmeutai review
process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the preparation
of the environmental document, additional information is needed, the
applicant is encouraced to notify our respective divisions.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/

A-8
?2-3¢05
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURALRESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response

Project Name n,c nnT Type of Project Improvements to NC 18, begins
cn 1002, onds at &R-4-717
Comments provided by:
\? Regional Program Person
D f Regional Engineer for Public Water Supply Section
///???? Central Office program person
Name: Z- L? S z 'E Date: / 413
Telephone number: 7 2- L- 00
_
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
Public Water Supply
? Other, Name of Program:
Response (check all applicable):
? No objection to project as proposed
? No comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Comments attached
See comments below
Page 1
Project Number
03-E-0189
County
Wilkes

Tai ^- 2? r-,e
L, L es TGIF ??L?/J,?S fnvL? LJ:1;i.?S:i?/>?
^1 AC/,J6 L),4
',; %t ._siirO
2
l..J
C- J /
?
Return to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
A-9 for the
Division of Environmental Health
-34os Page 2
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES c s- : _:;
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
i
Project Name 1 C. Type of Project
? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications or all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division, of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of _ feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
? The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
appiicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic lank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634,[phone].
For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
/4L /
Reviewer Section/Branch Date
A-14
'rCDENP,CDep`artment of Environment and Natural Resources Project Numbef. e-?-Z?-PIY' Due Date: ,29, 42
T ERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
er review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
:amply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
applications, information and guidelines relative to these plansrand permits are availabie from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
(StatutoryTime Limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of const
i

facilities, sewer system enensions &sewer systems ruct
on
contracts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual
30days
not discharging into state surface waters. .
- (90 days)
t NPDES permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters
- conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment
f 90-120 days
. acility granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue (N/A)
of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(N/A)
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
7 days
installation o(a well. (15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement 55 days
to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit (90 days)
Permit to cons Ruct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC - N/A

(20.0100, 20.0300, 0300,2 H.0600)
I 60 days
Any open burning associated .with subject proposal
most be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A 60 days
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos (90 days)
Control Group 9 19 733-0820.
Complex Source Permit requbed under 15 A NCAC
l2O0B0v '
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
I ccrmcl n!en wi!! `e required if one or more acres lobe disturbed- Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 20 days
deys before beginning activity. A fee of $40 for the first acre or any part of an acre. (30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. 30 days
Mining Peem.'n On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days i day
(N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Perr it-22 counties On-site inspection by N_C.Division of Forest Resources required 'if more than five
in coastal N.C-.with organic soils. acres of ground clearing activities are involved, Inspections should be requested 7 I day
day
at least ten days before actual burn is planned.'
Oil Refining Facilities
90- s
N/A (N/A) N/A)
Dam Safety Permit If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C.quaefied engineer to: prepare plans,inspect construction,certify
consuuaion is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
v mosquito control program,and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. 30 days
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum (60 days)
fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
A-11 .y sp z/>416?
? 3¢0.?
v-? PERMITS I SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURE 'or ncQorncl'? "r> I (Statutory Time Limit
1 Nil m drift exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of SS.000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any
be plugged according
bandonment
ll 10 days
,
.upon a
well opened by drill opera or sha (N/A)
: to DENR rules and regulations.
- -
ploration Pen,-d; Application flied wish DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application l
NiA
N
A

by ler;er.NO standard application form. (
)
r
r
struCl on Permit Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions 15 - 20 days
& drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. (N/A)
55 days
i;y Ceitifcation
rwate, N/A (130 days)
60 days
or MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany applicat ion (130 days)
or MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near she project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
N C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C. 27511
.
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Tide 15A.Subchapter 2C.0100
f:o9G<a;ion of the proper regional office is requested if 'orphan' underground storage tanks (USTS) ate discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal 5tormwater Rules) is required.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
O;he:<ect, nts Jana 'h additional pail as necessary. being <ertain ucite,ccmmen; autnoft))
1105/03
/ 7,
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, N.C.28801
[phone]
LLif. c,
J ?? ? 'ate \,S Cam.
O
0
0
a
0
u
of
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C.28115
(704) 663-1 699
45 days
(N/A)
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C.28405
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office ? Winston-Salem Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714 3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687 585 Waughtown Street
cayetteville, N.C. 28301 Raleigh, N.C.27611 Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107
)10) 486-1541 [phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]
N=IlnaEP,cicei s.Tio,e,I .
A-12
1r
G <
Y:A:ias^>6-.52C:H,In:'SRCreeg;y•_.
i
f E
C - •
North
arol
na Department o
nvironment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
r

Division of Water Quality •

401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM COMMENTS

The Winston-Salem Regional Office (WSROI recommends that the applicant
coordinate a Pre-Application Meeting and Site Visit with the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to determine if a Section 404
Permit (USACE) and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ) will be required.
Even though a Section 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the EA/EIS
procedure is complete, proceeding with the pre-application and application process will •
enable the applicant to address Water Quality concerns and Regulations early in the •
project's development. Such issues include, but are not Limited to, the following:

1. Avoidance and Minimization of surface rater and riparian buffer impacts.
2. Stormwater Management requirements (as related to the 401 Program). OI
3. Compensatory Mitigation for streams, wetlands. and/or buffers (where
applicable),
4. Water Supply, Nutrient Sensitive, Trout. Outstanding Resource, and/or High 0
Quality Watershed concerns and requirements (where applicable). •
5. Compliance with and protection of appropriate Water Quality Standards, on- 0
site as well as off-site. both during construction and after.

NPDES STORMWATER PERMITS COMMENTS o
Any construction activity including clearing. grading, and excavation activities
i
i
d
b
ta
n a
re
to o
resulting in the disturbance of five (5) or more acres of total land are requ
NPDES Stormwater Permit, NCG 010000, prior to beginning these activities.

Any facility that is defined as having stormwater discharges associated with
industrial activity is required to obtain a NPDES Stormwater Permit (varies) prior to
beginning operation.

STATE STORMWATER PERMIT COMMENTS
State Stormwater Permits may be required for development activities draining to
Outstanding Resources Waters or activities within one mile and draining to High Quality •
Waters. These must also be obtained prior to development activities. •
AA3_8 SeNice
0363
WSRO l0/0/ •
O
dh
Division of Water Quality / Water Quality Section
585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Internet: http://wq.ehnr.state.nc.us •
•
•
? o'^th ?arolirla Department of
Q? isvironnzent and Natural Resources 44 • •
? izrision of Soil and VYater Conserzration
NCDEN
0 Michael F. Easley, Governor R
® William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
David S. Vogel, Director

® ?-3¢OS
0

MEMORANDUM: January 9, 2003
0
0 TO: Melba McGee
0 FROM: David Harrison
0
0 SUBJECT: NC 18 Improvements in Wilkes County. Project 4 03-E-0189

The project involves widening NC - 18 from Mountain View Road (SR 1002) to Yellow
0 Bank Road (SR 1717) and providing turn lanes. Distance is 3.5 miles.
0
0 The environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts to Prime
0 or Statewide Important Farmland.
0 " The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the soil series and
0 not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or are within municipal boundaries are
0 exempt from consideration as Prime or Important Farmland.
0 For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural Resources
0 Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1614 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carol i.na 27699-1614
0 Phone: [phone] \ FAX: 919 -715t'i559
Zateraet: www-enr.state.tlc.us/£NR/DSWC/
0 AN EQUAL OPPORTV LAITY \ AFFZ RD?ATIVE ACTION £MYLOY"£R
b0% R£C-YCL£D/30%POBT CONBU?5£R PAPER
1
r
J
A-14
0
P
O ?' G
co
> - DLLIG
O Y
January 3, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director 9 t^"
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ?;1d
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator Wd-? .?.c) .
??°'<`x? I hEVE4'???y
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Improvements to NC 18, Wilkes County, Sta e°APiU i l
6.761019, TIP No. R-3405.
In reply to your correspondence dated December 30, 2002 (received January 3, 2003) in which you
requested comments for the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project indicates that the
Lousy Creek Watershed in Hydrologic Unit 030701 lies within the project area. Despite the creek's
name, the stream is classified as WS-III High Quality Waters.
Within the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin, sedimentation and stormwater runoff are major concerns. The Yadkin-
Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (January 2003 draft) recommends the use of BMPs to
reduce non-point source pollution. NC Division of Water Quality has the following comments:
Environmental Documentation
A. Any environmental documents pertaining to this project should provide a detailed and itemized
presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. There
should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required, it is
preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be
noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
B. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project may be
required.
Desit n & Construction
A. The project shall incorporate the requirements for WS-II and High Quality Waters as specified in
15A NCAC 2B .0214 (WS-11),.0217 (Stormwater Control Criteria), and .0224 (High Quality
Waters) with respect to storm water management, sedimentation and erosion control, and riparian
buffers.
B. Trout moratoriums and other restrictions to protect species and habitat may be required by the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission.
C. 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) specifically using all applicable preventive and control
measures during the design, construction and maintenance of this project. These measures should
be implemented prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream
aquatic resources.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
?- 34.6 S
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality

A_? 5 Nonh Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (lax), h11p7/h2o, enr.slate.nc.us/ncwetlands/
m
m
Q
Q
Q
? -3¢oS
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Q Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
Q
Q TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Q Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
Q FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator
Q Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
Q DATE: January 24, 2003
Q SUBJECT: Scoping review of NCDOT's proposed widening of NC 18 from SR 1002
Q (Mountain View Road) to SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Road) in Wilkes County. TIP
Q No. R-3405.
Q
Q Staff biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
Q reviewed the information provided by North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Q and have the following preliminary comments regarding impacts to fish and wildlife resources
resulting from the subject project. These comments are provided in accordance with the
Q provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)1 and the Fish and
Q Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The NCDOT proposes to widen NC 18 and provide turn lanes from SR 1002 (Mountain
Q View Road) to SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Road) in Wilkes County, for a distance of approximately
Q 3.5 miles. While no stream crossings are apparent from the map provided, the Mulberry Creek
Q watershed, Class C waters, lies to the east and the Lousy Creek watershed, classified as WS-II,
Q lies to the west. "Design Standards in Sensitive Watershed" (15A NCAC 04B .0124) should be
used to protect the water supply watershed and a work moratorium for smallmouth bass (May I
0 to July 15) may be appropriate for any stream crossings in the project area. In addition, to help
Q facilitate document preparation and the review process, our general information needs are
Q outlined below:
0
Q 1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a listing of
Q 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
Q.
Q
Q
Q
enter' R.ileryh, \C '-(-,99-1721
Q Mailing Address: Di isioii of Inland Fisheries • 1711 Mad 5c: 'ii; C A-1 6
Telephone: (919!733-3633 t. ?XI Pax: ") Y) 1;-764,
0
N'C'1'8? from SR`i0OZto St2 1717' 2' Januarv 24, 20lf3'-
Wilkes County
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.
Cover type maps showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed
project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
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.
Address the overall environmental effects of the project construction and quantify the
contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation.
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].
A-17
NC 18 from SR 1002 to SR 1717 3 January 24, 2003
Wilkes County '
cc: Marella Buncick, USFWS
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ
A-18
sYt s r-' - io j2?/ate
Memo
To: Mark Pierce
From: Vanessa E. Patrick
Date: October 28, 2004
Subject: R-3405, Wilkes County
Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report
Attached is a copy of the Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report -
Final Identification and Evaluation for R-3405. I have also sent two copies to the
State Historic Preservation Office for review. As the project currently is state-funded
and will entail no federal permits, I have not provided FHWA with a copy.
The study found that three properties (the Sulphur Springs Academy, the Jones
Farm, and the Cross Roads Primitive Baptist Church) within the Area of Potential
Effects (APE) are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NR). Historic
Architecture reviewed the project to Section 106 standards to anticipate a possible
application of federal funds or permits. As no NR-listed properties are located in the
APE, the project is at present in compliance with North Carolina General Statute 121-
12a.
Should questions arise or the status of the project change, or if I can help in any way,
please call me at 715-1617 or e-mail at [e-mail].
V.E.P.
Attachment
A-19
?..- aArc;?3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
•
•
•
LYNDO TIPPETT •
SECRETARY
•
October 28, 2004 •
Mr. Peter B. Sandbeck
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
Re: R-3405, Wilkes County
Widen NC 18 between SR 1002 (Mountain View Road)
And SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Road)
State Project No. 6.761019
Dear Mr. Sandbeck:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is planning to widen •
a section of NC 18 in Wilkes County according to the above-referenced project.
I
This letter accompanies two copies of the Historic Architectural Resources Final •I
Identification and Evaluation Report for the project area. The report meets •
NCDOT and National Park Service guidelines for survey procedures and •
concludes that three properties (the Sulphur Springs Academy, the Jones Farm,
and the Cross Roads Primitive Baptist Church and Cemetery) within the Area of •
Potential Effects (APE) are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. •

Please review the report and provide us with your comments. Should you have
ti
n
hit
S
i
A
t •
0
,
rc
ure
ec
o
ec
c
any questions, please contact Vanessa Patrick, Histor 1
919-715-1617. •I
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
A NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
-20 OFFICE OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 276991583
Sincerely,
Mary Popp Furr
Supervisor, Historic Architecture Section
TELEPHONE'. 919-7151500
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE: WWW.N000T.ORG
•
•
•
•
•
LOCATION: •
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD, SUITE 168 •
RALEIGH, NC 27604
•
•
•
O
0
O
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
g DEC 0 9 2004
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbed: Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
December 8, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck Q3?1' e 'K S "a?
SUBJECT: Historic/Architectural Survey Report, NC 18 (Sparta Road), from SR 1002 (Mountain View
Road), to SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Road), R-3405, Wilkes County, ER 03-0040
Thank you for your letter of October 28, 2004, transmitting the survey report by Vanessa E. Patrick for the
above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Sulphur Springs. Academy, west side of NC 18, approximately 450 feet south of SR 1717, is eligible for the
National Register under Criteria A and C, as significant locally in the areas of education, social history, and
architecture. The founding of the academy transformed Mulberry into something of an educational center and
contributed to its social development. The unaltered school is an outstanding example of an architectural type
and is believed to be the oldest surviving purpose-built schools in Wilkes County. We concur with the
proposed National Register boundaries as described and delineated in the report.
Jones Farm, west side of NC 18 for a distance of approximately 2390 feet, just south of the present Mulberry
Elementary School, is eligible for the National Register under Criteria B and C, as significant locally in the
areas of agriculture and architecture. John R. Jones was a locally prominent lawyer and dairyman. He
transformed the original c. 1917 moderate farm into a large dairy farm operation. The farm was one of the
leading commercial dairies in western North Carolina. The faun complex displays the distinctive
characteristics of a dairy faun and retains both a fairly intact agricultural landscape and an intact dairy barn, a
rare survivor in the region. We concur with the proposed National Register boundaries as described and
delineated in the report.
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Surt,t, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
RESTORATION 515 N. Blow, Street, Raleigh NC .4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
A-21
Cross Roads Primitive Baptist Church and Cemetery, west side of NC 18, approximately 475 feet north of SR
1720, is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for architecture and Criteria consideration A for
religious properties. One of the earliest Primitive Baptist churches in the county, the Cross Roads Primitive
Baptist Church is 'a representative example of a building type and retains high integrity. In addition, the
church displays a continuity of historic design. We concur with the proposed National Register boundaries as
described and delineated in the report.
The following properties are determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
Properties
1-2, 4-7, 9-69, 71-72
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT

A-22
hit
t
A
re l
Histori ec
u
rc
c
Memo
To: John Conforti
From: Vanessa Patrick
Date: June 28, 2006
Subject: R-3405, Wilkes County
in a memo dated December 8, 2004 the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (HPO) agreed with our evaluation of historic architectural resources in the R-
3405 project area as presented in our October 2004 report. Three properties are
eligible for inclusion (not yet listed) in the National Register of Historic Places (NR).
We reviewed the project to Section 106 standards to anticipate possible application
of Federal funds or permits.
This aftemoon Mary Pope Furr received confirmation from Carla Dagnino of the
Natural Environment Unit that no Federal permits will be required. If the project
remains exclusively state-funded, as well as free of Federal permits; only North
Carolina General Statute 121-12(a) applies for historic architectural resources. As
there are no NR-listed properties in the project area, R-3405 is in compliance with the
pertinent regulation, and no effects discussion with the HPO is necessary.
Should you have any questions or if I can help in any way, please call me at 715-
1617 or e-mail at vepatrick(a-dot.state. nc.us. Thanks.
Iz/
V.E.P.
Copy to: Renee Gledhill-Earley, NCHPO
A-23
APPENDIX B
Relocation Report and Relocation Assistance
Programs
TIP Project No. R-3405
0
O
0
0
O
d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
O
O
O
O
4
EIS RELOCATION
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR
EPORT
? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS: 35579.1.1 COUNTY W Ikes Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-3405 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: N.C.-18 from SR-1002 (Mountain View Road) to SR-1717 (Yellow Banks
Road)
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 12 5 17 3 13 4
Businesses 3 1 4 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 E o-1so p 0-20M p $0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 p 20-40M 0 150-250 0
Yes No Explain afl "YES" answers. 40.70N 12 250-400 5 40-70M 0 250.400 p
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100x4 p 400.600 p 70.100M 5 400-600 4
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 0 600 up p 100 up 3 600 up
0
displacement? TOTAL 12 5 S 4
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond by Number)
after project? 2) One church will be displaced by project and a hair
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, styling center will be displaced.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 3) Businesses will continue to operate.
4) As mentioned above, a church & hair styling center will be
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? displaced. Three other business sites will be displaced; it is un-
6. Source for available housing (list). certain if these sites are still in business.
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed? 8) An existing rental housing shortage makes it imperative for
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered? public housing to be utilized.
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 11) Public housing is now available in the area. (HUD affirms)
families? 13) Most families are low-income units. Many are laid-off
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? workers. Therefore, finding affordable housing, particularly
x 11. Is public housing available? rental housing, will be difficult.
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation pedod?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within It should be noted that eleven (11) adv. signs are within the
financial means? proposed right of way of the project. Also, one billboard is within
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list the acquisition area.
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 24 months
6) Faw & Associates Realty and Jenny Jones Realty of
Wilkesboro, N.C.
n March 9, 2009 3-9-09
_
l
-
_
_
Date
Right of Way Agent Relocation C
o
o
rdin
at
or Date
rrcnn »-t rcevisea us?z
Original & 1 Copy: Relocation Ccorcinator
2 Copy Division Relacauc;n File
B-1
0
0
0
,o
0
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
Q
DIVISION OF HIGHWAY'S RELOCATION PROGRAMS
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 expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or
Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are 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-
133-5 through 133-8). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement.site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation 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
advisory services without 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-day written notice after
NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas
and sales 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
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement
property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
(2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-
occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new. location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displace
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 attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
B-2
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make d payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort
Housing provision.
B-3
APPENDIX C
Traffic Noise Analysis
TIP Project No. R-3405
o r
0
0
O 1.0 INTRODUCTION
® The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes widening NC 18 from two lanes to a
® three lane facility from SR 1002 (Mountain View Road) to SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Road) in
Q Wilkes County.
® 2.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
4 Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources including
O 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-roadway
Q interaction.
Q 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
0 reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
0 pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency-weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
O The weighted-A 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
Q '(1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a weighted-A decibel 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 1, which indicates that most
Q individuals in urbanized areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they
o go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound
Q depends essentially on three things:
Q 1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
Q 2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
Q 3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
Q Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected, individuals
0 tend to accept the noises that intrude into their lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many
0 of these types of noises including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway
0 traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have
developed rapidly over the past few years.
0
Q
0 3.0 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
0 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)
0 and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways to determine whether highway
0
Q'
0
O C-1
O
0
TABLE II
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 km/h at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 km/h 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
I 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 Hum and
published in the Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
noise levels are or are not compatible with various land uses. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedures for
Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (23 CFR 772). A summary of the
noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table 2. 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.
C-2
TABLE 2

NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA 1
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity

Cate or
?

9(h)
1

escription of Activity Category

57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an
A (Exterior) 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, parks,
(Exterior) 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, churches,
(Interior) libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums
Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part772, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE 2
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing
in Leq(h) Noise Levels to Future Noise Levels
<= 50 >= 15
51 >= 14
52 >= 13
53 >= 12
54 >= 1 I
>= 55 >= 10
rvorm carolma vepartment of "transportation Traffic Noise
Abatement Policy (09/02/04).
4.0 AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine ambient
(existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this noise level information
was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
C-3
of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise levels in the project area, measured 50 feet from
the edges of pavement ranged from 63 to 65 dBA. A background noise level of 45 dBA was
determined to be used in areas where traffic noise is not the predominant source. The ambient
measurement locations are shown in Figure 1 and described in Table 3.
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 actually
measured. The calculated existing noise levels averaged less than I dBA difference from the
measured noise levels for the location where noise measurements were 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.
TABLE 3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS (Leq) t

SITE
LOCATION
DESCRIPTION NOISE
LEVEL
(dBA
1 NC 18 @ Mountlawn Memorial Park Grassy 65
2 NC 18 @ Closed Mulberry Vol. Fire Department Gravel 64
3 NC 18 @ Baptist Home Baptist Church Paved 63
Ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from the edge of pavement
of the nearest lane of traffic.
5.0 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 continually changing highway configurations 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 FHWA-produced Traffic Noise Model software
(TNM 2.5).
The TNM traffic noise prediction model uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned
roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated,
etc.), noise receptor location, receptor height above the roadway, and, if applicable, barrier type,
barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
C-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IO
O
O
In this regard, it must be noted that only preliminary alignment information was available for use
in this noise analysis. The project proposes a symmetrical widening of NC 18 from SR 1002
(Mountain View Road) to SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Road) in Wilkes County.
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. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model.
All 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 2030 Design Year being analyzed. The Leq traffic noise exposures
associated for this project are listed in the Appendix. Information included in these tables consist
of listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise
levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each.
6.0 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AND NOISE CONTOURS
A land use is considered impacted by highway traffic noise when exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a
substantial noise increase. The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy defines a traffic noise
impact occurs 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 2 value), or
(b) Substantially exceed the existing noise levels as shown in the lower portion of
Table 2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either
category.
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 4. These receptors 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. Based on this analysis and
under Title 23 CFR Part 772, seventy residences and one business are predicted to be impacted
due to highway traffic noise in the project area.
Table 5 exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors by roadway
section. There are no substantial noise level impacts anticipated due to this widening project.
The predicted noise level increases for this project range up to +6 dBA. 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.
C-5
In accordance with the NCDOT 2004 Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, Federal and State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development
where 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 the location of a proposed
highway project will be the approval date of the final environmental document. 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.
With the proper information on future traffic noise contours and predicted noise levels, the local
authorities can prevent further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the
predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway. The maximum extent of the 72-dBA noise level
contour, measured from the center of the proposed roadway, is less than forty-three feet (<43').
The maximum extent of the 67-dBA noise level contout, measured from the center of the
proposed roadway, is seventy-six feet (76'). Contour information and predicted future noise
levels are shown by roadway sections in Table 6. This information should assist local authorities
in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway
within local jurisdiction.
TABLE 4
APPROXIMATE # OF IMPACTED RECEPTORS
ACCORDING TO TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
ACTIVITY CATEGORY
A B C D E
NC 18 from SR 1002 (Mountain View Road) 0 T 7

to SR 1532 (Bird Ridge Road) 1 0 0
NC 18 from SR 1532 (Bird Ridge Road) to 0 36 0 0 0
SR 1600 (Northwood Hills Road)
NC 18 from SR 1600 (Northwood Hills Road) 0 2 0

to SR 1703 (Elledge Mill Road) 0 0
NC 18 from SR 1703 (Elledge Mill Road) to 0 20 0 0 0
SR 1718 (Mulberry Mill Road) .
NC 18 from SR 1718 (Mulberry Mill Road) to 0 5

SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Road) 0 0 0
TOTAL 01 70 1 0 0
C-6
TABLE 5
PRF.DTCTFT) CTIR.gTATTTTAT N )KP T PWrT T1,41)Af Tc
EXTERIOR NOISE _ y
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS
LEVEL INCREASE
NOISE LEVEL DUE TO

< 9
10-14
> 15
t
CREASE BOTH

2
dBA dBA dBA CRITERIA
NC 18 from SR 1002 (Mountain View

Road to SR 1532 (Bird Ridge Road 17 0 0 0 0
NC 18 from SR 1532 (Bird Ridge Road)

to SR 1600 (Northwood Hills Road) 71 0 0 0 0
NC 18 from SR 1600 (Northwood Hills

Road) to SR 1703 (Elled e Mill Road) 6 0 0 0 0
NC 18 from SR 1703 (Elledge Mill Road)

to SR 1718 (Mulberry Mill Road) 35 0 0 0 0
NC 18 from SR 1718 (Mulberry Mill

Road) to SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Road) 12 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 141 0 0 0 0
- As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table 2)
2 As defined by both criteria in Table 2
TABLE 6
PREDICTED Leq NOISE LEVELS
nrid NO]CF (`C)NTOT TP4Q
MAXIMUM PREDICTED MAXIMUM
Leq NOISE LEVELS (dBA)' CONTOUR
z
DISTANCES
50 ft 100 ft 200 ft 72 dBA 67 dBA
NC 18 from SR 1002 (Mountain View Road) to

SR 1532 (Bird Ridge Road) 68 63 59 <43 76
NC 18 from SR 1532 (Bird Ridge Road) to

SR 1600 (Northwood Hills Road) 68 63 58 <43 76
NC 18 from SR 1600 (Northwood Hills Road)

to SR 1703 (Elledge Mill Road) 68 62 58 <43 75
NC 18 from SR 1703 (Elledge Mill Road) to

SR 1718 (Mulberry Mill Road) 67 62 58 <43 70
NC 18 from SR 1718 (Mulberry Mill Road) to

SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Road) 67 61 57 <43 65
- 50-ft, 100-ft, and 200-ft distances are measured from the edge of nearest navel lane
2 72-dBA and 67-dBA contour distances are measured from the center of proposed roadway
C-7
7.0 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. Based on this analysis, there
are seventy-five predicted impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project area.
The following discussion addresses the applicability of these measures to the proposed project.
7.1 Highway 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 alternative
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 alternative for noise abatement on this
project.
7.2 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 1 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.
7.3 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
C-8
0
0
0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
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 eight times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located fifty feet from the barrier would normally require a barrier four
hundred feet long. An access opening of forty feet (10 percent of the barrier length) would limit
its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA. Consequently, this type of control of access
effectively eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls as noise mitigation measures.
Additionally, 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.
7.4 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 of $35,000 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 provide effective vegetative barriers. FHWA
research has shown that a vegetative barrier must be approximately one hundred feet (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 of $35,000 allowed pet
benefited receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public or non-profit
institutions were identified that would be impacted by this project.
8.0 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, 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.
C-9
9.0 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 due to
uncontrolled or limited control of access. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772. Unless a major project change develops, no additional
noise reports are necessary for this project
C-10
APPENDIX D
Air Quality Analysis
TIP Project No. R-3405
i
?O
O
,O
O
'O
,O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O'
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
b
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
1.0 Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes widening NC 18 (Sparta Road)
from SR 1002 (Mountain View Road) to SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Road) and constructing
turning lanes along NC 18 at SR 1701 (Carpath Road), SR 1703 (Elledge Mill Road), SR
1532 (Byrd Ridge Road), and SR 1536 (Baptist Home Road) also adding a center turn lane
with opposing lefts at Mulberry Elementary School, in Wilkes County.
2.0 . 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).
3.0 Attainment Status
The project is located in Wilkes County, which has been determined to comply with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is located in an attainment
area; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This project is not anticipated
to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
4.0 Carbon Monoxide
Automobiles are considered the major source of CO in the project area. In order to
determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, two concentration
components must be used: local and background. The local concentration is defined as the
CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within
400 feet) of the receptor location. The background concentration is defined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources 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." A microscale air quality analysis is
performed to determine future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant
Concentrations near Roadway Intersections" is used to predict the CO concentration near
sensitive receptors.
5.0 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 (03) and nitrogen dioxide (N02). Automotive emissions of
D-1
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.
i
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours to
occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur ten to twenty 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.
6.0 Particulate Matter & Sulfur
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter (PM) and sulfur
dioxide (SO2.). Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of
particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.
Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions.are predominantly the result of non-
highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide to exceed the NAAQS.
7.0 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
gram per liter. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 made the sale, supply, or
transport of leaded gasoline or lead_ additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because
of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the
NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
8.0 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
D-2
10
0
i0
?0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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 s?condary 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
Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
U.S. ANNUAL VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
vs.
MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS (MSAT) EMISSIONS, 2000-2020
VW
(trillions/year)
6 -

Benzene (-57%)
Dvueoe:?G f47%.
3
mmauekru --

PGnkb r4J%-?
0
Emissions
(tons/year)
200.000
00.000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
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.
D-3
Or i»
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: 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.
D-4
i
'O
O
O
O
'O
V
O
'O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
10
'O
0
• 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
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
D-5
a measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA
database best illustrate the levels of various toxips 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:/hvuw.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 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.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study-II (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
D-6
i
10
0
i+0
10
i0
'0
0
IO
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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."
This document provides a qualitative 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 do
not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at the project level, it is
possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project.
Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs,
it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT
emissions-if any-from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented
below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for
Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project
Alternatives, found at:
www. fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions.htm.
For this project's selected alignment, 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 considered. The VMT estimated for the Build Alternative
will likely be slightly higher than that for the No Build Alternative, because the proposed
additional capacity increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from
elsewhere in the transportation network. The increased VMT would lead to higher MSAT
emissions for the action alternative along the highway corridor, along with a corresponding
D-7
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 for the Build and No Build Alternatives
are nearly the same, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall
MSAT emissions due to project construction. Also, regardless of any 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 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 lanes contemplated as part of the project alternative will have the
effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes and businesses; therefore, under the
alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSAT could be
higher under the Build Alternative than the No Build Alternative. The localized increases
in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along NC 18 from SR
1002 (Mountain View Road) to SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Road) where the proposed lanes
move closer to receptors. Such increases are greatest along new lanes when asymmetrical
widening occurs. However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the duration of these
potential increases and decreases compared to the No-build alternative cannot be
accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current models. In sum, when a
highway is widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of
MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build
Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion
(which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other
locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle
and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover will, over time, cause substantial
reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly
lower than today.
Sensitive receptors include those facilities most likely to contain large concentrations of
the more sensitive population (hospitals, schools, licensed day cares and elder care
facilities). An assessment of potential sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the proposed
project alignment was conducted..)
Two(2) sensitive receptors were identified within the above proximity to the project
alignment. Table 1 identifies the type, name and address of each sensitive receptor
found. Figure 3 depicts the geographic location of these identified receptors in
relation to the project.
D-8
10
O
O
10
IO
10
!0
10
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
'O
O
O
O
0
Table 1 Sensitive Receptor (s)
Ma ID Sensitive Receptor Address City
SR-1 Sulphur Springs NC 18 Wilkesboro
Academy
SR-2 Mulberry Elementary NC 18 Wilkesboro
School
9.0 Burning of Dehris
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will
be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust
generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process, and no additional reports are necessary.
10.0 Summary
Vehicles are a major contributor to decreased air quality because they emit a variety of
pollutants into the air. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining
the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility.
New highways or the widening of existing highways increase localized levels of vehicle
emissions, but these increases could be offset due to increases in speeds from reductions in
congestion and because vehicle emissions will decrease in areas where traffic shifts to the
new roadway. Significant progress has been made in reducing criteria pollutant emissions
from motor vehicles and improving air quality, even as vehicle travel has increased
rapidly.
The project is located in Wilkes County, which complies with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. This project will not add substantial new capacity or create a facility
that is likely to meaningfully increase emissions. Therefore, it is not anticipated to create
any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
D-9
APPENDIX E
Citizens Informational Workshop Public Notice
and Handout
TIP Project No. R-3405
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
NOTICE OF A. CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 18
6.761019 R-3405 Wilkes County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above
Citizens Informational Workshop on Thursday, August 14, 2003 between the
hours of 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM in the Cafeteria of Mulberry Elementary School,
190 Mulberry School Road, North Wilkesboro.
Interested individuals may attend this informal workshop of their
convenience during the above stated hours. Department of Transportation
representatives will be present to answer questions and receive comments
relative to the proposed project.
The purpose of this workshop is to present information, answer questions,
and receive comments regarding this project. This project proposes to improve
NC 18 (Sparta Road) from Mountain View Road (SR 1002) to Yellow Banks
Road (SR 1717) by widening the travel lanes, adding left turn lanes at particular
intersections, and adding a three-lane section in the vicinity of Mulberry
Elementary School.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. Mark Pierce, P. E.
at [phone] ext. 214, email him at [e-mail]., or write to
and reference TIP project number R-3405:
Project Development and
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who
wish to participate in this workshop to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act. To receive special services, please contact Mr. Pierce at the above address
or phone number or fax [phone] as early as possible so that
arrangements can be made.
E-1

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NORTH co
y 7
v z
?o
OF TRANS
NC 18 IMPROVEMENTS - WILKES COUNTY
FROM SR 1002 (MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD)
TO SR 1717 (YELLOW BANKS ROAD) NEAR NORTH WILKESBORO
TIP PROJECT NUMBER R-3405
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
MULBERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
190 MULBERRY SCHOOL ROAD, NORTH WILKESBORO, NC 28659
AUGUST 14, 2003 (4:00 - 7:00 P.M. )
E-2
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
NC 18 IMPROVEMENTS - NVILKES COUNTY
FROM SR 1002 (MOUNTAIN VIEw ROAD) TO
SR 1717 (YELLOW B"Ks ROAD) NEAR NORTH WILKESBORO
STATE PROJECT NO. 6.761019
TIP PROJECT NUMBER R-3405
PURPOSE OF THE CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
The purpose of.this workshop is to provide citizens with an opportunity to participate in the project
development process. If you have comments or suggestions about the proposed improvements described
in this handout, please inform a representative of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT). Please use the enclosed comment sheet to express your concerns, suggestions, or
appreciation.
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 project development process. For example, design work is necessary before the actual right-
of-way limits can be established. Detailed design information will be available at a later date. The
purpose of this workshop is to receive your comments and suggestions before final design decisions are
made.
Written comments on this project may be submitted to NCDOT representatives at the workshop or
mailed to NCDOT. If additional information is needed or you would like to submit comments after the
workshop, please address requests and comments to:
Write: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director f
ATTN: Mark Pierce, P.E. Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center`
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 1101?/
The following toll-free number is also available for general information regarding NCDOT. The
Customer Service Office answers this. toll free customer service line from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday.
Call 1-877-DOT-4YOU

E-3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
am?
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is proposing to improve NC 18 between SR 1002
(Mountain View Road) and SR 1717 (Yellow Banks Road) in Wilkes County as presented in the
approved 2004 to 2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The proposed action improves
NC 18 by widening the travel lanes, adding turn lanes at particular intersections, and providing a 3-lane
section in the vicinity of Mulberry Elementary School. The state-funded proposed improvements will
generally follow NC 18 with slight variations where environmental or social constraints and/or design
restrictions are encountered. The total length of the project is 3.5 miles. Figure 1, as attached, presents
the approximate location of the proposed improvements.
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND ESTIMATED COST
NCDOT DIVISION -DESIGN -CONSTRUCT PROJECT
Right-of-Way Acquisition: 2006 \
CONSTRUCTION LET: 2007 '
Estimated Right-of-Way Cost: $ 500,000
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 3,600,000
Estimate Total Project Cost: $ 4,100,000
PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
The purpose of this project is to improve traffic safety on NC 18. We propose to accomplish this by
widening the travel lanes, providing left-turn lanes at particular intersections, and adding a center turn
lane in the vicinity of Mulberry Elementary School.
11 OTHER RELATED PROJECTS 11
TIP Project No. R-2517
NCDOT's 1.4-mile, curb and gutter, multilane widening of NC 18 from Finley Avenue to SR 1002
(Mountain View Road) is currently under construction. We anticipate completion of this
project during September 2003. The northerly terminus of R-2517 is the southerly
terminus of R-3405. t
E-4
YOUR COOPERATION IS NEEDED
20
Z4
FTHE
The NC 18 improvement project is still in the early stages of project
development. NCDOT is asking for your continued
cooperation by allowing study team members entry onto I
your property. The study team will be identifying social and
environmental constraints in the project area that may be f
affected by the proposed improvements.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS I1
Project development and environmental studies for the NC 18 improvement project have and will
continue to comply with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. The type of environmental
document prepared for this project will be a State Environmental Assessment.
The State Environmental Assessment will discuss the purpose and need for the proposed
improvements, evaluate alternatives, and analyze the project's impact on both the human and natural
environment. The document will address the following areas of concern:
Traffic capacity and safety
Neighborhoods and communities
Relocation of homes and businesses
Historic architecture
Archaeological sites
Wetlands and streams
Protected species
Wildlife and plant communities
Land use
Hazardous materials
Traffic noise
Air quality
If no significant impacts to the human or natural environment are expected after field studies have been
completed, a State Finding of No Significant Impact will follow the State Environmental. Assessment.
The current schedule calls for the State Environmental Assessment to be completed in the summer of
2004, a public hearing to be held in the fall of 2004, and the State Finding of No Significant Impact to
be completed in the summer of 2005.
E-5
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
NCDOT provides a number of opportunities for citizen and interest group participation during project
development. Some of these opportunities are listed below:
I
Published in the N.C. Environmental Bulletin. This letter notifies
SCOPING LETTER agencies and groups on the State Clearinghouse mailing list that a
project study has been initiated and solicits comments from them.
This is an informal workshop with the public. NCDOT representatives
CITIZENS are available to discuss the project one-on-one with citizens.
INFORMATIONAL Workshop handouts provide citizens with project information.
WORKSHOP Comment sheets are also available to convey comments, questions,
concerns, and appreciation.
Copies of the environmental document are submitted to the State
Clearinghouse for distribution and a notice is published in the N.C.
DOCUMENT Environmental Bulletin. Upon request, NCDOT will provide copies
DISTRIBUTION 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.
A public hearing is held in the general project area. Verbal and written
PUBLIC HEARING comments are accepted for the public record. The hearing format
typically involves a short presentation followed by an opportunity for
citizens to comment.
Citizens are encouraged to write NCDOT, provide information,' and
CITIZEN LETTERS express concerns or appreciation regarding the proposed
improvements. Correspondence from citizens and interest groups is
considered throughout the course of the study.
E-6
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
COMMENT SHEET
NC 18 Improvements - Wilkes County
From SR 1002 (Mountain View Road) to SR 1717 (fellow Banks Road) near North Wilkesboro
State Project No. 6.761019
TIP Project Number R-3405.
August 14, 2003
NAME
(Please Print)
ADDRESS _
(Please Print)
COMMENTS
Please send comments to:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
ATTN: Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Development Engineer.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
E-7
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
,
I I
u.y

't_ • I I li??
?
4 , ; t / I II .1

I 'r '1 I / I ' I 1 .r

1? 1 t _
? e
1 ?
I f
I - f
r _
I n _
of I ?

'
1 i
1 ?,
k ? I 1 ;?+ I
1

Q 71

'Al

I. I I
11 ` 1' I, J 1,
i
tP ?. I ??• - it
• I
11 =
1 ?e i v
I 4 II 1 ?q?
r :.I
I I,
1

?O?
b ? Nm o F E 3> a a - ? 1 r" i t' i
c n _
Z A'Y tl - • _?
? I III III I ' , ,?,?? ?" • , t?. ?? ?,
I r I 4 ne?',? , °? ?
1 n i.
1 ?.yy J
I' I,.F.II I
? ? 't f0 , ' ? '` f c \' I r Ir i • ,
? ., I ? r ,fir 11 •
a C) is O
? 11
.? A t
,{
?I ?ftt. ?? I r.•? 1 "?
I % II'
I
II
I
.
•I
' I1'll I _J
A \ L. ,?,I r ,I ?',
I14 ?

1.. 'I ' I I 1 \
;' k 1
,
I? f I' I
1-
I
rf ' l?'?,,?I? FF
cwt A?A ?!' ? f. ?\
r

II A II 'I - 1
i
•
H F. 11 p -
?I gE m qq i I ' I ?- I'?
I ?
I,
I III ? 1
Y I
loox-
?: ? ..
god
}
1!1 ,
i [rJ ? 't
-1?. '.` h ! ' • err - /I?-h. -,? ??1 _i?`'C ln?
l { _

I