19990693 Ver 1_Complete File_19990628

a?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality.
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director

A74 *10?11F.
NCDENR
August 17, 1999
Stanly County
DWQ Project # 990693
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. William Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611-2501
Re: Widening of NC 24127 from Canton Raod to NC 740 in Stanly County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-24(2) State Project No. 8.T680301; TIP No. R-2530A.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
material in 0.247 acres of °wetlands and 897 linear feet of streams for the purpose of constructing the above
referenced project. Further the authorization permits impacts to 0.025 acres of jurisdictional wetlands
resultant from mechanized clearing activities. The widening of NC 24/27 from Canton Road to NC 740 in
Stanly County _should be-constructed as described in your application dated June 21, 1999. After reviewing
your application, it is our determination that your proposed activities are covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3197. Certification 3197 corresponds to Nationwide Permit Number 23 issued by the
Corps of Engineers. Prior to initiating any work in jurisdictional areas you should obtain the necessary
permit(s) from the Corps of Engineers as well as any other federal, state or local permits, including (but not
necessarily limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 permit expires, unless otherwise
specified in the General Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified
below). Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby
responsible for complying with all the conditions. Since the proposed fill is in excess of 150 linear feet of
stream length, compensatory mitigation is required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). ).
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any
additional conditions listed below.
Additional Conditions:
1) The plan for construction of the Sheppard's Tree Mitigation Site needs to be completed and approved by
the NCDWQ within one year of issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification,
2) All stream relocations will be constructed in accordance with the NCWRC stream restoration guidelines
as specified in the 404 permit issued by the Corps of Engineers.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

The permit application proposes 897 linear feet of impacts to streams. 149 linear feet of
relocated stream will be considered as acceptable onsite mitigation. The relocated streams shall
be constructed according to the information presented in your application and should adhere to
NCWRC standards for stream restoration. Based on the aforementioned information, 748 linear
feet of stream mitigation is required for the proposed project. We understand that you will
credit the Sheppard's Tree Mitigation Site for the 748 linear feet of required mitigation. For
accounting purposes, this Certification authorizes the fill of 897 linear feet of streams in the
Rocky River Basin in Cataloging Unit 03040105.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a
hearing, send a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 276 1 1-7447.
This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
Sincerely,
l
tevens
C:\ncdot\TIP R-2530\wqc\990693wgc.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact:
Non-Discharge Branch WQ Supervisor:
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name NC DOT NC 24-27
Project Number 99 0693
Recvd From DOT
County Stanly
County2
Region Mooresville
Received Date 6/28/99 Recvd By Region 7/12/99
Project Type widen NC 24
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
F23 HWF K7 O N F 13-17 19 F c 30,713. 0.27 F-
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
?c
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y ON Did you request more info? O Y (ON
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? O Y 6 N
Is Mitigation required? OQ Y O N
Recommendation: OQ Issue O Issue/fond O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 80 12 00 Longitude (ddmmss) 35 20 25
Comments:
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
W 11 t
Facility Name NC DOT NC 24-27 County Stanly
Project Number 99 0693 Regional Contact: Charley Schwartz
Date:
Comments (continued from page 1):
The applicant has minimized impacts associated with the project- on approval of the applicant's
mitigation plan, this Office recommends issuing the 401 certification.
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 2
.° aq
a(SA
pww
PQYUENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA RE EiV1 ED
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
June 21, 1999
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
DAVID MCCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
Subject: Stanly County. Widen NC 24-27 from Canton Road to NC 740. Federal Aid Project No.
STP-24(2), State Project No. 8.T680301, T.I.P Project No. R-2530A.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen NC 24-27 from Canton Road to NC
740 in Albemarle, North Carolina. The 3.4-mile project consists of widening the existing two to three
lane facility to a five-lane curb and gutter highway. Permanent and temporary stream and wetland
impacts associated with the project include 897 linear feet of surface water and 0.272 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands.
This letter is a request for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 verification. A previous NWP 23 (Action I.D.
199600728) was issued on 4/29/96 and expired 1/21/97. Mitigation was not previously required as a
permit condition; however, current regulations require mitigation for single stream impacts greater than
150 feet. On site mitigation efforts offered for the proposed project includes the creation of 0.074
wetland acres and the relocation of 224 ft. of stream channel. A summary of all stream and wetland
impacts is included in Table 1 and Attachment A.
Table 1. TIP R-2530A Stream and WeQan€-
Site
No. Stream Name W F'
(ac e a z 2
1 ?e"m Channel
„fit (ft.) Stream Channel
Created (ft.)
I N/A <0.025 0 0
2 N/A S 1` 210M) 0 0
3 N/A 0.09 0.025 0 0
4 N/A 0.0 0 0
5 Poplin Branch 9.025!AJ TE
UE,
Uq LOU F

66

0
6 UT 1 to Poplin Branch 0 141 53
7 UT 2 to Poplin Branch 0 0 240 171
8 UT 2 to Poplin Branch 0.049 0 450 0
Total Impacts 0.247 0.025 897 224
Impact in wetland due to mechanized clearing beyond construction limits.
ZApproximately 75 ft. of the relocated channel will contain riprap.
2
MITIGATION
On May 14, 1998 at a preapplication meeting, a representative of the Army Corps of Engineers voiced a
list of concern s`(q®rriAents relating to the proposed project. Based on this meeting, NCDOT implemented
the followTkng avoidne and minimization measures.
1. Avoidaije3'e? The proposed widening project will occur along the existing roadway as much as
possible.
2. Minimization:
Lona Creek (Station 20+30): No roadside ditches will be placed adjacent to the wetland area
located at the toe of slope of the existing fill and sewer line.
Little Lone Creek (Station 28+00 to 28+20): Evaluation of tightening the proposed fill slopes
shows that the slopes can be reduced by 9.8 ft. on the north and 16.4 ft. on the south sides of NC
24/27. The increased slopes would require rock plating at an additional cost of approximately
$17,500 with a total reduction in wetland impacts of 0.04 acres (1722 ft2). Based on these
figures, NCDOT does not feel that the additional cost is a prudent expenditure of public funds.
UT to Poplin Branch (60+20 to 61+10): NCDOT reviewed the feasibility of relocating this
section of an UT to Poplin Branch to the south side of NC 24/27. Results of the evaluation
indicate that the resulting channel would be straight and/or riprapped due to the grade steepness
and topography from Station 57+80 to 61+80. Additionally, an existing wetland is present from
Station 61+28 to 61+80. Stream relocation in this area would require excavation in the wetland.
Based on these factors, NCDOT does not feel that significant biological/water quality benefits are
gained by relocating this stream section. The total impacts to this stream are greater than 150
linear feet. Therefore, compensatory mitigation is required.
Compensation: Compensatory mitigation is required for those stream impacts occurring at Sites No.
7 and No. 8. Both sites occur on a single UT to Poplin Branch a Division of Water Quality "Class
C" stream and result in cumulative stream impacts of 594 feet (Total Impacted distance - Relocation
Distance). Site No. 8 of the referenced stream is located adjacent to NC 24-27 and an urban parking
lot. Because of its location, the stream receives significant urban runoff. A June 1, 1999 field
survey revealed the presence of heavy algae and few benthic species in the referenced stream. Based
on these observations, NCDOT proposes a mitigation ratio of 1:1 for the stream impacts occurring at
Site No. 8. Site No. 7 is located in an undisturbed riparian area downstream of Site No. 8. Because
of the undisturbed state, NCDOT proposes a mitigation ratio of 2:1 for Site No. 7. Total stream
mitigation requirements based on the proposed ratios are 738 feet [Site No. 8 (1 x 450 ft.) + Site No.
7 (2 x 144 ft.)]. NCDOT proposes crediting stream mitigation requirements from the Shepherds Tree
Mitigation Site in Iredell County. The proposed mitigation site is located within the same river
basin, but in an adjacent hydrologic unit.
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS / REGULATORY APPROVALS
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Planning Document and permit
drawings for the subject project (See Attachment B). The project is being processed by the Federal
Highways Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a
Nationwide Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII, Vol. 61,
No. 241. We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project and are providing one copy
of the CE Document and permit drawings to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
R
1

If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Eric Black at (919) 733-
1176.
Sincerely,
V C- 4,L [01.1,
William Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
W/ attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
W/o attachment
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. Benton G. Payne, P. E., Division 10 Engineer
Ms. Karen Boshoff, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
ATTACHMENT A
PERMIT DRAWINGS
NC 24/27 from Canton Road to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanley County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-24(2);
State Project No. 8.T680301; TIP No. R-2530A
\
rS.drp •.°•.. \0 136 I7 Icnue7o
13 6 C ki
3 73 _ .6 , :? ncord ,. Ner Londof
nleI Srllle ] O J1
u B
Ell 'Urv
S 7 Moun Pleasant
urrlaini II i ? 4 adln
79 1 I 11 f , Mo..e- •
nnJ ? i, • 19 ° I 3 •
?, . rke u?..rna7 ??^ 1 + 13 ' 31
?
/ 5 17 3 ,21 aria°k`F A R, 5 Ibemarl i'
N / I
lust Holly eorieviil lambert
,z?, ?I -? / R 100
HsrnsbwE / 5
S T A • ,/
NF.ell` 6 LMu It 6 i Porler
Red Cross N s7 uS
rii ' 'I Cha?btte+ ° I Midland Oakboro 1 orwi'
All n . tanbel •cwa is a e `
157l + .. ? 7 I SI 71 •
i r4int 1111 6 ' RncAy I ,
6 3 ECKLE C11RG 1 " - Panrre. Cedar taB
.. ??
521 u6 n K. I t 1 ?' II12tthews ' e Im a Ansonrdl e '
M.n.e.ro' ,?'!•` Stallings 601 monrllle 4\
O ' ?4 \
;.e0 Pme le 7 75134ndun ? 74 ID tl I'1 \`\
.6 • -? "N I O N r
s c Weddmgton I Ikto
-- I ikturm __ aS ..... BaMen? _ , enree+,?. Vic.. 74
Scale of Miles
5 10 20 30
0 10 20 30 40 48
Scale of Kilometer
i C284
C2
"5," C200 37
ar 7 u
~ r a ALBEMARLE . ° `\
ioe. u.no t
C283
31
r r •
v iJ Li
' L .. 28 h r r?? 0?.?
267 (-
Or L
39 4 s A ++K+t 7
' • ?` r e , •,?r mr
Iry
w
gEG IN?t ,%==s
STANLY COUNTY N.C. DEPARTIVENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
j NORTH CAROLINA
A BRIDGE LOCATION MAP ?s3o 8.T680301
PREACRED BY BRIDGE MAINTENANCE UNIT RALEIWI,NORTH CAROLINA STANLY COUNTY
N lOOA.rd MM N
u's.DeA hirH1 or onanON PROPOSED NAMENING WITH CURB &
i[0•.UL MIGNWAT AOMWI DMWIStaAtgN 4
GUTTER ON NC24/27 FROIM EAST OF SR1963
IrAM TO 0.50 Kbi WEST OF NC73.
c SCALE AS SHOWN
sc,r, ro. au.el.eos
SHEET ........ OF ........
I
/??
-1

I?

M 4,
Q
a+
r
m
?a
II II
N
N ?
u
O, O,?p O
n
h E? N
co) °
t9
J
M
O] +
m N /
11o
v
0
v
i
15f
LA
y?oC r ? 1? ' y?r ? W
J
12f00 ` U \y
CAI x
JJI
'ON N um •1S
w I
o °
a
~J O
U
I
-i?
acv
o
ao
II e+4 1
y
NN +ai
aC 03 to) coo?
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR i ATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
82530 S.T630301
STANLY COUNTY
PROPOSED R'IDENING WITH CURE &
GUTTER ON NC24127 FROM EAST OF SR1963
TO 0.50 K6i WEST OF NC73.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET ........ OF ........
A
'v

0

i
N C
a?
o+
a?
00 M
H
06
V? N
U
ON

V ? Qy
y
Vj £g
(QI2?9 ?N

x

2

w
o 06 N
r

O

ti c

I o
0
'80 N"83HS s
L 8b pNb3? '1W w
E
e

1 .?Q ?0d
3 o ' W

n
J

H
(sv) ZAa

4 V
U1
?
b4 ()77
3 gg
Y
.
01
_IA
O

30f00 ,'210 Npa3Wbp J l co
°
?
(V p < ? i
014

y +
m t-
Q.

O}/
-}

Z N (n
V Q W
C13 kA \- Q /
ONp)
:4 D
7 1 / 'N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRA`1SPORZATION
800 4_
'£,(,
' ° •1\(?
\ y ,V DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

25 +00 ,
82530 8.T680301
STANLY COUNTY
d ???T \C\? PROPOSED WIDENING WMI CURB 8:.
M EAST OF SR 1963
GUTTER ON NC24127 FRO

C TO 0.50 KM WEST OF NC73.
SCALE AS SHOWS ;
SHEET ........ OF..-......
MATC-HLJ F- STA. 50+1oo -L-
50400 Iso AIVM 7`
130400 1 1
u .?
HONG SNI dOd O OI?9 JN
,? V1
J N /.
45+00 r
? U
Lu
W p ?. .. .
ui 4, (-D 0
0,0
C) co
e Ln E m M Q
2 + mr7 O? X
Q] r?'1 O Q ?A W Ln Ot
z a•
w ? a -- w N
M N H O
/.• ?J ' ? X15 ON 8x35.5
LS 0? 3S = - 1??v G N d
11 ac,? w to
40+00
c, m o +
SN?180 ? ` r G o M
W in z
(?y
03 w
03
pN000N1 SN?? ?? ?? I' ??y ? a r W ? ? I1
'Cr
r Od Y?9 ; \ \ \. O 0
7Ni ?r '1S S3121dj_ r a ?'b H
`S? oy,?o6? eC ?
35+00 COD U ti 0
r ?y
;? ? WWW In
N.C.DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
82530 8.T630301
P?v
STANLY COLJNL -FY
PROPOSED WIDENING WITH CURE &
GUTTER ON NC2d/27 FROM EAST OF SR 1963
TO 0.50 KIN WEST OF NC73.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET ........ OF ........

r-
(p r
?

?
A r

Inn 60+00
1 J //
o a
Il i i
ti
11 II
x
? oo'3nv oavNO
?? --
°??°y
d
1
00 Q' 00 ,r -911- a
d
A
114p -4 pN V ?.1\
b ti ti _J ?' ?? V Y.
`
eL a a a? a ,+ b VO 273 p
b a1 Q

v1

0
uh
h
bbb?
?
?" bl
(

y

1 1
`

.

V

IJ1

£

S

??e??
?
yti ?
I
o? ;
,? _
w 44 40 L) cl, w

ono
r?
a ?
Z ?
O
NIATCHLINE STA. 5 0,L(,cO

v?
m
I 1 r3 ? I I!
1 5
I I 1 3I I?
I , g I ecIa, FUEL ? oataeuiF+G
III III CB 263 PC 261
1
CIO
• 1
1
?J,, 1
1 ? x?x• `N
- - - - - - Ce -•--?- ----? ca
. 4
ND ASPM {
w
CB
? f.` .. .1 ... ._ ..._ ... ... ?.•.?f• ,nom r.v^? _..`vi•?.rti..t _ .'?
..?- imi IQ2 ACDt.
E.F>•EMS
? F cnsr u.iao asap An
S. P. HOLBROOK & SMITH DENNIS
DB 530 PO 829
DB 5 PC 418
S I 1TJ.c . O DB
1718 PO 254
OB 144 PO 124
SCALE
rmmmmmm?
20m 10 0 20M
• • • DENOTES FILL IN SURFACE WATER
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?2530 81680301
STANLY COUNTY
PROPOSED WIDENING WTTH CURB &
GUTTER ON NC24/27 FROM EAST OF SR1963
TO 0.50 K1bI WEST OF NC73.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET ... .... OF. 9...

c
2
P

x+ ? o
3C o ? d e
°
?
'?7? ?
I
?I
? u
uJ .

?
? So
3
6b?? •AJ ,

pct

/? c??
' 7 rJ
`
. gyp.
00
{N
/J
6
71

<
Qe o
u
.
o

u
J <

'J 7J :?:O7-nna ??
r,
4
V
y? n
yY1 mm1
l O
00-0.7
fill ti
VV
F-
U
E1:
W
Q
3
0 Ell
a a
-i LL-
F- Of
3 E_/)
Z Z
J J
J J
LL- LL
Tn N
W W
F-
0 O
Z Z
W W
•p•

, o G
i
? `
O Jl? °

° (- ?J 7?OJ JL) i
1
z 1

u 1
. 1
I IZ ? n ,
Y 1
:
s
? o e 1
G i n ?i
c
.:
I
I
?
o I
W ? I
1
s I I W.
{ ATTEN REi4.T7 CO.

O
/ 7h 1.0! STS PG 117
y ? 111-O?e wd ??7»° 077 7nOJ f
r?V77?J JwOJ
7w0r6 s
-3i5
1
µ?Sy ZO, EN PROPERTIES. L.P.
OE 541 P6 051

Q
977 7ROJ U O

N
VI
u
0
ul
? ?
l

?? I I I ' s
' t
A.
R2530 AA & AB PROPERTY OWNERS
SITE # NAME ADDRESS
1 STANLY COUNTY FARM BUREAU 304 AQUADALE RD
2 CITY OF ALBEMARLE
3 CURTIS G. RAGSDALE
4 RUSSELL'S AUTOMOTIVE
5 PAUL E. & HENRY T. CARPENTER
JAMES W. & GEORGE CARPENTER
6 JOE FRED LEDBETTER
S.P. HOLBROOK & SMITH DENNIS
7 S.P. HOLBROOK & SMITH DENNIS
ALBEMARLE, NC 28001
ALBEMARLE CITY HALL - PO BOX 190
ALBEMARLE, NC 28002
507 WESTLEY HEIGHTS DR.
ALBEMARLE, NC 28001
48198 NC 27 HWY
ALBEMARLE,NC 28001
6815 FALCONBRIDGE RD
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514
PO BOX 627
ALBEMARLE, NC 28002
501 NC 24/27 BYPASS
ALBEMARLE, NC 28002
803 N. 9TH ST
ALBEMARLE, NC 28002
803 N. 9TH ST
ALBEMARLE, NC 28002
iv.C. DEPART`tENl' OF TRA.?`ISPOR i ATIO, i
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
8.2530 87680301
STANLY COUNTY
PROPOSED WIDEN NG WITH CURD. &
GUTTER ON NC2.'27 FROM EAST OF SR1963
TO 0.50 KbI WEST OF NC73.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET........ OF ........

0
M
O
M
f-
O M
c0
O ,? a>
m
H it fn
co 1Q -(A ULL
O f-
O Q o w z
z
Co O O R'S? ZNU O
LL Z W
LLO p o U
Z Z Y W
W 00 o =
Q C? o C/5
m ° U
F- ? (j --o ° o o
?
w o m [Z
m n'
N
Q
D U) co
M
n
t5 of Q N
2 LO
II
CO 00
co 0 L -1 co C c0 =)
CL c CL -CL U)
-1 a O W w
W oZl- II a
H II Zw cc CO Z
(a z Z Z t
L o
W = z °Zg .7 r ° I- WUJOgw o
F- F- II
QOW II H?c9
?pzmwzz
U X= Z Z Q
m LL W U g Z U
w _j I=
-0 a5 c °' i Q O O F O a U
J
?xQ
OD Q ZF- HZ_> U
J Q Q Q Q Q - F< I- H 2
CL -
U) J J Z Z J U < CL
Z
E J LL W H V
F<-
Q o 0 o o o p o
? a
~
a w C +-?
rnL (a ?
o
o
o
o
o
?
, N
o
?
v co
g J U U
w o m
Q w
p? c ? O E
0
0
0
0
N
Cl)
n
c2
? n

U
J N
W

LL C ? N r ? LO t
j j m L 0 0 0 0 O O O O co
_
li"
?v
O
O O O O
f/) p
rn
c o ,c
m
U
N
7 a U
-
? O r
H c .U L
?
"
d O
v O
v ? O
v O o
U ?
_
N L
F- ? o
N
°
z ? a
m
g °3
m? 1O
o
°
o
0
0
0
0
o
cLn

?
C
0 N

y?
0
?
0 0
0 O O O O O
jy O O ?
O

N
E
? m a
?
°
°
?
? E Q
Z Q
Z Q
Z Q
Z
njU
o ? o
ap o

? N ?
C U C C
??
Q
Q
Q a
U ? ? U a U 0 U
0_
? $ m m O m O m O m
Z
fA
?m
'p
m
?m
.am
?
LL
J
J J J J J J

u n
? rn o
LO
o ? ° r + V
) a
o ? m c
0 +
co

' E
O
fCl O
o
N +
N

N CO + t
?
to t
n
to t
CO CO
? E p p 1- F- H F- I- 1-
?_ J J J Q' w ? ?
N O 0 ?0 ? ? ? OV N ? N

+
? +

N t

N +

? + t

? t t t +

O
It to ? C
O CO
N
? J
Z ? N M V In CO n O

0 LL
Q N w

04 3?
O z O
0
O in
J J J J J J W
H
I
ATTACHMENT B
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
NC 24/27 from Canton Road to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanly County.
Federal Aid Project No. STP-24(2);
State Project No. 8.T680301; TIP No. R-2530A
NC 24/27
from Canton Road to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanly County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-24(2)
State Project No. 8.T680301
TIP Project No. R-2530A
A
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
2- 9-7b"' V- zlzy-
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date y?, Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
T Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 24/27
from Canton Road to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanly County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-24(2)
State Project No. 8.T68030I
TIP Project No. R-2530A
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
4e erly J

Project Plan ng Engineer 4e

- A L a.
)7;S2
e
° u

Hanson
P
E
obert P
o
yj
?•" ?`
?
,
.
.
.
Project Planning Unit Head ?

Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT ...................................................................2
A. Need for the Proposed Improvements ............................................2
III
SUMMARY .................................................................... i
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..................................... I
1. Traffic Volumes .................................................................2
2. Capacity ...................................................................2
3. School Bus Data ...............................................................3
4. Accident Analysis .............................................................3
5. Thoroughfare Plan .............................................................3
B. Existing Conditions . ...................................................................3
1. Length of Roadway Studied Section ..................................3
2. Route Classification ............................... ............................3
3. Existing Cross-Section ........................... ............................3
4. Existing Right of Way ............................ ............................4
5. Utilities. ....................................... ............................4
6. Access Control ...................................... ...........................'.4
7. Speed Limits . ....................................... ............................4
8. Structures ....................................... ............................4
9. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control ............................5
10. Railroad Crossing .................................. ............................5
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ..............................................................5
A. Length of Project ........................................................... ........5
B. Cross-Section ........................................................... ........5
C. Alignment ........................................................... ........5
D. Design Speed ........................................................... ........5
E. Right of Way ........................................................... ........5
F. Access Control ........................................................... ........6
G. Bridges and Culverts ........................................................... ........6
H. Intersection/ Interchange Treatment ...................................... ........6
1. Bicycle Accommodations ...................................................... ........7
J. Sidewalks ........................................................... ........7
K. Cost Estimate. ........................................................... ........7
IV. ADJACENT PROJECTS. ...................................................................7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
V
VI.
Page
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................ ........7
A. Design Alternatives ........................................................... ........7
l . Cross Section ............................................................ ........7
2. Alignment
B "No-Build" Alternative .......................................................... 8
C. Alternative Modes of Transportation ..................................... ........
........8
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ........ .......8
A. Land Use Planning ............................................................ .......8
1. Status of Local Planning Activities .............................. .......8
2. Existing Land Use ...................................................... .......8
3. Existing Zoning .................................... 9
.......................
4. Proposed Land Use ............................ .......
10
.........................
5. Farmland ............................................................ .....
.....10
B. Social and Economic Environment ......................................... .....10
I . Relocation Impacts ........................... 10
..........................
2. Social Impacts ............................................................. .....
....12
C. Historic and Cultural Resources ............................................... ....12
1. Architectural Historic Resources ................................. ....12
2. Archaeological Resources ............................................ ....13
D. Natural Systems. ............................................................. .... 13
1. Biological Resources .................................................... ....13
a. Terrestrial Communities .................................. ....13
b. Aquatic Communities ....................................... ....15
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...................... ....16
2. Waters Impacted and Characteristics ............................ .... 17
a. Best Usage Classification .................................. .... 17
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...................... .... 18
3. Special Topics ................................................................. 18
a. Waters of the United States .................................. 18
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ...18
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................... ...19
d. Permits .............................................................. ...19
e. Rare and Protected Species ............................... ...20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
E. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation ..............................22
1. Physical Resources ...........................................................22
2. Physiography ..................................................................22
3. Geology and Soils ...........................................................23
4. Hazardous Material Inventory ..........................................23
a. Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities ......... 23
b. Other Potential Hazards .......................................26
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis ...................................................26
G. Air Quality Analysis .................................................................30
H. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns .........................32
1. Geodetic Markers .................................................................34
J. Section 4(f) Resources ................................................................34
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT....34
FIGURES
APPENDIX
List of Figures
Figure I - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 - Proposed Lane Configuration
Figure 4 - Traffic Projections
Figure 5, 5A. 5B - Floodplain Areas in the Project Vicinity
Figure 6 - Waters of the U. S., Surface Waters and Wetlands
Figure 7 - Future Revision of US 52 under TIP Project R-2320
List of Tables
Table 1 - Bridge Data ...................................................................4
Table 2 - Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities ................................16
Table 3 - Water Resources Characteristics ..............................................17
Table 4- Federal Candidate/NC Protected Species for Stanly County....... 22
Table 5 - Stream Crossings .................................................................33
NC 24-27
from Canton Road to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanly County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-24(2)
State Project No. 8.T680301
TIP Project No. R-2530A
SUMMARY
Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen NC 24-27 to a multi-lane section from Canton Road to NC 740 in
Albemarle.
The improvements to NC 24-27 will be made in two parts. Section "AA" begins
at the end of the existing multi-lane section approximately 300 meters (984 feet) east of
the intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1963 (St. Martin Road) and continues east to the
US 52-NC 73-NC 138 intersection. Section "AB" will pick up at the US 52-NC 73/
NC 138 intersection and continue to the beginning of the existing multi-lane section
approximately 250 meters (820 feet) west of the intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1783
(Groves Avenue Extension) in Stanly County. The remainder of the project limits are
already multi-lane.
The 5.48 km (3.4 miles) project will widen the existing two to three lane facility to
a five lane curb and gutter section. The project will utilize the existing 45.7 m (150 feet)
of right-of-way as much as possible. Small portions of new right-of-way, construction
easements and permanent drainage easements may also be needed.
The proposed project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 and
construction for Section "AB" in FY 1999. Construction of Section "AA" is currently
scheduled "post year" (beyond NCDOT's funding horizon).
The total estimated cost of the proposed project includes $580,500 for right-of-
way acquisition and $12,100,000 for construction. The Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) cost includes $2,500,000 for right-of-way and $7,900,000 for
construction.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will have a positive impact on the Albemarle area by
increasing the safety and traffic handling capacity of the subject section of NC 24-27. One
business will require relocation. No relocation of residences is anticipated as a result of
this project. No recreational facilities or sites listed on the National Register of Historic
Places will be involved.
Replacement of existing culverts and bridge rehabilitation may involve discharge of
excavated or fill material into waters of one or all of the creeks which cross the project
area. Approximately 0.3 acre of jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted.
Eighteen (18) residences or businesses are predicted to experience traffic noise
levels in excess of the FHWA- noise abatement criteria. However, noise abatement
measures are not considered reasonable or feasible as part of this project.
Summary of Environmental Commitments
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will implement all practical and
standard measures and procedures to minimize environmental impacts as well as impacts
to the human environment. Impacts will be minimized by utilizing Best Management
Practices during construction.
Because this project will involve crossing a regulated floodway, NCDOT will
coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local authorities to
ensure compliance with applicable floodplain ordinances.
It is likely a Nationwide Section 404 wetland permit will apply to this project. A
Section 401 water quality certification will be required from the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources prior to issuance of any Federal Section 404
Permit.
4. Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered in the development of the project:
a) Improving the existing facility to a five lane curb and gutter section throughout the
entire length of the project
This design alternative was chosen because it provides the number of lanes
required for projected traffic volumes. Because of the urban nature of the project vicinity
curb and gutter is recommended. Curb and gutter will decrease the right of way cost in
this area.
b) Improving the existing facility to a four lane shoulder section in Section "AA" and
a five lane curb and gutter section in Section "AB"
Improving the existing facility to a four lane median divided section on Section
"AA" and a five lane curb and gutter section on Section "AB" would add approximately
$600,000 to the project construction cost. Local officials prefer a five lane curb and gutter
section throughout the entire length of the project. A median divided section would
require five or more median cuts to accommodate adjacent properties. A four lane median
divided section would also require wider construction limits to accommodate grass
shoulders.
C) "No Build" Alternative
The "No Build" alternative was rejected because the existing facility will not be
able to serve the high volume of projected traffic along NC 24-27.
Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Fish and Wildlife
U. S. Geological Survey
Stanly County Board of Commissioners
Centralina Council of Governments
City of Albemarle
N.C. Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
A citizen's informational workshop was held on May 17, 1995 to obtain public
comments on the project.
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting the following:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh,-North Carolina 27601-1442
(919) 8564346
NC 24-27 Widening
from Canton Road (SR 1249) to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanly County
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-24(2)
State Project No. 8.T680301
T.I.P. Project No. R-2530A
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen NC 24-27 to a multi-lane section from Canton Road to NC 740 in
Albemarle.
The improvements to NC 24-27 will be made in two parts. Section "AA" begins
at the end of the existing multi-lane section approximately 300 meters (984 feet) east of
the intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1963 (St. Martin Road) and continues east to the US
52-NC 73/NC 138 intersection. Section "AB" will pick up at the US 52-NC 73/NC 138
intersection and continue to the beginning of the existing multi-lane section approximately
250 meters (820 feet) west of the intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1783 (Groves Avenue
Extension) in Stanly County. The remainder of the project limits are already multi-lane.
The 5.48 km (3.4 mile) project will widen the existing two to three lane facility to
a five lane curb and gutter section consisting of four 3.6 m (12-foot) through lanes and a
3.6 m (12-foot) continuous left-turn center lane with 3.0 m (10-foot) berms. Additional
improvements will also consist of replacing Bridge No. 48 over the Winston-Salem
Southbound Railway and Bridge No. 49 at the US 52 interchange. Bridge No. 39 and 46
over Long Creek and Town Creek respectively will be widened and rehabilitated. A
traffic signal at SR 1900 (Coble Avenue) and improvements at the US 52 interchange are
also proposed.
The project will utilize the existing 45.7 m (150 feet) of right-of-way with
additional construction easements, small portions of new right-of-way and some
permanent drainage easements needed.
The proposed project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 and
construction for Section "AB" in FY 1999. Construction for Section "AA" is currently
scheduled "post year" (beyond NCDOT's funding horizon).
The current estimated cost of the proposed project includes $580,000 for right-of-
way acquisition and $12,100,000 for construction. The 1996-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) has programmed $2,500,000 for right-of-way acquisition
and $7,900,000 for construction.
2
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. Need For the Proposed Improvements
The proposed project will improve the safety and traffic carrying capacity of the
subject section of NC 24-27. 'The proposed project will relieve traffic congestion and
provide safer travel in the project area.
1. Traffic Volumes
Projected traffic volumes along the subject section of NC 24-27 for the
year 1999 range from 11,727 vehicles per day (vpd) east of Coble Avenue to
21,152 vpd east of the US 52-NC 73/ NC 138 intersection. Projected traffic
volumes for the year 2019 range from 19,400 vpd to 34,912 vpd at the above
locations. Truck traffic will comprise approximately seven (7) percent of those
volumes (4% duals, 3% TTST's). Projected traffic volumes, major turning
movements, truck data and design hour data are shown in Figure 4.
2. CapacitX
A capacity analysis was performed for the recommended alternate to
predict the level of service (LOS) for the project. This analysis yielded the
following results:
Build Analysis No-Build Analysis
Route (1999) LOS (2019) LOS 1999 LOS 2019 LOS
SR 1963 B B B B
SR 1900 B B C C
US 52/NC 73 C D F F
*SR 1625 C D E F
SR 1625 will require major improvements to achieve an acceptable level of
service. An adjacent project, TIP Project R-253013, begins at the intersection of
SR 1625 and NC 740. Improvements to SR 1625 will be made as a part of TIP
Project R-2530B. Level of service shown with an asterisk (*) denotes future
project improvements.
Construction year (1999) NC 24-27 will operate at a LOS of A with
improvements and a LOS of B without improvements. Design year (2019)
NC 24-27 will operate at a LOS B with improvements.
The No Build Alternative will result in a LOS of F and E for US 52-
NC 73/NC 138 intersection and SR 1625 by 1999. The LOS for these
intersections will continue to deteriorate without improvements.
School Bus Data
Approximately 11 buses use NC 24-27 making a total of 25 trips per day.
Bus destinations are scattered throughout east and west Albemarle.
4. Accident Analysis
The rates for NC 24-27 were obtained from studies conducted from June 1,
1991 to May 31, 1994. The accident rate for this studied section is 175.56
accidents per one hundred million vehicle kilometers. In comparison to the
statewide rate of 175.33 accidents per one hundred million vehicle kilometer for
urban "NC" two lane undivided routes and 159.24 accidents per one hundred
million vehicle kilometers for urban "NC" three lane undivided routes.
5. Thoroughfare Plan
The Albemarle Thoroughfare Plan was adopted in 1988. NC 24-27 is
designated a major thoroughfare on the Albemarle Thoroughfare Plan. The
proposed five lane curb and gutter section is in conformance with the thoroughfare
plan and construction of this project will be a step toward implementation of the
thoroughfare plan.
B. Existing Conditions
Length of Roadway Studied Section
The length of the studied section of NC 24-27 is approximately 5.4 km (3.4
miles). This section extends from the existing multi-lane section approximately
300 meters (984 feet) east of the intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1963 (St.
Martin Road) to approximately 250 meters (820 feet) west of the intersection of
NC 24-27 and SR 1783 (Grove Avenue Extension).
2. Route Classification
NC 24-27 is classified as an Urban Principal Arterial route in the North
Carolina Statewide functional classification system.
Existing Cross Section
The pavement width of NC 24-27 varies from a two-lane 7.2 m (24-foot)
section (from east of SR 1963 to US 52-NC 73/NC 138) to an l lm (36-foot) three
d
lane section (from the US 52 interchange to SR 1783). There are 1.8m (6-foot)
grass shoulders along the project.
4. Existing Right-of-Way
A 45.7 m (150-feet) of right-of-way for this project was purchased when
the original roadway was built. The right-of-way widens to contain the US 52/
NC 24-27 interchange.
5 Utilities
Underground utilities include a 300 millimeter (12 inch) water line
suspended under the north side of the railroad overpass. Several sanitary sewer
lines cross the project including lines along both streams. A distribution powerline
runs on the north side along most of the project. Aerial telephone and television
cables are found on the east and west ends of the project. The utility impact of the
proposed project is "medium", with the most significant impacts occurring in
Section "AB" of the project.
6. Access Control
No control of access exists along the project, with the exception of the
US 52 interchange, which has full control of access.
7. Speed Limits
The current posted speed limit is 70 km/h (45 mph).
8. Structures
(feet):
The existing bridges are described in Table l ; dimensions are in meters
Table 1 Bridge Data
Bridge Feature Date Horiz. Vert. Structure Sufficiency Estimated
No. Crossed Built Clearance Clearance Length Ratin Rem. Life
39 Long 1957 8.6 (28.1) N/A 61(200) 77.8 19
Creek
46 Town 1957 8.6 (28.1) N/A 52(170) 80.2 19
Creek
48 WSSB 1957 12 (40.2) 6.7 (22.0) 46(150) 65.4 39
RR
49 US 52 1957 8.6 28.1 4.6 15.0 41 133 74 19
In addition to the bridges mentioned in Table 1, five culverts exist along
NC 24-27. The culverts are found at the tributary to Poplin Branch, Poplin Creek,
Rock Creek, Little Long Creek and Long Creek.
9. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
All highway intersections are at-grade, with the exception of the US 52/
NC 24-27 interchange. The intersections of US 52-NC 73/NC 138, and NC 24-27
and SR 1963 and NC 24-27 are signalized. Mt. Vernon Drive, Lee Street, and
Henson Street are all stop sign controlled.
10. Railroad Crossing
There is one railroad crossing at the Winston-Salem Southbound Railway.
Two trains per day use this railway. This crossing is grade separated.
111. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Length of Project
The length of the proposed project is approximately 5.48 km (3.4 miles).
B. Cross-Section
It is recommended that NC 24-27 be widened to a five-lane, 19.2 m (64-foot)
pavement (face to face) with 3.0 m (10-foot) berms. This includes a 3.6 m (12-foot)
exclusive left turn lane.
C. Alignment
The proposed widening will be aligned to the south side of NC 24-27 to make use
of the existing offset right of way.
D. Design Speed
Due to the urban nature of the proposed project and the proposed curb and gutter,
the recommended design speed is 80 km/h (50 mph). The posted speed limit is expected
to be 70 km/h (45 mph).
E. Rip-ht-of-Way
The project will utilize the existing right-of-way as much as possible. Small
portions of new right-of-way may be needed in addition to the existing 45.7 meters (150
feet of right-of-way. Additional construction easements and permanent drainage
easements may also be needed along portions of the project to accommodate proposed
improvements.
F. Access Control
Full control of accessis proposed from the US 52/NC 73-NC 138 intersection to
the US 52 interchange. The remainder of the project will not have control of access.
G. Bridges and Culverts
Two bridges will be replaced to accommodate the widening of NC 24-27 and two
will be rehabilitated and widened. To meet current design standards the Winston-Salem
Southbound railroad bridge and the adjacent US 52 interchange bridge will require
replacement. The US 52 interchange bridge will be replaced with a 40.5 meters (133 feet)
long structure, having a clear roadway width of 22.2 m (78.3 ft) and a vertical clearance of
5.2 m (17.06 ft). The bridge over the Winston-Salem Southbound Railway will be
replaced with a 45.7 m (150 ft) long structure, having a clear roadway width of 29.5 m
(96.8 ft) and a vertical clearance of 7.2 m (23.6 ft). Current design standards require 7.0
to 7.2 meters (23 to 23.6 feet) vertical clearance for railroad bridges.
Bridges No. 46 and 39 over Little Long Creek and Long Creek, respectively will
be rehabilitated and widened. Both Bridge No. 46 and Bridge No. 39 will be revised to a
clear roadway width of 22.2 m (72.8 ft).
Five culverts along NC 24-27 will be retained. Poplin Branch, Poplin Creek, and
Rock Creek culverts will be extended. Little Long Creek and Long Creek culverts will be
widened.
H. Intersection/ Interchange Treatment
Recommended improvements to the US 52-NC 73/NC 138 intersection include an
exclusive right turn lane in the north bound direction and dual lefts and an exclusive right
in the southbound direction. On NC 24-27 at the same intersection, dual lefts and an
exclusive right are recommended westbound and an exclusive right is recommended
eastbound (see Figure 3). An adjacent project (R-2320) will compliment project R-2530A
by eliminating the current "offset" of US 52 and provide a four lane facility from US 74 in
Wadesboro to NC 24-27 in Albemarle (See Figure 7).
A signal is proposed at Coble Avenue and NC 24-27.
The US 52 interchange will undergo ramp and bridge improvements to meet
current design standards. Bridge improvements include raising the grade of the bridge to
match that of the WSSB Railroad bridge. Ramp improvements include removing the
northwest quadrant ramp and replacing it with a loop in the north east quadrant relocating
the existing northeast quadrant ramp. Other interchange improvements are minor.
Henning Drive north and south of NC 24-27 will be cul-de-saced to provide full
control of access from the US 52-NC 73/NC 138 intersection to the US 52 interchange.
Bicycle Accommodations
No special bicycle accommodations are recommended for this project.
J. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are proposed for the project.
K. Cost Estimate
The estimated cost for the proposed improvements includes $580,500 for right of
way and $12,100,000 for construction. The construction cost for section "AA" is
estimated at $4,700,000, construction cost for "AB" is estimated at $7,400,000.
IV. ADJACENT PROJECTS
North Carolina's 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) lists
three projects that are adjacent to this project.
R-2530B - Widening of NC 24-27 from NC 740 to the Pee Dee River. This project is
not currently funded in the TIP. R-2530B will extend the multi-lane
widening of NC 24-27 eastward.
R-0967 - Widening of NC 24-27 to multi-lanes from Locust to Albemarle.
Construction of the first phase is scheduled for 2001. R-0967 will widen
NC 24-27 to the west of R-2530A.
R-2320 Improvements to US 52 from US 74 in Wadesboro to NC 24-27 in
Albemarle. Connection to NC 24-27 is currently funded in the TIP and
scheduled for construction in 2001. Project R-2320 will compliment
project R-2530A by eliminating the current "offset" of US 52 (see
Figure 7).
V. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION
A. Design Alternatives
Cross Section
As an alternative to the recommended alternative, a four lane 6.1 m (20 ft)
median divided section on Section "AA" and a five lane curb and gutter section on
Section "AB" was studied. Improving the existing facility to a four lane median
divided section on Section "AA" would add approximately $600,000 to the
construction costs of the project. Local officials prefer a five lane curb and gutter
section throughout the entire length of the project. A median divided section
would require five or more median cuts to accommodate adjacent properties. For
these reasons, this alternative was rejected.
2. Alignment
Because the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to adjoining properties,
no alignment alternatives were considered.
B. "No-Build" Alternative
If the "no-build" alternative were chosen, it would have a negative impact on
transportation in Albemarle. With anticipated increases in traffic volumes, the level of
service provided by the existing facility would deteriorate even more. Increased
congestion would lead to higher operating costs and increased travel times. Therefore, the
"no-build" alternative has been rejected.
C. Alternative Modes Of Transportation
No alternative mode of transportation is considered to be a practical alternative.
Highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation in the project area, and the
project involves widening an existing highway.
VI. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Land Use Planning
Status of Local Planning Activities
The proposed widening is within the City of Albemarle's planning and
zoning jurisdiction. The City adopted the Land Development Plan Revision in
1971, no update is scheduled. The City enforces zoning and sub-division
regulations, which are used as the primary land use guide for growth. The zoning
ordinances are updated regularly.
2. Existing Land Use
The project area is best described as a mix of land uses. There are many
industrial and commercial businesses mixed in with residential and institutional
uses. There are varied land uses at the beginning of the project where NC 24-27
splits with SR 1274, to SR 1900 (Coble Avenue). Some of the area is agricultural,
with the remainder being residential and commercial. Stanly Technical College is
located approximately one-quarter mile northwest of the project beginning. At the
intersection of the project corridor and SR 1963 there is a small strip mall of
commercial businesses (Burleson Square). Behind the strip mall is the Tiny Tears
Nursery and Day Care and a small mobile home facility. Beside the strip mall is
the local Veterans Assembly building. There is a large apartment complex (Creek
Ridge) and a small mobile home facility in a residential area west of the SR 1900
intersection. The Stanly County Correctional Facility, a minimum security center,
is located at the intersection of SR 1900 on the southwest corner, mini- storage
warehouses are on the southeast and northeast corners, and the City Department
of Public Works is on the northwest corner.
A waste water treatment plant is located at the southern terminus of
SR 1900, approximately one-half mile south of the project corridor.
The area from SR 1900 to the US 52-NC 73 intersection is primarily
residential with some service stations and a small textile industry at the
intersection.
The Winston Salem Southbound Railway travels north-south between
US 52-NC 73/NC 138 and US 52/SR 1645 (First Street).
From US 52 to the project terminus the land uses continue to vary. As the
project corridor crosses the US 52/(First Street) intersection, a Baptist church and
the Rock Creek recreational facility are located on the south side of the corridor,
and small commercial uses are on the north side. A portion of the area past the
US 52 intersection is undeveloped partially due to hilly terrain on both sides of the
corridor.
Within the partially undeveloped area is a farm machinery sales
establishment, a convenience store, a mobile home sales facility and a building
supply center. Towards the terminus of the project corridor is the heaviest
development of the project area. A Wal-mart, an Ingles Supermarket, a Lowe's
Building Supply and assorted service stations, used car lots, restaurants and a
Comfort Inn motel have been constructed here in the last five years. There is also
a new car dealership, a small strip mall, more fast food businesses and a large mall
on each side of the project corridor (East Gate on the north side and Albemarle
Plaza on the south) at the intersection of NC 24-27, the project terminus. There
are several industrial uses located south of the NC 24-27 intersection off SR 1783
(Grove Avenue Extension).
3. Existing Zoning
According to planning officials, zoning along the project corridor is
displayed by the existing land uses. The beginning of the project corridor has some
agricultural and residential zones but this area is primarily business. The entire
project area is scattered with every type of zoning classification from institutional
to highway business. The majority are commercial.
10
4. Proposed Land Use
The project area is expected to see further growth in an east to west
direction along the corridor extending away from the industrial, and increasing
growth of commercial along the eastern portion of the project area. Growth of
commercial uses is expected to be the primary trend in the future.
Albemarle is a "bedroom community" for commuters working in Charlotte
which is fifty miles to the west. Many of these commuters use NC 24-27 as a
transit route to and from work, and this thoroughfare is expected to see further
growth due to the increasing traffic volumes along this corridor. According to the
planning staff, most of the residential uses along the project corridor are expected
to change over to business uses in the future.
5. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. These soils are designated by the
U.S. Soil Conservation Service based on crop yield, moisture content, and various
other factors. Soils which have been developed or committed to urban use by the
local planning authority are exempt from consideration under the Act. As
previously discussed, the project site and its vicinity are zoned for commercial land
uses and significant development has occurred in its vicinity. Therefore, further
consideration of potential impacts to prime farmland is not required.
B. Social and Economic Environment
Relocation Impacts
The proposed action will require small portions of new right-of-way, one
business will require relocation due to the proposed control of access between the
US 52 interchange and the US 52/NC 73-NC 138 intersection.
To help minimize the impact of relocation NCDOT has a policy to ensure
that comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of
state and federally- assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
11
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/or the North Carolina
Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed
to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in
which to live or do business. At 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 not generally less desirable in regard to
public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
property will be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of 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
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project.
Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in
12
reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as
attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make
a 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.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including
incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down
payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the rent
supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's
state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable
replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a
reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No relocation payment received
will be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any
person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial
means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The
purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation
by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided.
It is not felt that this program will be necessary on the project, since there appear
to be adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
2. Social Impacts
The proposed improvements will provide a safer highway facility for all
commercial users. In addition, the improvements will make for a safer facility to
deliver goods and services. The proposed action will not disrupt neighborhood
cohesion. It will not interfere with the accessibility of facilities and services.
C. Historic and Cultural Resources
Architectural Historic Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106,
codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded,
13
licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
To comply with Section 106, the area of potential effect (APE) of the
subject project was reviewed by an NCDOT staff architectural historian in the
field. One property within the APE, a former Catholic Church, was evaluated for
National Register eligibility. NCDOT and FHWA have determined that the former
Catholic Church is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
There are no other properties in the APE eligible or listed on the National
Register or the State Study List.
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) concurs
that the former Catholic Church is not considered eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places (see Appendix page A-2). This action
completes compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966.
2. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area.
Therefore, it is unlikely any archaeological resources eligible for inclusion in the
National Register will be affected by the project construction. The SHPO
recommended that no archaeological investigation be performed in connection
with this project (see Appendix page A-3).
D. Natural Systems
Biological Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
Four distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project
study area: Man Disturbed, Oak-Hickory Forest, Piedmont Alluvial
Forest, and Pine Scrub Forest. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and
populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
Man Disturbed Community
The disturbed community exists along the highway right of way
throughout the length of the project. This community is maintained
through frequent mowing by DOT road maintenance crews. This
community will be heavily impacted by the proposed project. The roadside
community consists of a number of mixed species which include foxtail,
14
fescue, broomsedge, horsenettle, poke-berry, silverling, and scotch broom.
A number of sapling tree species are prevalent in this area. These include
the princess tree, redbud and river birch.
A profusion of animals and birds utilize this community for forage
and cover. During the site visit several birds were observed in the
disturbed area. Many of these birds were seen moving between each of the
described communities. Birds identified during the site visit include: tufted
titmouse, yellow-rumped warbler, northern cardinal, Carolina chickadee,
eastern phoebe, mocking bird, goldfinch, Carolina wren, rufus-sided
towhee, white throated sparrow, ruby and golden crowned kinglet, hermit
thrush, song sparrow and hairy woodpecker. A turkey vulture, American
crow and red-tailed hawk were observed in the vicinity of the project area.
Disturbed roadside communities provide refuge for a myriad of
opportunistic animal species. Some of the more common mammals
inhibiting this community include: the Norway rat, white-footed mouse
and the house mouse. These species also serve as prey for red-tailed
hawks and other predators.
Oak Hickory Forest
An oak-hickory community exists immediately up slope from each
of the Piedmont alluvial forests in the project area. The most common oak
species in these communities include black oak, spanish oak, scarlet red
oak, white oak and northern red oak. The two hickories common in this
community are the pignut hickory and mockernut hickory. Blackgum,
sweetgum, and ash are also found on these upland slopes.
The understory of the oak hickory forest consists primarily of
shrubs and small trees often associated with rich woodland slopes. The
shrubs most commonly encountered in this community include maple-
leaved viburnum, redbud, ironwood, buckeye, blueberry, winged elm,
storax, witch hazel, sourwood and strawberry bush.
There are only a few plants present on the winter forest floor. The
three plants most commonly encountered during the site survey were heart
leaf, spotted pipsissewa and cranefly orchid.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
The vegetation of the Piedmont Alluvial forest canopy is comprised
of a number of deciduous species. The most common species include:
river birch, sweetgum, red maple, sycamore, boxelder, American elm,
water oak, blackgum and green ash. Shortleaf pine is also a prevalent
canopy tree in this community.
15
The prominent shrubs and saplings found in the understory include
privet, ironwood, elderberry, strawberry bush, and dogwood. A few vines
are found in this community as well. Poison ivy, and cross vine are
prevalent.
The herbaceous flora of the alluvial community encountered during
the site visit includes cornflower, wild strawberry, chickweed and
Veronica. The grass bottlebrush plant and fescue are also abundant in the
bottomlands and along the stream edges. A few species common to
piedmont bottomlands during the early spring include spring beauty,
toothwort and Catesby's trillium.
The alluvial bottomlands provide ideal breeding habitat for several
amphibian species. Among the most common species of frogs in the
piedmont are grey tree-frogs, southern cricket frogs and spring peepers. In
addition, three lined salamanders and marbled salamanders are locally
abundant and are frequently found under logs and stones in bottomlands
adjacent to creeks in the piedmont.
Pine Scrub Community
The Pine Scrub community is located in disturbed areas adjacent to
the project area. This community consists primarily of scrub pine; winged
sumac and Japanese honeysuckle.
b. Aquatic Communities
Four piedmont perennial streams and one ephemeral stream system
will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical characteristics of the
water body and condition of the water resources reflect faunal composition
of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
Each of the perennial streams are bordered by oak hickory upland
communities and alluvial bottomlands. Two of the sites visited had sewer
lines cut along the streams. Removal of the bottomland and vegetation
adjacent to the stream increases siltation and runoff into the stream thus
influencing water clarity and species composition.
The larger streams Long Creek, Little Long Creek and Poplin
Creek are moderately sized piedmont perennial streams. Some of the more
common fish that occur in similar streams include green sunfish, bluegill
and bluehead chub. The Natural Heritage files indicates the Carolina darter
has been collected in Long Creek. The Carolina Darter is listed as a
species of Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.
16
The small stream (Poplin Branch) provides habitat for crayfish and
invertebrates capable of tolerating various amounts of siltation. These
include some species of dragonflies and damselflies.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the
biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or near
these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This
section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of
area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts
are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these
biotic communities resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the entire proposed right of way width of 45.7 m (150 ft).
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2 Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY
Oak Hickory Forest 1.7 (4.1)
Maintained 6.0 14.0
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 0.3 0.74
Pine Scrub Forest 0.1 (0.1)
TOTAL IMPACTS 8.1 19.08
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
The proposed widening will eliminate and/or alter some of the existing
wildlife habitat in the project area, while subsequently creating new habitat.
Portions of the roadside shoulder, agricultural lands, and forest will be impacted by
roadway construction. This will result in direct loss of plant species from grubbing
operations, soil compaction, and soil erosion. Consequently, subterranean and
burrowing organisms will be eliminated in the wake of highway construction.
Animals capable of migrating will seek new habitat for forage and shelter. In
summary, food and cover requirements of individual organisms will dictate the
overall impacts to wildlife utilizing the construction area.
17
2. Waters Impacted and Characteristics
There are seven stream crossings within the proposed project area
(Figure 5). Long Creek, Little Long Creek and Poplin Creek are located within
the Yadkin-Pee Dee watersheds. Long Creek originates in Rowan County near
Gold Hill and flows south approximately 38.7 km (24 mi.) to its confluence with
Rocky River. Little Long Creek originates approximately 3.2 km (2 mi.) north of
Albemarle and flows approximately 8.0 km (5 mi.) to its confluence with Long
Creek. At the time of the site visit, each of these creeks had a moderate to fast
flow rate and heavy siltation due to rains the previous night. Specific information
on the water resources in project area is summarized in Table 3.
Neither High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS II) nor
outstanding Resources Waters (ORW) occur within, 1.6 km (1 mile) of project
study area. The eastern end of the project is located approximately 2.4 km (1.5
mile) from the Yadkin-Pee Dee watershed.
a. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Table 3 lists best usage
classifications for all water resources likely to be impacted by the proposed
project.
Table 3 Water Resources Characteristics
STREAM WIDTH DEPTH SUBSTRATE FLOW CLARITY CLASS
Lon Crk 15(50) 1.1(3) eb, bo mod d C
Little Long
Crk 6(20) 0.6(2) peb, bo mod gd C
Poplin Crk 3(10) 0.15 0.5 eb, co mod d C
Poplin
Branch 1.2(4) . 1(3.28) si mod gd C
Rock Crk. _3(10) 0.15 0._5 si mod d C
Tributary 1 0.91(3) 0.15 0.5 si mod d C
Tributary 2 >0.91.(>3) >0.15_(>0.5) si mod d C
NO rES: values are given in meters (feet).
Class C: Suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture.
18
The abbreviations int, per, ut, si, sa, peb, co, bo, mod and gd denotes
intermittent stream, perennial stream, unnamed tributary, silt, sand, pebble,
cobble, boulder, moderate, and good.
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources include increased
sedimentation and siltation resulting from construction around the streams.
These impacts may result in the following adverse conditions: decreases in
the depth of light penetration, suppressing plant and algal growth which
provides a food source for some fish; increase in sediment loads which
clogs the filtration apparatus of filter feeding benthos and fish, buries
benthic organisms and isolates them from their food source and spoils
downstream spawning beds for fish. Sedimentation may additionally lead
to changes in concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff that
may occur during construction.
Sedimentation and erosion control measures (Best Management
Practices) will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of this
project. Grass berms along construction areas (roadsides, bridge sites,
road medians, etc.) help decrease erosion and allow toxic substances to be
absorbed into the soil before these substances reach waterways. Poorly
managed application of sedimentation control policies will result in serious
damage to the aquatic community.
3. Special Topics
a. Waters of The United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 CFR 328.3, and
defined are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to
life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these
areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Approximately 0.3 acre of below headwaters wetlands are located
within the project area (Figure 5). The soil color in the wetland is 2.5 YR.
5\2. Evidence of hydrology at the time of the site visit included signs of
flow, stained leaf litter, and standing waterline oxygenated rhizospheres.
Plant species observed with wetland indicator status include green ash,
ironwood, blackgum, sweet bay, red maple and willow oak.
19
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has instituted a
numerical rating system ranging from 0 to 100, to gauge wetland quality.
This fourth version of the rating system assesses wetlands on the basis of
water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal, aquatic life,
recreational and educational values of a wetland community. The DEM
rating for this wetland is 43.
This wetland meets the National Wetlands Inventory classification
of Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded
(PFO 1 Q.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacement of existing culverts and bridge rehabilitation may
involve discharge of excavated or fill material into waters of one or all of
the creeks which cross the project area. Approximately 0.3 acre of
jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted.
d. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a General Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5
(A) 14 will be required from the Corps of Engineers (COE) for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
Nationwide Permit conditions include the following:
The width of the fill material is limited to the minimum necessary
for the actual crossing.
2. The fill placed in waters of the U. S. is limited to a fill area of no
more than 0.3 ac.
3. No more than a total of 200 linear feet of the fill for the roadway
can occur in special aquatic sites, including wetlands.
4. Crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the
restriction of, and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows
and the movement of aquatic organisms.
5. Fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, require a 30-day
notification to the district engineer.
20
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state
issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of the United
States. A Section 401 water quality certification will be required from the
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources prior to
issuance of any Federal Section 404 Permit.
e. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna flora have been in the process of decline
either due to natural forces of their inability to coexist with man. Federal
law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, requires
that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected, be subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT)
are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of December 30, 1995,
the FWS lists the following federally-protected species for Stanly County:
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii). A brief description of each species'
characteristics and habitat follows.
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) E
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half
mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an
area, and having an open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance
can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding
season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the
major food source for bald eagles.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bald eagles usually nest near large rivers and/or lakes where they
forage for fish. Based upon extensive in-house and field investigations, it
has been determined that suitable nesting and foraging habitat does not
exist within the immediate project area. Therefore, no impacts will occur
to the bald eagle as a result of the project.
21
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows
1-2 m tall from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous root. The stems are deep
red solitary and only branch above mid-stem. The leaves are rough feeling
above and resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath. Leaves of the
sunflower are opposite on the lower part of the stem and usually become
alternate on the upper stem. The broad flowers are borne from September
until frost. These flowers are yellow in color and arranged in an open
system upwardly arching heads. The fruit is a smooth, gray-black achene.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to North and South Carolina.
These flowers grow best in full sunlight or light shade in clearings and
along the edges of open stands of oak-pine-hickory upland woods.
Common soils that this species is found in are moist to dryish clays, clay-
loams, or moderately podzolized. Natural fires and large herbivores are
considered to be historically important in maintaining open habitat for these
sunflowers.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species was found on the crest of a slope on
the north side of the highway across from Westwood mobile home park. A
plant by plant survey of the entire project area was conducted and no
Schweinitz's sunflowers were found. Therefore, no effects to this species
will result from the proposed widening of NC 24-27.
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are five (5) federal candidate (C2) species listed for Stanly
County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal protection
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. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as
organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data
currently exist to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act of the
North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal candidate species, the species' state status (if
afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area. This species list is provided for information
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
22
Table 4 Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species for Stanly County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME FED/NC STATUS HABITAT
Aster eor ianus Georgia Aster C2\C es
Ju lans cinerea Butternut C2\C es
Lotus urshianus var. helleri Heller's trefoil C2\C es
Nestronia umbrellula Nestronia C2\SR es
Verbena ri aria no common name C2\C es
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit,
nor were any of these species observed. A review of the data base of the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare species and unique habitats provided
records of the Carolina Darter occurring in Long Creek. The North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has listed this species as Special
Concern (SC). 'SC status is defined as "any species of wild animal native or
once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the Wildlife
Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken
under regulations adopted under the provisions of this article.
Additionally, the Natural Heritage program data base lists a basic oak-
hickory forest as a unique habitat. This forest is located approximately 1
mi. (1.6 km) from the study area.
E. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation
Physical Resources
Stanly County lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Providence. The
topography of Stanly County is characterized by gently rolling forested hills and
open fields. The average elevation throughout the project area is approximately
182.0 m (600 ft) above mean sea level.
2. Physiography
Terrain along the project corridor is undulating to steep with a relief of
54.9 meters (180 feet) along the length of the project. Seven streams, Poplin
Branch, Poplin Creek, Long Creek, Little Long Creek, Rock Creek, and two
unnamed tributaries, will be crossed. Drainage in the vicinity will be governed by
these streams.
23
3. Geology and Soils
Subsurface lithology is from the Carolina Slate Belt, primarily the Floyd
Church Formation. It consists of obscurely bedded to well bedded, highly
fractured, tuffaceous metasikltstone. Bedrock is typically encountered at depths
from 50.8 to 101.6 centimeters (20 to 40 inches).
According to the USDA soils manuals, soils in the area are primarily from
the Badin-Goldston soils association. They are shallow, well drained soils on
uplands.
Engineering properties of the soils indicate slight erosion equipment
hazards in the area. The depth to the seasonal high water table is greater than l .l!
meters (6 feet). Shrink-swell potentials are low to moderate. Soil reactivity,
measured in pH, ranges from 3.6 to 6.5 or extremely to slightly acid. The risk of
corrosion in concrete and uncoated steel is high. The soils are rated as poor for
use as roadfill material due to low strength. Construction of shallow excavations
and embankments is moderately restricted due to the depth to bedrock and high
clay content of the soil. Use for local roads and streets is severely limited due to
low soil strength and excessive wetness near stream crossings. AASHTO soil
classifications are given to be A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7.
4. Hazardous Material Inventory
a. Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities
A field reconnaissance identified seven UST facilities within the
currently defined project limits. Records from the Division of
Environmental Management's Groundwater Section were consulted to
ascertain registry information at these sites and to identify any additional
reported sites. A location and description of the facilities are listed below.
Because of the existing right of way 45.7 meters (150 feet), it is not
anticipated that any of these UST sites will be involved with this project.
This information is included in case later design requires construction limits
to extend further than currently expected.
Section AA
Site 1.
Farmer's Used Cars
NC 24-27
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Unknown
Facility ID#: Unknown
24
This facility is located on the north side of NC 24-27, approxi-
mately 15.2 meters (50 feet) east of the intersection with Mt. Vernon
Drive. It was a Shell service station at some time in the past and is now
operated as a used car dealership and inspection center. An area of
disturbed concrete is behind the abandoned pump island, possibly
corresponding to the location of a UST pit. One tank, probably from the
tank pit, was on the surface at the north edge of the property. An oil
change pit, overgrown with kudzu, is behind the station building. No
information of DEM registry is currently available.
Site 2.
Eury's Truck Stop
Highway 24-27 Bypass
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: R. J. Eury (Barefoot Oil Company)
Facility ID#: Unknown
This facility is located on the south side of NC 24-27,
approximately 61 meters (200 feet) west of the intersection with NC 138
South. There are five USTs on the property, three containing gasoline, one
with diesel and one with kerosene. Information on the size, construction
and registry of the tanks is not available at this time. The gasoline tank pit
is located on the east side of the parking area, approximately 38.4 meters
(126 feet) from the NC 24-27 centerline.
Site 3
Friendly Mart
199 Highway 24/27 Bypass
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Still Oil Co. 1410 East Main Street Albemarle, NC
Facility ID#: 0-023433
This convenience store and restaurant is located in the northwest
quadrant of the NC 24-27/NC 138 South intersection. There are five
USTs registered with the DEM at this location, three 22, 710 liter (6,000
gallon) tanks containing gasoline, one 37,850 liter (10,000 gallon) tank
containing diesel fuel and one 2,080 liter (550 gallon) tank containing
kerosene. The diesel/kerosene tank pit is located on the east side of the
building, approximately 54.5 meters (179 feet) from the centerline. All
tanks are made of steel with no cathodic protection. Installation of the
tanks was completed during May, 1964.
2.5
Site 4.
Convenient Corner #2
Highway 52 North
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Albemarle Oil Company 300 Circle Drive Albemarle, NC
Facility ID#: 0-023433
This convenience store and restaurant is located in the northwest
quadrant of the NC 24-27/US 52 North intersection. There are three
active USTs registered with the DEM. Each tank contains gasoline and is
made of steel with no cathodic protection. The tanks have 37,850, 30,280
and 22,710 liter (10,000, 8,000 and 6,000 gallon) capacities. The UST pit
is located in front of the building, approximately 32 meters (105 feet) from
the NC 24-27 centerline. According to DEM records, two steel, 1,210 liter
(4,000 gallon) tanks, one containing diesel and one with kerosene, were
permanently closed during December 1986. The location of this pit is
unknown.
Section AB
Site 5
Phase One Nite Spot (Formerly: Center Mart)
505 Highway 24-27
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Unknown
Facility ID#: Unknown
This facility is located on the north side of NC 24-27 at the
intersection with Spaulding Street. It is currently operated as an
entertainment center. An out-of-service pump island is in front of the
building. The undisturbed tank pit is located at the western edge of the
concrete parking area, approximately 43 meters (141 feet) from the NC 24-
27 centerline. There are fill ports and vent piping for two USTs. No DEM
registry information is currently available.
Site 6
Quick Check Exxon #8
627 Highway 24-27 East
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Wynn Dozier
Facility ID#: 0-033520
26
This convenience store is located in the northwest quadrant of the
NC 24-27/Henson Road intersection. There are two USTs registered with
the DEM at this location. Both tanks contain gasoline, are made of fiber
glass reinforced plastic with cathodic protection and have 45,420 liter
(12,000 gallon) capacities. The tank pit is located in front of the building,
approximately 25.6 meters (84 feet) from the NC 24-27 centerline.
b. Other Potential Hazards
Two other facilities with USTs were found during the
reconnaissance and document search, the City of Albemarle Service Center
and the NCDOT Maintenance yard. These sites are on either side of
NC 24-27 at the intersection with SR 1900 (Coble Avenue). Both
properties contain USTs that are outside the right of way described for this
widening project. The City of Albemarle Service Center stores
transformers on site and makes repairs on their vehicles. Due to the terrain
at this location,. there is a possibility that soil and/or groundwater
contamination, if any, may creep downslope, towards NC 24-27.
Collection of soil samples within the proposed northside right of way of
NC 24-27 may be warranted prior to construction.
The files of the Division of Solid Waste Management's Solid and
Hazardous Waste and Superfund Sections were consulted in order to
identify any reported contamination sources or events within project limits.
Based on the field reconnaissance and DSWM records, no additional
environmental hazards are expected to affect construction on this project.
F. Hiahwav Traffic Noise Analysis
An analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening on
noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation included an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient
noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the
proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for
the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of
Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted,
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Characteristic of Noise
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range
of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
27
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
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 (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 NI (see Appendix page A-] 7).
Review of Table N 1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed
to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three
things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with
various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise
abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned
Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for
various land uses is presented in Table N2 (see Appendix page A-18). The Leq, or
equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time
period has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating
sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same
energy content.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine
the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this noise level information was to
quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. From SR 1963 (the western termini of the project) to US 52, the
existing Leq noise level along NC 24-27 was determined to be 66.6 dBA. From US 52 to
SR 1783 (the eastern termini of the project), the noise level measured 69.4 dBA. Both
measurements were taken at 15 meters from the roadway.
28
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the Noise
Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983).
The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108).
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. Only those
existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway
sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this
analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions made
in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the
year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour of the design year 2019, would be
exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and
those land uses predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase.
Table N5 (see Appendix page 30) indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted noise level increases for
this project range from +3 to +8 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to
barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of
the sound.
Traffic Noise Impact Anal,
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within
I dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in either
category. As shown in Table N4, page A-29, 18 receptors along the project are predicted
to experience noise impacts.
29
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied with
a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures 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 no control of access, with the exception of full control at
the US 52 interchange, meaning most commercial establishments and residences will have
direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all other intersections will adjoin
the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and
long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction.
Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight
distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 15 meters (50 feet) from the barrier would normally require a
barrier 120 meters (400 feet) long. An access opening of 12 meters (40 feet) (10 percent
of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable
measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus,
would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
"No-Build" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "no-build" alternative were also considered. If the
proposed widening did not occur, 6 residential receptors would experience traffic noise
impact by approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors in the
immediate vicinity of the project could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise
levels in the range of +1 to +5 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect
noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project,
can be expected, particularly from paving operations and from earth moving equipment
during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of
construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are
30
not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural
elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway
traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change
develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted.
G. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of common
outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting
from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SOD, and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned with determining
expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
CO Analysis
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor closest to the
highway project, 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 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the
result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge
of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined using line source computer
modeling and the background concentration was obtained from NCDEHNR. Once the
two concentration components were resolved, they were added together to determine the
ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and to compare to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
31
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor
to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes,
vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes
are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the
CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within any section. Carbon monoxide vehicle
emission factors were calculated for the year of 1999 and the design year of 2019 using
the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile
source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8
parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was located at a distance of 22 meters from the
proposed centerline. The "build" and "no-build" one-hour CO concentrations for the
nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 1999 and 2019 are shown in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations PPM
Nearest Sensitive Receptor Build No-Build
1999 2019 1999 2019
R-77 2.8 3.0 3.8 7.4
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period is 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period is 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case l -hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard.
Other Pollutants
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 and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive
emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
32
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient
ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to decrease as a
result of reductions in automobile emissions.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. 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 be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. Newer cars
with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating, lead emissions. In the future,
lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make 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.
The project is located in Stanly County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR, Part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that burning
will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will only be utilized 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 required.
H. Floodolain Involvement and Hvdraulic Concerns
The terrain along the project is very hilly and rolling with natural streams and
draws located such that the roadway can be drained without difficulty. Table 5
summarizes the major stream crossings associated with the project and includes
recommendations for accommodation of the proposed widening. The project also
involves two minor stream crossings.
33
Table 5 Stream Crossings
Site Stream Existing Structure Recommendation Flood lain Status
I Poplin Branch Box Culvert Retain and Extend Not in flood hazard zone
1 A Poplin Creek Box Culvert Retain and Extend ; may need Included in detailed flood
under US 52 supplementation stud ; regulated floodwa
2 Rock Creek Reinforced Retain and Extend Included in detailed flood
Concrete Arch stud ; regulated floodwa
3 Little Long Bridge # 46 Retain and Widen Included in detailed flood
Creek stud ; re lated floodwa
4 Long Creek Bridge # 39 Retain and Widen Included in detailed flood
stud ; regulated floodwa
From recent field review and preliminary hydraulics analysis, the existing drainage
structures at Poplin Branch, Rock Creek, and Long Creek were determined hydraulically
adequate and in good condition. The proposed extension of these structures can be
accommodated without any significant modification of the existing stream alignment and
channel geometry. The triple barrel culvert at the US 52 crossing of Poplin Creek
appears to be hydraulically undersized, with the detailed flood study profile indicating that
the roadway is flooded at less than a ten-year design frequency. However, from
discussions with nearby store personnel and the District Engineer for this area, there has
been no history of roadway overtopping at this location. Based on this information it is
recommended that the existing culvert be retained and extended; however, the need for
supplementation will be investigated in detail in final hydraulics design. Both Bridge
No. 39 and Bridge No. 46 have been evaluated for bridge scour, and both were found to
be at low risk for scour problems.
Stanly County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program.
The floodplain areas in the vicinity of Poplin Creek, Rock Creek and Long Creek
crossings are primarily undeveloped and wooded with no buildings in the vicinity of the
project with a floor elevation below the 100-year flood level indicated in the detailed flood
study. Supplementation of the existing three-barrel culvert at this location may be
considered in final design to reduce the flood hazard in the vicinity of this stream crossing;
however, such improvement may require floodway modification at this site. The proposed
roadway widening and associated drainage accommodations will not have a significant
adverse effect on the existing floodplain areas and will not significantly increase the
existing flood hazards in the project vicinity. The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will
coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local authorities to
ensure compliance with applicable floodplain ordinances.
Both bridge sites (Long Creek and Little Long Creek) are below headwaters. All
of the culvert sites (Rock Creek, Poplin Creek, Poplin Branch) are above headwaters.
The project is not in a water supply watershed nor in a high quality water zone; therefore,
erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the appropriate specification,
installation, and maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control measures.
34
Existing drainage patterns will be maintained and may be improved where practicable.
Ground water resources will be evaluated in final hydraulics design to ensure measures are
taken to prevent contamination. Recommendations are preliminary and subject to
change, based on information obtained from a more detailed study during the final
hydraulics design phase of the project.
I. Geodetic Markers
It is anticipated that this project will have no impact on any geodetic survey
markers.
Section 4(f) Resources
No Section 4(f) properties will be involved with this project. One public park
(Roosevelt. Ingram Memorial Park) is located on the south side of NC 24-27,
approximately 2400 feet east of the US 52 interchange. At this location the proposed
widening will take place within the existing NCDOT right of way. No land will be
required from this park.
VII. COMMENTS. COORDINATION. AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On October 28, 1994, a letter was mailed to the following federal, state, and local
agencies to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning proposed
project (Note: an asterisk indicates those agencies who respond to this letter):
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife
U. S. Geological Survey
*Mayor of Stanly County
Stanly County Commissioner
*Centralina Council of Governments
*City of Albemarle
*N.C. Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
On May 17, 1995 a citizens information workshop was held in Stanly County.
This workshop was held in order to obtain comments and suggestions about the project
from the public. Approximately 31 persons attended this meeting. Most of the citizens in
attendance spoke in favor of the proposed project. Many of the questions and comments
concerned impacts to individual properties and questions regarding the proposed typical
section. Other comments included schedule for proposed action and safety improvements
at the US 52-NC 73/NC 138 intersection.
BG/plr
FIGURES
1
CN)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
("IQ TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
ALBEMARLE
WIDEN NC 24 - 27
FROM SR 1249 TO NC 740
STANLY COUNTY
R - 2530A
0 mile 1/2 FIG. 1
.y

G
V
{ y
V
?yy ?L

Z

R
C
T -?
0
z =zz a
^'{zzm
z0000D Z >c
- N T Z ! z >
N < o v C y -
S w 0 Cf y
V z -
D c y
? 9 z
N

G .?
rte' ?
r T
I'/
r

I ?-.

h
9 i
r / }?

N

z
z -
o
_ <
Z ^ C
C.
Q
ti U Ln
Z 04
N
o
O
_
'Z
2
wc?OZ2 N '
-
Z c" -
N Q o
.
- oz ._

i'=? •- > U
LLI
[DwOZn

= -J I O
a-zQ
c
s-z 3
U'?
-zrzz ? o

_
z=-- o -

_ cc:
LL
A
s
y
co -
LL
01
W
fa, Lij
X,
I U]
= r -?
e? v,
t. OJ INNI-.1.??H, O1t7VJ
ip.y?y <*' ,tiz?.` ?? ? . ? + '' - ?>??C•.•`y,?? g?a,,;iY.> ?...r? w'r ? h e• ?Y r'•- :'il?.tia.,'?'t?•'? I,
ir ,
r
R
T r ?iAC Ma f ,x..
loop
r-? *Ask 1
1
A ter- 1
r9w
Aw-
fir. ytr'`
!
? F t '-.y.." fi• r-1!' i?'..3'` "av.S•*;M.. F y? t t,;++?? ys. f°
r
11 mow: - : ?? # G
_ r
"We
*I Wl
?`
t
'hats
Wel
° ... -+
.? -.ter
• I y ? ? ? .rte, ?. ? _ wa ? .?? ; ?,.. ?yERs- - t
16,
C q ..w. LL r
w
L.U
' - t? , r ?? t4*_ ??' ' ?, .SLY .-??.+
^C
w
7VI
.. r _
_SAO
I _ Yy
.04
.?? ,.i.i-.y,°'„'s •+e.,,,, >9??'aa,- 4e'::`? , .. O'?? CW
• ? "''C4'?c S?_::R°?,p' =+rT??t - ,,,? KN .?` ?r ? r. •. 3'.rpt-?x ? ?":
- • ? '7 ;?•• ?+ ? }pa? •,«? y ??rp? ? M._.'^ ? ?+s. ?_ .-???; -` x•tax^?,. f t.k`'4 'qy'? X Q `
I R ?,a ??a. '* ? ? `fib r,. _?.•_ '?i? +?Va `:._ L?? Jl .? ? ,? y ? y? ? ? ? cy?f cif'-C ?„ t I
V - ? ?, ra.?',/lj ?J - ? }r ?`.?1'?" - ?..) a?? . ? f ? ?L ?"" t?°t'o g?.y • ?'? ?•`4 ! -- i
?'??. R -? t7??. °- -`s _J•-;?? 'f'? ? -'`q , s•?+.'`.??:. N ?, r Y,??. ai.. ?r'?, v ^ Y?'4?^'4?4'.??,?t ;?> ?, ?a ? ?
Lli
,A ?f"? •r..T +•?..?? -` _ r ?.,?a r lira ^ ?" 4.! A,,.r L"'. a 'Mi ¦ ; 1 /
h T "_ •r9 ..tom ?" _'''• ? ?? 'i" ~ ? ` ?r 1 .:? 't ?.?(? ?'y1 ?., ¦ ,? J -?
.«. -Y?s _ ra.- _•, ,?K°?''?„ ? ?.?:?....r??p? ,? ?' xs+ ?s?G ? + Y' r-i iF"•-• r.r =-, ?.,io ? , t
. / s
.
A M JS
+.. s a ,?!iG G y a I? x4 7 x R 3 t v n z r r- _ Y?? '
• tl.:?rir+6 r?!~ `+ R = "``{?c''', v 4 Os!L;t tx ..?
...??, ' _ "'?: ; ? .?f«i" s,:,-°t.. ?r • ; ? ?1?• ? "' Z... ? 3 -'? -a?At. ?- „?,? t??.`'•?C?_ '+ir. 71,t s .'-?c-_?- ''?'`- 't" .°.?'A,?<4 /, '' y ` ' ``` `E y '? S +u;_ e? eaei3' `'CYJ? ^'i' •.x_""r' '?i _ i?. .d!
1 '?"1?^?"• ? ? s :? `? ,_« is ?? F _Y ?.6E :. T SC ?Y'• - ?' ?
At
N?I,? ? > ! gyp: s' ; ?: 9 y`
. Z ^ t? 1 ?_ ?, - >.i ar? _ 'jti. l 'M.\''. ?., : 4 Rb C }l - • .• "• _
.61
' .,,r,gr,y?+! r •?n?.?-.a, .,r .. `4 ? -. 'mac,. ?, ? 6 ? k.H, +?'°• _ `?y't}s'?
T_ a?cn•s•' 8w._ _ I ? y r? a
.
x ? „? •,??4 ..; ,? ? ?•F ? ? ?? ? • ? .. _' ' ,??? T ? r ? ?+-: .. ??l ' 'r? ??, ?''"?' ,tom ` ,
'_ uF `'<. ' ??° • ?^s ° . ;? .? - ? ? ?. 7!• ?_ ?.. '? ; ? ? 's- ?'# + t - ? ?-" ? 'r ``M''. ? ' '?', t- . ?apv .., - ,?;.. v??tr _ .? :*r r` .
47
i•' ' 4 t.c s. 1 ,.+", e . eF•e vY Y'
N't•
a
G F
- I
I
I
I

4W 7
t r
r

• 1
O

t? 1 v •?./
ff *4.
Akk
N

?? 1
C

Q

LL
O
F--

0
EE UI
`
S
V
Z
H
'^
V/ Z
LLJ

W

N

w w
Q , 1
1
Z
W
W
J
1
1
00 LL
O
LU
LU
2
N

z
n
N
i.
N
w

Z
m °
'? ;,y<y?
zzs? F
?'?
m 0 >z C-:

OC0 n7 .:

co
o ?z qwm
? 0 z Z>
? > -
z c
c.? 0 O c j
Z C
D a
? z

...- ...
VA
40.

`v
'j

V.
.
lp
EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 52-NC 73
NC 24-27
NC 138 (AQUADALE RD.)
- - - - - - - - -- . ?-- - - - -
he
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
? 1". \ US 52-NC 73
BRIDGE 49
---------- ----- ----- -- ---
-? IC-
N C 24/27
NC 138 (AQUADALE RD.) US 52
I
SR 1645
(FIRST ST.)
BRIDGE
I I I I
US 52

SR 1645
(FIRST ST.)
N
- - - - - - - - - - -
RAISED
MEDIAN
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 2427 WIDENING
PROPO SED LANE CONFIGURATION FOR
US 52-NC 79/NC 198 INTERSECTION
i US 52 INTERCHANGE
R-2590A
NOT TO SCALE FIGS
NC 24 - 27 FROM SR 1249
TO NC 740 IN ALBEMARLE
ESTIMATED 1999/2019 ADT
TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN HUNDREDS
LEGEND
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
PM = PM PEAK
(0,0) = DUALS TTST (%)
NOTE: DHV-----o D
(indicates the direction D)
PM
DHV D
(0,0)
NC 24 - 27 A A
A ?
121 w ;
186 ?-
0
k,mL
10 SR 1249 149 _60PM10 16
200 (4,5) 35_,.? k_29
28 6? OPM10 33 NC 138 51 t 77
63 (2,1) 63 88 t 128
1 211
26
207 349
(A
1$2_
234
US 52/NC 73
.4 0 25 34
w ; 35 46
34
m 56 SR 1274 ?60PM10 _60PM10 94
94 (2,2) (2,2) 126
20 6 0 PM 10 53 US 52 SR 1645
?-
34
? (2,1) 85
2046
26
6
113
181
r
15
21
207
339
-?
A 0
?
N ;
2 e SR 1963 ., 7
3
1 CITY STREET
7
? 60 PM10 -24 9 17
29 11 (3, I ) 15 27
208
381
132
210

s _er
X30 22

SR 1900 SR 1783 q8

65 2

k, 3

HENSON ST.
3
6 r10 6 75 9PM65
5.F5 PM6 48 22 f4 60PM9 11
(2,1) 101 (3,4) 30 ` 6 .
(2,1) 26
117 184
309
190
5
9
CITY STREET NC 24-27-73 56
97 M
r,84
i 60 PM 9 SR 1625
` m 8 4 116
9 16
130
15 24 181
55 PM 9 15 27 180
121 (3,2)
196 90
170
FIGURE 4
A A . NC 7 40
-31
51
r
.tG\` \ 11 Z ?r ?? r y ! _ ?j jl .I 576
-i l 1 \\`/F ?¢`? -?^ J. ?^f - OJ /?'?\ Hlb\ -I \?/? •_ _ l ` ? I -
'?
(
~
?J
?
,
,
?-?-11 l,,or .
I ? . II ?,
'
"'.?''? ,1,536
/1, _-
.i
I? -..• OJ. ',?
%?+ ?
1
"
' ? ~' I L
•
V 1
J I' `\`?'p?
?_._-o ,C ?Y : :• 1?( 1\ •, ) 1 , 1 . I 1- _ l r?r?' \? •i I 1 _.. ---=u \.
?'I ' ` •?!,

n
ti stll '? r _ ,°?'.
1 11
°'
field'
J?.
4
I
r O .I ' 11.1?1e ??ff ??CON/AL ill (J III
( l l
EDGEMONT
L I
/
' •
'
/7., \ {, r
s
ove
'
'
' ..F:ast AlbemrTle
_? /ti
I I
.
•r '/ _.-c I?HA Tf?'RN. (II ?_?? I -. II \ v - ?I I •? -- - '? •
\\ 91 i _'. .. oun J\ UzllJ ?\
V,-1?U1? I `I I \ \ ` y
•
I iI 3$`
Driv
r !0 The`
•
. , . / ) I >
CJ , c ?.1 I 2 ' / ?I ??.• ..??. --?1 y
'••
Radio '?'o?er p. `
?DKlN .y STR?T
II I S,I'?i (WZKY)?_ ?? ? _v? ??•• .:. ?•

1?' ?. /

UbStB O •? II - , \ I CANNON:' ' /A?? \\ ?. -CANNON A I ? \ •-•?1\\ \I 1 (, `" ? 56$ ??
letic I' ?( Park \
Sefd ? w. i r? r ON•TG'OM RY vgJ -J? .?? ?J\ ? (?? . ?i,?_r, ? : i
{J 1 t/ r I rl / L nJt N 'ROE
T?? 111",
/, r ? I 1I . Parlaray
i r JL
PEE ` L.

I 1 ?
.
r:
•
`•1? . l ?f7 ta, /! L1 7 I? 1??. I III. .^r I •,'I (, I •'?B97
?,o(I: ,. all 1 .i?. !! ? I l!( GI I,?i "W /i 1- a?' • I,• ?? _?
0 ors: ? -r ? I :: j I _ ,• y r \? `1 ? ? / ..1 Q ?,. ? ?A yy 1 Q ! , ,?`I, +\ ? + '
'BM
/
'
I

J_--`.•'`" \ f
?` n
a Stanlyy 1 +

uGarded

y .? f. ?
m eL
y \ ,•.
o ff ? ? fti f ol\ !

.
' 'I
n ;Cem\
,. _ '°e -?•• I ?f( 'I U? i. ° %7 •' d i _? 2 pQ r?-% rl ' r\y er
cC LL!
tigY, ';?•?_ UM E I' I? 'ii w ?7 1 _ _?I
SITE 1 D65 'r:
?/ (?•\

•?.\.j • ? c• /? I .` \ 1 r?i? _ ,% ?/? ?) t,' ,??•\\F
?
\ Cospel. ? `.
Ch"• i
\\\?
? a / 'Abann d I1 ' I? ',\
\ ?? !11\ \! y? ??? \ I
; Irpo \ I n \? 111 `\? i \(',i?
y'i d s 'Po`ck Creek,
.I' Fk' J ? t ?? P•0rfti?\?,' ,? 470 ?\ \ \: \\ .I 'r \1 ' ti•„ ? ' J?'\? r ' I ` , ! I \ '\
--' i a f ' .:,1 \
?? 111 \ >1?\\ r! sBM' l',( ( ^ l^`- - ,II
546 ?,1 \ ~ I I l? I I( Ip
\ I \ 1
i
Y. • ?'iCtheg(iII /,• ?II 1?- L \ J. I- , _ `
' ?' \"7 %1!I

!r -. -- \-•/ BetheSde NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF APPRO^ "?>.?-1
_ Cem% I TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ?i
, BRANCH I 00-YEAR FL
!
1
i
f?
`\~
?
`
IP TE LSIVLLTS OF

OODPLAIN
y
-!
•.,'
r33c. NGR
. ,!? ?' \.,--'6°?'. i? j'i ^
?
`?
y,
"?? \: ?'' • •° IA / /r ?? 1' FLOODPLAIN AREAS
v,
1 -Jr • • t, ?? IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ! j \ '
I
r
l '
'!
' (?/n l` 1\.•?J %? ?..

\ ? Il

\,
\
\
J
?
Zpa
TIP PROJECT R-2530A _ \ _,Y
1/f.. t?• '• r. '_ J, - FIG.5
' \d' ill/ 1 IC ? I I /• .. \
?• I ??.
\\.
?...q- .?: ', ll.

City of Albemarle
AREA NOT INCLUDED
K?"Z' 1 h: ? I I I
0I (?--? WEST
-_?
YK::. ?I ? } D I I /
F t? x
N
STREET
_ iZ NEARNE I ? I / / o
i
? - II
cn
/ SUMMIT
s
LIMIT 0' F
/ STUDY DETAILED
0
EAST
SITE 2
500-YEAR FLOOD ?y
CONVERTED IN \S5
0
'ROCK CREEK q
SARK DRIVEWAI
F
'v

-Foot Bridge ,aPI-,- --
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
N
15 ,f7 y ? TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
FLOODPLAIN AREAS
IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
TIP PROJECT R-2530A
BETH
II / / li
I
SOUTH
ii STREET
I
I
I
II
¢
J
O
¢
I
LEGEND
100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
SITE IA
FIG.SB
0
co 0
?\ f?? ` + r` \\ ?? y/jam ?. ?`. ,?j =? _ ?l? -?.., ' z a:5
Kim,
T1 co
ix LLI
Z< Zoo) 0.
AMW
t- g iO F? W (AU
.?:
?'t • µ? ' j I- r ?? rr ,.7 .?+..?- i' k?? i O U' = W J
k I' yv? 1, :/. V --- -. ?1??/ • 7'/' ri[' w'f r! •` \ O U N p.?" W t-1-Zw
i ! \ f\ l\ ?../"? 1 (, j ?, r W rn a z U 0 Q Q
J /?, ` - ,,. vr... .. -?iC r?j•?=?' .'\ yr? o .:
61 "a `I?j'{' lW
J -lQL
`_ - ) v I r ?- !,: v?G) L
J ` : r L7 . r dr.
_ •J,' ly :.Y `r ? rl ?`?_ a) 2, ? ". l'} ,?h• i t s u fn
-r.r.
p f ` : •/ . a v?. ?anr ?`:• •7`, ?? ? t,.. , ,\ ?: , a ` a,"r ? n y?'•r? U]
F=?1j;?' "' 1' rl,•f/' , `':,^.','; r a, 1,t??- `_r-??' jt.1•k
, n (.• ? r , t ?'??'??( rriy f r 2n ' ; .1.1 t
- - - -----------
``1?J?t_i?? ?? -R•h... ? , 1. ??c ?•.-•>.-, `: r•r.?" *? ?,??`Gl?• .?N? 'i: /..l i.61{ Ttl r,•? `,/??? I ??
\
P. 1 s y\ti???.>•r:? j" .. '.?,r "' \V %? `0" ?`---L \\- /1 f'r'Ky::'ii.;f r' FI t? ?L'' ;'
>) \' M1.i Lo-
.1i j ;,: 1? -t pl't- ?rT7 r /•• , \.?-?1 \' p/•j?' r ?•( rt 't!'! s1•c _ Py -r•
1tv ?? a ti.,,,r • - rt t ; -y + s ? -? r ,?,?,,.!' ? f? \
?.'.??? ` - .xci1` •f'r..11 :! ???, ? } `n>Sy'.fr i i` ir-i4j?t? n7/ t'. f'r .?7 \' OF , ? -i _,(?{ i•?'? ?', o r . , w? r
y;'?; ? ,{.It•;C.vr 'y f ? 7 1 (7 ,I? _ {` t ? J?r,•'( ?< ? \
' - ,, ? .t„ .1^ .:,•`•?r, ?.,1. ??•Y•}..:r'? \ rs • y.4?? ? r .{?••. - r•1, •t 1
r,, t r a4 b ? O • ^tiy
4t,',r1, ,•' r'• K ? ?•u} N?Y•• ; t 1??= ? 1', 5r .:I..a t y,? * `' ?t? \ (. ? } ,
\ T•7 , ! ,' ? - F• pf ~t .{y' ?• .;'?,. • l- :. ' ' ti -V '. ? ? iJ.:,, _ .. ';i:(' 7. C :S
.i 1' i ??t /' O K , . ' : e.,, F '•'J^ jli ,
1ti LLL r? . - • 1 i _ syr.•wr. ? 'Yft '?"„'r,b. ?I: p? 7? i`• YObb' \`'1 .: ,7 •'•?a: -"t ? `
• '(P 'i l: '9><M alt P, t" ?`rf ,r.. ?y? t 7• ? r ?;;, -Y S' rl)l,'•Ki?... .y - .? O ? \ l •
.11? • r? ?+ t •<.+a,C'r ? .nz(• A •.:t?j?'?a•(•' ???.... < ,, ., try. *'' i' f: .Y? .?• _ •?' `?y?;- .
?•-•. 1:" ?,.. ti,,! { ?.14, .Z+y: ??:1 1:. -n';? ?. :'?y',?_ :{r.`i .'? ?,_",_ ?,•• y •1 ?i ``! t.Wr???.
j •rr.?.. ?.. ? ` ? r •.p).- ?, t"` y)` 1 ,? -(e s ,R+''?.?' a:• ti •l. f• '? ? .'t .. ? ?•? fn.' L? 1 r ?'?.
r '? _ •'? i1r '?< r 1 S}Ya y?TTTy?,,,fff,?• t;lt? r` tr tk:"' .4:- 4f LD•ln,-__ l.°'1n?'':i r .yiM.,.. t•
j { ? 1 ? •• f 1~ ? ?? J ` ' ( i ?(?da <? ? n. ., - C3 Y??• .j .3, 4L r?j-r_ i?':
3Z, pe,
.?',' atn tF :Yv!: y:r - ;.?TYikf.•;?• .,j•- .. r I? .S. ,..h^? 4; ? '?L. ???,t? `\
'' i ..,,,. !• tat j? r ;l?/ - `- `--?-- -,,' - ? ''' _ ???yyyy t \ `•?? \ \
! f • .r. ?' . •? K ,r ? ? j :'?Z+ 1.51 .. '?•' A ::a:, r , r ? M J' --l
I } _ _ _ .txJrsa r .t. _ ..tr iS ?'i_..?R'•' ?u_ _ _ ..\\:eI !.?2.1,f ORE i ???. 1 ? r •-
1 ?, ? t '?. ? ??c, , ?'-?, :? a v'jti\.: Y? -'• 1',, *,.. "tre ? q®?t 'f " r• T -, \ \\
.,? ? ( :! , nat: 1 ? T •ly\\ :7 r f•f . r;, • 1 - .,-1, Qd` ,r ? ? 1 / ?_-J
• t ?' R ?Y, '••k '?? r , f Sr k•i- y(15•r` ?l .(I i. .? Yrr•• y'`! •• .
,? ,_? `?j.,. N, ur ? i A m @p?.\. 't11 P ?? _ T' 4° .V ;r ?L s a •Yc ,`f 1
i {t ~ ?` E-lh? 4ri 'i, i. ?1'tip •? '"'gi'n ?• ' .• -- _ ?? • C
i , ?°??T P •• . F ' .. i y .F '? _...?; , .y "? •:r:%+.;: ? ? ''-:7z,.:'•i•itr,? ` r` ''• ,.h • w
t t('• 'v lh'l) 9 .,.. 4 .? .. t•, .?;.. 1ti1., ?r ?I C-:?:(s. ? 1t ? "
' ? 4? '? .? , .+4t.' ,qy ?y i'v-''? :? t:F••?'A - ??.:- ? v ?• y. t • ? 1 ,1.r?
' ? r0 -•'1 '' ?„ 7 L' f ,C?:,:e,f, ? 1.'Lk' ,1 ?•... , ?#, ,:• .Lyi .lJl ?•C", - +A ./
+ +at. " ? s ? - ? !', Fr` n , .a ly'. .:u.: f;? ?'r ° 7v' ?• _ ?1y J ,? ?, ?•-
f jC' ? r. 1'• .rt' 1? ('?;ll ??? ...rrn. ? 1 r°w .?' ? 4.c' '?1?? '(?. \ ?
i t. f p L, 1 kS y Lr: ' y ?y7 t r? f , 1i:7 tl ,?jy t p '6' . rO
Sw.. (' r• ^ ? , zrr' .r(--:,e. K,.• u `?u,r • ; t ???. r • per. ` # 0 t?{?"{,"x??",k <{c:?:{? `+:: ?•'l r` •? ..' QN. ? ?'? ? i'r!?'rh?93?? 4^.4 ?.•'') 1d4;•:,a, :Y•r ?? ,fd?• / ? ; 6 , 3? ?
,. _ icy ?,. , ? .. ,. •. ", ?:
e.1n. 4 :i .?lY• , `? .,?a ? ,/•y:\?ri art a f' r .r. • ki' ,: I .4 '.• .1 ?i
-?I ,f' ? , , ti •„, a` o• sl? 1 :-PY i. 9'`'j `?- 1''., r' • ? :jL '•
,,? ! yr Milli .(:
} J'rM , ' ?', ?1??. i j • ' 7(P `fT ,r[ ki< f, • ',N } ,r,e ;{ ryf 1?1fM? 1A ., ?* Oj? [ oN; _ - (,?? » • L
i li l ( . ?• ?J CY ? <.z•'•f' _:: i''? r"< r•- ?f'?"'?'?°.s? '?' EL4R?q"B , ?' ku: of <°q-, • .1 z--•-?
77-1
lab
.1, i ;(-y???? •- \.1?„ q.- ?_j--_? ? - - - ---- o .F, e? :F , .' ? :a • 'Eli it ?S' ?' '/f ?-•
ac Y;V t ,?!is?f '. 7. ?+('`,t'.'•' ° ?'?^ ?':1' •r ? ? - ? ^ y'' •1 ` 1 ltir '•f --?_
?iy ! 1Y o K?;rrf. i , ( f .s '1 +? •' f 1 • r 1: .A; ..,
I" :. Q' r , -_~ -? ?? t•!} .}gi,? ? ',;. ?;>l ? • ',.y? =r. !r ,,' •r' ,}, 1,1y ?i <'jt.?: R _
k:. ,, •k i ,4i• ' .? It '' tuD V Vj' 1 ^trY `??. ? -.f.. Fd.?.ty: ? p?$ '?t i?y., i. !n ?r ••. jr il? ?'( ,r
-? .: ^:a !'i•. y "F'4 ' •tU o M .- -? '• j M.. • tt, ?l nY . .yl i. f."t 1 , ,1' 1.. r, 1
.} w f . 1 •.? t ;{ _? ` < n ??? Z '. ((?.. ru11v{ . ' t -1 f r-u: r
.? C!'tr* it rf , ,. .??• 1. - •i .•?. rah ?• : i' s'd yl.' :j.t. ,} ;t(,t., ? ?, ? •• Jj>:I•t(4 •r??}{??'dd t• .'?' i :'i•;i \
.r ¢? ?.q7 ..y"'?S'".( w , ',_ 1Vt'' . tGe t:. -.J,S?`t-;'•'\''- r? 7 `'`4Y' - c ,?i
,_.. • J. Y.S _ •' - tsr- .'.. r.,Y t r..? _ ..,=A'ift,'?{ ??-•• ? '? Ir" °?a 7
Ir%`f?• isk,;Y7C+`. '`•`'(?a .. 1`'- - -- ?,.;? ?. P. •? 4Y • ,- ?Q?:?••?r' ? w. <{•• ,4!?n ,,t,. ?. - .k.? _,Y ,
.f L,r ; ;` I, .i{ 1• '?!?' A ? f? `?•5 :a aj?J: ) 'J?? -,• ,ybi?? ` , } t^ ?;,Z?,.
(it
?•^} ' "? yY, :,n'ir ?•d ; ,,/;.kr ?'-' r.' ? 7:. :L'1?^ ??,.? ?, t h r. -, • • r'(Str P cif.. t. ,
' / •1 ?? : ?? y, Vii. •? '?Y•• , r. i•i I'r. art- ) R;. ? •?. ~'?7?}''!?v'` ..1?.rt•r.• •?' y ? w ?a!%Y.ff 1, f •v ? ?a C'•A, r
'? s`"' ? a - ,.,,. : ? `• ? ty?4• , ?'? X 1'k'4 ??,,. ?? .?- .?';: 4. - ? f ,3ti7? ?r?.:}•{ .? 'yam, ?`(, 1•?' 'r ? '?iF, r" ¢' •, 'a y:,F,7t
, ? r: .+w'• r. .. ,.,,r•ay 9:.• Y' '?''?- ? rkS({??r'!•w1? ,,,u?„'Ci ??. J r ?? ",?o., • • v7
,y: ?rA'-• ?.': ? , cfN•• .?:yS• ?-.Nl.>'' ,•(•'? i6 _ 1 ?;. ,t` ?J ?'f Tr :?;r? ? ? ??! `' 0
t ''r, ?.a,,K+ra- , 3' •:W •' !' ` tit '.?:i.- :f>`'•Yg :3b?, + ? ? ? +? ? 0 -?• `
r; ?-? . . •!. , ":, t ,? ? . ` y,<an . ".S? • • >t ,: icYec L' -(, ,r? ?l e I \ _ ?? ? o? o rt +'ny.
?I ? ' r .a { r t€? 1. ti? `? ; ?,?(: `? .' `s Z O ? ? \ t ? ?. y r '' \ ®• • ka7. /oo ? - 2;..
z •, ..!! r ?? tL,ct (?• S ?'}. t tr r ? ?' . ?• ?' • ? 1 r? l• 1.1%!
,` ?' 'y • :t- 1\1Q('}1'f s''SC .'i;: ,` _e ?:li ? < hR? . [,.- ?'?. '?,;, t ,f- [ . J _.,1,:,.. N •;.-
' `,5., ''l.?" t `'• w . •- L:1 SN. 3s? 3• ?. y • '. '1i ty', ?"(_. ?! f?'• ? ? rw+, ::;1y,s?/
? , .:: • _r. '?` 1 :4:7 , , W ? ?` "?'; •' ., , .' Fall ? 1 b
:.:='1-?'%.?lax?" .mar ='(•. •`??('Je' i/?/?'yy Fw /1 \, .'-1i7 `? y':??r? ,.`•_ + ?. y.
r a x
EXISTING TRAFFIC PATTERNS
IN(
FUTURE TRAFFIC PATTERNS
(TIP PROJECT R-2320)
US 52/NC 73
NC 24-27
NC 138
NOT TO SCALE
US 52
SR 1645
1)
T
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
s PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
FUTURE REVISION OF US 52 UNDER
TIP PROJECT R-2320
FIG. 7
APPENDIX

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 18, 1995
MEMORANDUM
?EI V\c
Q "J.3 1995
Z :SiC',! GF
Divis` d&`is? ''
WTO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 24-27 from SR 1249 to NC 740,
Stanly County, R-2530A, Federal Aid Project No.
STP-24(2), State Project No. 8.T680301, CH 95-E-
4220-0296
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
Donna Dodenhoff conducted a comprehensive survey of historic architectural
resources in Stanly County in 1990. We have conducted a search of our maps
and files and have located the following structures of historical or architectural
importance within the general area of the project:
Former Catholic Church (ST 547)
We recommend that an architectural historian with the North Carolina Department
of Transportation evaluate this property for National Register eligibility. No further
historic structures survey is necessary.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-1
?Y wSU7Fo?
3Y ° r +•
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, secretary
June 21, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for NC 24-27
from east of SR 1963 to east of SR 1783,
Albemarle, Stanly County, R-2530A, Federal Aid
Project STP-24(2), State Project 8.T680301, ER
95-9081
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
E
JUN 2 6 1995
Z Dts
Thank you for your letter of May 10, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Scott Owen concerning the above project.
We concur that the following property is not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places:
Former Catholic Church (ST 547). This property was moved from its original
location in 1970, and lacks sufficient architectural significance to overcome
the effects of the move.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
aVid 14
Brook

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
A-2
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 15, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook 4rt-4 la
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: NC 24-27 from SR 1249 (Canton Road) to
NC 740, R-2530A, Stanly County, 95-E-
4220-0296
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
C
F
,, p O
r vLrP
9 1996
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
T. Padgett
ODI
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 qP
A-3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
OM% 000% Oft
November 30, 1994
?Q?VM
TO: Melia McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swiharte,Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0296; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 24-27, TIP No. R-2530A
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A-4
Melba McGee
November 30, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow.locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDO-t utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: .
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10776er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
A-5
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 07'94 . 7:59 No.001 P.06
No CarOhna i?? ces GOIrimission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 6, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for NC 24-27, from SR 1249
(canton Road) to NC 740 in Albemarle, Stanly
County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-2530A, SCH
Project No. 95-0296.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen existing NC 24-27 from SR 1249
to NC 740 in Albemarle. Two alternatives are being
considered; a five lane curb and gutter section throughout
or a four lane shoulder section with a raised median from
the western terminus to the US 52 interchange with a five
lane curb and gutter section along the remaining portion of
the project.
At this time the NCWRC has no specific recommendations
or concerns regarding the subject project. However, to help
facilitate document preparation and the review process, our
general informational needs are outlined below:
A-6
NCWRC,HCP,FRLLS LRKE TEL:[phone] Dec 07'94 7:59 N0.001 F.07
Memo Page 2 December 6, 1994
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered; or special concern species. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project construction
should be included in the inventories. A listing
-of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[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. The need for channelizing or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages 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 (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
A-7
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone]
Memo
Page 3
Dec 07'94 8:00 NO.001 P.08
December 6, 1994
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
S. 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 for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please contact David Cox, Highway
Project Coordinator, at [phone].
CC: Wayne Chapman, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Ken Knight, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
r
A
A-8
/
%
r j' 'jl.i_) ?' ?.)i I.\tVI.I.?C?!??i??11.1?111 :`. I.. I.1!.,•\i :'?•i
• ?•.t)tIr1L•V -
facer-A".eney P1.Oject Review .ii:esponse
l
i

:?- Nan.: Ilse ?`• Typc of Project
-ti The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for ail water system
ilnprovCMCLics must be approved by the Division of Ervironmerical Health prior co:che-award
ee•. seq.).
Of a contract or the iniCt:.C1o11 Of Ct_11SCr1UCCiO11 (as requi-ed by 15A NTCAC 18C .0300
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Se:rkon, [phone].
-? This•project will be. classified as a non-community public water supply and ITIUSt comply with
J slate and federal drinl:irlg v?acer monitoring regllirenle::ts. For nlorc .nformation the applicant
should contacL the Public Wacer Supply Section, (919•! 733-232-1.
-? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will. recommend closure of ieec•of adjacent
J eaters to the harrest of shellfish. For inforr_laton rzgarding the shellfish sanitation progra . s
m, the appliea.nc should contact the Shellfish S,ni:ac:Dn Branch ac [phone].
The spoil-disposal area( s) proposed for this Project: -n-v. Produce a mosquito breeding•problea:.
J t or information concerning appropriate mosquito •:oncrol measures, the applicant •shouic`.
contact the Public Health Pest Maragemenc. Section t (919) 726=8970.
--, The appllicanc should be advised Lhac prior co :he emoval or demoiition of di.lapidatec.
-? structures, an ex-ceilsive rodem coi?Lroi progra^ i7:'•' be necessar," In order co-p!'eveP_t tide
r ?
i'1ZloratlOrl o the rodent's Lc adlaCerl The :OrillailOil . CU:.1GC°ralilg roden i concro'_,
Contact the local healc h deparx.ment or ch: Pubiic H:.alcll Pest M.aaa-en:en_ Sectiori::,c (919),
733-64-07.
?-tie ap?llieant should be advised co contact the !-,cal heaich dep_rL,. ere re„ aru!ng me':
r;:quirerri-c. r.-_ ?117r,- n? (a_c nr,..lrp; Llnrier . : f+. 1 Grl eL Se^- \
.. -----r .-- - - . r. - .. I . A?.. i
For information c-:)nC-rn,n,, -:pcir lank 3n;! Ot~°r C1f S!I P R??.SCe C?iS^^511 n?rt-[!r?dS, CO!lt'?CL tilt
On-SizC
--? The applicant should 4)r. advlsed CO tor,rat.:L the loC:,i lealtil deh.rtnlen? re;a;dirb cite sanlla:
Mc -S required Cell ;his prole(:,
'f exl..t!ng water li.. X1111 i)r tclc)?::;.:: cll:::n, d C:011sLrucr.li,1
/ reIOC:1L1Or1 i-1USL be SU: t111I:LCCI CO L'11;: ??:\"5101: ?, iIl' 1!'?).^.111Cr1C11 i-'r? !CI1, l'?:17itC ?^f:Cer ?tltlt"
11CCL•1011, 'I111 1\t'vIC?'/ 5f11-1d), f.,.)0 SC M11? i CC

vieaicr
- Dace
SGCC16t1/Branch
..
??r: '''ham-?3'?
.a.'"?•?,:..:w4;?: ,
_ -
.

• - A-9

sate (at IAPIri v.rvr•-.
aPartmfit of Environmitt. ft"U, and Natwsl Rssowteas
Mi7Ev?30YLRNMENTAL *MEW - PROJECT COMMEM
,estions wpafding these pertTilts would in oddross.o to tnw -V-- ?..-- - ° -- -- -
to these puns and pomats ale available ffofn the aafnd
Wi
ti
i
N
ve
nes m
de
a00lieations. hifofmation and Etf ame: Proem
pionaf Wits. Tan

t#EItM>T!i SPEC" APIDUCATI IN PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS fistatutary lino
limit)
rww f• Whutwo a overate wastewater tteesmamt AOpiICalfort ED days before begin oenstrtretferl or a.srd of 30 te"s
t
ciutfas, ewer "stein extensions, a sewer Can ltrbction contracts among Wapselmn• is",oppfirstion
IN sorrel
etaln fm diaorta?eing into state Surface zoom. MrJtrtieal CSRleremce rsafrN
0"S . ptewmlt to drschar" twee surface water wmror Application IN days afore MOM acidity. among Irtaomen.
oelerena usual Additiortaily. obtain permit to
n
ti
i a0 t2D aye '
aim" to overate and construct wastewater memo$ o
c
ca
?ie•aoa
Construct wastewater INatnlent twiliq-granted allow "pHs bpy 4WtA1
ecuarerne into state surface waters. "Its. 39 aye after receipt of 04" or as" of upon

later.
permit.wlticho w is
39 ears
-Mar Use Hermit pw'soptication MChwo f conforencit usually ancemmy OVA)
7 says
tell COnatryetren PeMrllt prior to the°mato'fitr«r o`t wall.Willi (.fit wawa rs days)
Application Copy must be Salved an each adgicent no~ property as so"
On•slte impaction. pre4mioicalron conference usual. Fd"
owner
trades site Pali Plimel .
may feourre Easoment to fill from N.C. oeoar"h"t Ot Mom)
,aAmmistratwn and federal Died" and Fin loll"".
60 ars
,emit to construct i operate Au Pollution Abstewwnt MIA 00 ars)
sctlrtles wwoor Emission Sowees as per ISA NCAC 2111
my *pan bwming associated wmh subfect pCpOW
Must be on etorripirana with ISA NCAC 209520.
ternoinwn.or reno.auons of structures cenu""rng 90 "0
istfesIM material Must be in COMO- a wmh SSA

iiCAC 20 0525 which feeuafes ftotrttcattOn and refh0 al ?uA
plot to de'rtollion Contact Asbestos Control Grew IN days)
fie 7334820

:ompiea "wra Par ll re0wred linger SSA NCAC 20M).
rho SeOrmenlatton Poilt'tron Control Act of 1973 trust a properly aggressed for any long dttturbrng actnrlly An erosion It eedr'rNntita0
roed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (LAno Ousirly Stied.) at isssi 30
t
c
30000
u
res to to dis
tontrol plan will be reowred it one a more a
=s-s oefore ire ,nntn De?rrrrt A lee of 23C lot the first acre long 62000 for each &SO-11ona, sere or en must accompany Ina lam 130 as•
The Self,mentation Pollution Control Act 01 1273 want be addressed with respect 10 the referenced Local Ores nwtce: t30 Says)
on-site inspection momw Svlety bond bled with ENNA. song amount

wanes wtlh type mine end Rumba? of acres at affected land Any Well 310 days
Yanrte
Permit thing greater than one sere Must be Vomited The .approonate Sans 00 days)
must be recai.M before the vomit can be Issued
North CifolaRa at?m.Re oenrnrt on.site Inspection by N.C. Orriaw Forest Resources It Pitiful t day
VUA)
aaa saes , f?

saecaai aroMtg Cfsarance wryw* 14rmM -23 an-ens inspection by N.O. Division Forest Assoufces fewjww '* more

t Per
dwAl
in coastal N.C. with orwWa sea Md.
an live acres of around Clearing aetitStKS are 4reef.ed. Mapec
Wien
should be'equesteo at legal ten days before actual buns is pfarrta
a0•t20 day.
• ftttr? dwN
pu ReftrtYte Plion"n
K permit 1"llirw. aptlfir.ation OC ears before begin tIDnatfuemL 30 dot"
Avoliunt must tote N.C. Qualified engineer to. pope's Plwfa.
inspect Construction. comity Cmiltruclron N wwrilling fa it"Wit aooroor• 40 eels)
Dam Lately PerfaM ad plane May also reouate Permit under mosoutle, control program. A"
a AW Permit from Corps of Engineers An Inspection Of site is fosuM
airy to Verify Matarp Classification. A minimum fee Of 3200.00 f%W Pe•
company the oplacatiort. An additional p?ocessinO fee based On a

rrrpNtrC't
Percent Or the total pr t cost will bit reourred we.-
ft m
A-10
Contantae l Iewtea
or Atrierr of this "9CI n fin SM ?h o Cal?llna W Vot EI,1NR PSTMI1N(si afWW appfulfols Indicsuld "W ?teed to a obtained in
of for•t1US ?rotet:t to wMp y with Low. rsffa.. r..wl"t.al an the fwVento of go tam.
State of North Carolina I 1994
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural ources
Division of Land Resources sy_
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT PJ VIEW CON31E=S Charles H. Gardner
• Wiutam W. Cobey, Jr„ Secretary Director
Project Number: 15-- 62, 6 County: 5%9,?G y
Project Name: O Z,'6
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box* 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer
Erosion and Sedimentation-control
• No comment
l?-f V- s ?i
Date
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
• North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Ralelgh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Te!ephone [phone]
An Equal Opponunlry Affirmadv< A-1 1 Ernployer

AIRMAN.CAROLYNCARPENTER CENTRALINA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
E CHAIRMAN: CLAYTON LOFLIN
CRETARY HOYLE MARTIN
EASURER: ROBERT RANDALL
F POST OFFICE BOX 35008 ONE CHARLOTTETOWN CENTER
CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28235 1300 BAXTER STREET
704!372-2416 FAX [phone]
• -
TO: Stanly County Manager 4ta67891Albemarle City Manager, ,y3 ?'
NC Intergovernmental Review Process
Review and Comment Form N Received
This office has received the attached information about a proposal
your jurisdiction.
If you need more information, contact the applicant directly. If you need an extension
of time for review, contact Hilda Threatt immediately.
If you wish to comment on this proposal action, complete this form with comments and
return to this office by Januarv 11. 1995
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no comments
regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier Number 95-0296
Commenter's Name Raymond I. Allen Title City Manager
Representing City of Albemarle
(Jurisdiction)
Address P.O. Box 190
Albemarle, North Carolina 28002-0190
Phone [phone]
Date
November 23, 1994

CABARRUS COUNTY concord harnsburg kannapolis mount pleasant GASTON COUNTY befmont bessemer city cherryvdle cramerton Callas
gastoma high shoals lowell mcadenville mount holly ranlo spencer mountain stanley IREDELL COUNTY harmony mooresville statesville
troutman LINCOLN COUNTY lmcolnton MECKLENBURG COUNTY charlotte Cornelius davidson huntersvdle matthews mint hill pinevdle
ROWAN COUNTY china grove Cleveland faith granite quarry IanCis rockwell saltsbury spencer STANLY COUNTY albemarle badin
locust new london norwood oakboro rtchfield stanfield UNION COUNTY indtan trail marshville monroe stallings wingate
A-12
City of Albemarle
North Carolina
Office of
City Manager
[phone]
November 23, 1994
Mailing Address
P. O. BOX 190
Albemarle. N. C.
28002-0190

Ms. Hilda Threatt
Centralina Council of Governments
Post Office Box 35008
Charlotte, North Carolina 28235
Re: Intergovernmental Review Process - State I.D. #95-0296
(Widening of N.C. 24-27)
Dear Ms. Threatt:
This is in response to the request for comments from the City of Albemarle
regarding the above-styled project. The Albemarle City Council reviewed
this request at its November 21 meeting.
The City Council voted unanimously to endorse the proposed widening of
N.C. 24-27, and expressed the opinion that this is acritical transpor-
tation need for the City. The City is unaware of any specific environmental
impacts that should be considered in design and construction of the project.
The City Council also voted to endorse the alternative of a five lane curb
and gutter section for the length of this project. It is the City's
opinion that this design will best serve the City's needs now and in the
future.
If you need any additional information or clarification, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
f? ?U?
Raymond I. Allen
City Manager
RIA:pwt

cc: James R. Jensen, City Engineer
Benton Payne, 10th Division Engineer
A-13
tN' NT pry
F
o?~ Zm
? I S
EACH S 18
United States Department of the Interi
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726
January 5, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
'JAN 0 0 1995
DIVISION OF Q?
HIGHWAYS 0Q
?RONMlE?A?
This is in response to your October, 28, 1994 letter requesting U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) comments on the proposed widening of NC 24-27 from SR
1249 to NC 740 in Albemarle, Stanly County, North Carolina. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
To assist you in your preparation of the biological assessment, this office
maintains a list of Federally-listed species by county within North Carolina.
Habitat requirements for the Federally-listed species in the project area should
be compared with the available habitat at the project site. If appropriate
habitat is present, surveys for the species should be performed, and survey
methodologies and results should be forwarded to this office for review and
comment.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and candidate
(C) species that are known to occur in Stanly County. Candidate species refers
to any species being considered by the Service for listing as endangered or
threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed rule. These species are not
legally protected under the Act or subject to its provisions, including Section
7, until formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. Although
oandidate species have no legal status and are accorded no protection under the
Act, their inclusion will alert you of potential proposals or listing.
Therefore, it would be prudent for you to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate
species or their habitat.
The Federally-listed endangered Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
is known to occur in Stanly County along NC 24-27. This sunflower frequently
occurs in road rights-of-way, in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to
dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams that often have a high gravel
content. This species is known to occur in areas with full sunlight or light
shade, and is dependent on periodic disturbances to reduce the shade and
competition of woody plants, such as maintained road rights-of-way. If
appropriate habitat for the Schweinitz' sunflower is available in the project
area, we recommend that surveys be conducted. If surveys indicate that
Schweinitz' sunflower are located within the project area, the project has the
potential to adversely affect this plant species, and you should contact our
office for further information before proceeding.
The Service's review and comment on any biological assessment could be expedited
if it contained the following information:
A-14
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of
the associated habitat that may be affected by the action;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
• a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed
action and are later in time but are still reasonably certain
to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of
Federal, State, and private activities in the project and
cumulative effects area;
C. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger
action and depend on the larger action for their
justification;
d. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent
utility apart from the action under consideration;
e. Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered
as part of future Section 7 consultation);
5. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any
listed species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
6. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential
effects;
7. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria;
Additionally, if any of the proposed work may impact wetland habitats, we
recommend that you consult the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the need
for Department of the Army permits to perform work in wetlands for which they may
have regulatory responsibility. The Corps' contact person in this regard is Mr.
Robert Johnson, Room 75, Grove Arcade Building, 37 Battery Park Avenue,
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-2714
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments early in the planing
process. If we may be of further assistance, please contact biologist Kate
Looney at 856-4520 (ext. 16).
Sincerely,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
A-15
REVISED NOVEMBER 30, 1994
Stanly County
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - E
Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - E
"I .
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate"(Cl and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. we
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - C2
Georgia aster (Aster georaianus) - C2
Butternut (Juolans cinerea) - C2
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) - C2*
no common name (Verbena riparia) - C2
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.

it
A-16
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY

140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m 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 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
• Conversation" by J. B. Olishlfski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tam Heinz.)
A-17
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Lsq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CPR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
F
s
A-18
TABLE N3.1 1/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project M S.T660301, TIP i R-2530A
Alternative 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
• NRAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEV EL.
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL N AME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- M AXIMUM INCREASE

Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road)
1 Business C NC24-27 43.0 L 59 NC24-27 43.0 L - - 65 + 6
2 Business C " 81.0 L 53 '• 87.0 L --------------------N/A---------- ---
3 Church E •' 71.0 R 55/<40 " 67.0 R - - 61/<40 + 6/0
4 Residence B •' 92.0 R 52 " 85.4 R - - 58 + 6
5 Residence B " 36.0 R 61 " 29.4 R - - ' 68 + 7
6 Residence B " 94.0 R 52 " 87.4 R - - 58 + 6
7 Residence B " 44.0 R 59 " 37.4 R - - ' 66 + 7
8 Residence B " 58.0 R 57 " 51.4 R - - 63 + 6
9 Residence B " 83.0 R 53 " 76.4 R - - 59 + 6
9A Residence B " 102.0 R 51 '• 95.4 R - - 57 + 6
10 Residence B " 110.0 L 50 " 116.6 L - - 54 + 4
11 Residence B 53.0 L 57 " 59.6 L - - 62 + 5
12 Residence B " 33.0 L 61 " 39.6 L - - * 66 + 5
13 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 " 46.6 L - - 64 + 4
14 Residence B " 82.0 L 53 " 88.6 L - - 58 + 5
15 Residence B •' 43.0 L 59 '• 49.6 L - - 63 + 4
16 Church E " 27.0 L 63/<40 " 33.6 L - - 67/42 + 4/2
16A Residence B " 37.0 L 60 •' 43.6 L - - 65 + 5
17 Residence B " 74.0 L 54 " 80.6 L - - 59 + 5
18 Residence B '• 63.0 L 56 " 69.6 L - - 60 + 4
19 Residence B 57.0 L 57 •' 63.6 L - - 61 + 4
20 Residence B " 58.0 L 57 " 64.6 L - - 61 + 4
21 Residence B " 58.0 L 57 " 64.6 L - - 61 + 4
22 Residence B 48.0 L 58 " 54.6 L - - 63 + 5
23 Residence B " 35.0 L 61 " 41.6 L - - 65 + 4
24 Residence B " 106.0 L 50 " 112.6 L - - 55 + 5
25 Residence B 99.0 L 51 " 105.6 L - - 56 + 5
26 Residence B •• 95.0 L 51 " 101.6 L - - 56 + 5
27 Residence B " 94.0 L 52 " 100.6 L - - 56 + 4
28 Residence B " 85.0 L 53 " 91.6 L - - 57 + 4
29 Residence B " 83.0 L 53 " 89.6 L - - 57 + 4
30 Residence B " 77.0 L 54 " 63.6 L - - 58 + 4
= 30A Residence B " 69.0 L 55 " 75.6 L - - 59 + 4
30B Residence B '• 87.0 R 52 " 80.4 R - - 59 + 7
31 Apts. (4) B " 104.0 R 50 " 97.4 R - - 56 + 6
NOTE : Distances are from center of the exi sting or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level con tribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior ( 58/48). • _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR P art 772).
A-19
TABLE N3.1 2/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project N 8.T680301, TIP i R-2530A
Alternative 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION REAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road) Cont'd
32 Apts. (4) B NC24-27 60.0 R 56 NC24-27 53.4 R - - 63 + 7
33 Apts. (4) S •' 61.0 R 56 " 54.4 R - - 63 + 7
34 Business C '• 50.0 R 58 •' 43.4 R - - 65 + 7
35 Business C 53.0 R 57 " 53.0 R - - 63 + 6
36 Business C " 39.0 L 60 " 43.0 L - - 65 + 5
36A Business C " 45.0 L 59 " 52.0 L - - 63 + 4
37 Residence B " 75.0 L 54 " 82.0 L - - 58 + 4
38 Residence B " 88.0 L 52 •' 95.0 L - - 57 + 5
39 Residence B " 105.0 L 50 " 110.0 L - - 55 + 5
40 Residence B '• 130.0 L 48 to 136.0 L - - 53 + 5
SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138
41 Business C NC24-27 38.0 R 60 NC24-27 36.0 R --------------------N/A---------- ---
42 Business C of 56.0 L 57 to 62.6 L - - 61 + 4
43 Residence B '• 37.0 L 60 " 43.6 L - - 65 + 5
44 Residence B '• 86.0 L 53 •• 92.6 L - - 57 + 4
45 Residence B '• 89.0 L 52 •• 95.6 L - - 57 + 5
46 Residence B '• 91.0 L 52 " 97.6 L - - 56 + 4
47 Residence B •• 40.0 L 60 " 46.6 L - - 64 + 4
48 Residence B •• 40.0 L 60 " 46.6 L - - 64 + 4
49 Residence B '• 92.0 L 52 " 98.6 L - - 56 + 4
50 Residence B •' 90.0 L 52 to 96.6 L - - 57 + 5
51 Residence B •• 40.0 L 60 to 46.6 L - - 64 + 4
52 Residence B •• 92.0 L 52 to 98.6 L - - 56 + 4
53 Residence B " 95.0 L 51 " 101.6 L - - 56 + 5
54 Residence B '• 95.0 L 51 •' 101.6 L - - 56 + 5
55 Residence B 94.0 L 52 •• 100.6 L - - 56 + 4
56 Residence B to 86.0 L 52 of 94.6 L - - 57 + 5
57 Residence B to 39.0 L 60 " 45.6 L - - 64 + 4
58 Residence B of 82.0 L 53 to 88.6 L - - 58 + 5
59 Residence B " 75.0 L 54 " 81.6 L - - 58 + 4
60 Residence B " 30.0 L 62 " 36.6 L - - * 66 + 4
61 Residence B •• 25.0 L 63 " 31.6 t - - " 68 + 5
62 Residence B '• 46.0 R 59 to 39.4 R - - * 66 + 7
63 Residence B to 46.0 R 59 '• 39.4 R - - " 66 + 7
NOTE : Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribut ion.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/i nterior ( 58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CPR Part 77 2).

a
A-20
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY
TABLE N3.1 3/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project M 8.T680301, TIP / R-2530A
Alternative 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
N kREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138 (Cont'd)
L;
64 Residence B NC24-27 76.0 L 54 NC24-27 69.4 L - - 60 + 6
65 Residence B '• 82.0 L 53 •• 75.4 L - - 59 + 6
66 Residence B " 76.0 L 54 " 69.4 L - - 60 + 6
67 Residence B " 37.0 L 60 " 30.4 L - - * 68 + 8
68 Residence B " 73.0 L 54 " 66.4 L - - 61 + 7
69 Residence B " 38.0 L 60 " 31.4 L - - * 68 + 8
70 Residence B " 79.0 L 53 " 72.4 L - - 60 + 7
71 Residence B " 26.0 L 63 " 32.6 L - - * 67 + 4
72 Residence B •' 27.0 L 63 " 33.6 L - - * 67 + 4
73 Residence B " 91.0 L 52 " 97.6 L - - 56 + 4
73A Business C •' 18.0 L 66 " 24.6 L - - 70 + 4
74 Business C " 50.0 R 58 " 43.4 R - - 65 + 7
75 Business C " 47.0 R 58 " 40.4 R - - 65 + 7
76 Business C " 92.0 R 52 " 85.4 R - - 58 + 6
77 Business C •' 17.0 R 66 " 23.6 R - - 70 + 4
NC 138 to US 52
78 Business C NC24-27 55.0 R 60 NC24-27 48.4 R - - 68 + 8
79 Residence B " 95.0 R 54 " 88.4 R - - 61 + 7
80 Residence B 80.0 R 56 73.4 R - - 64 + 8
81 Residence B " 61.0 R 59 " 54.4 R - - * 66 + 7
82 Residence B 41.0 R 62 " 34.4 R - - * 71 + 9
83 Residence B " 63.0 R 59 " 56.4 R - - * 66 + 7
84 Business C " 47.0 R 61 •' 40.4 R - - 69 + 8
85 Church E " 143.0 R 50/<40 " 136.4 R - - 56/<40 + 6/0
86 Business C 48.0 L 61 •' 54.6 L - - 66 + 5
87 Business C '• 83.0 L 56 " 89.6 L - - 61 + 5
US 52 to 600 Meters East of US 52
88 Church E NC24-27 90.0 R 55/<40 NC24-27 83.4 R - - 60/<40 + 5/0
89 Residence B " 156.0 R 48 '• 149.4 R - - 53 + 5
90 Residence B " 147.0 R 49 " 140.4 R - - 54 + 5
91 Residence B " 142.0 R 50 " 135.4 R - - 54 + 4
92 Residence B 138.0 R 50 " 131.4 R - - 55 + 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-21
RECEPTOR INPORMATION
ID A LAND USE CATEGORY
TABLE N3.1 4/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE MCPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project 9 8.T680301, TIP Y R-2530A
Alternative 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
US 52 to 600 Meters East of US 52 (Cont•d)
93 Business C NC24-27 155.0 L 49 NC24-27 161.6 L - - 52 + 3
94 Residence B •' 133.0 L 51 " 139.6 L - - 54 + 3
95 Apartments B •• 128.0 L 51 134.6 L - - 54 + 3
96 Apartments B to 127.0 L 51 •' 133.6 L - - 54 + 3
97 Residence B •• 148.0 L 49 " 154.6 L - - 52 + 3
98 Residence B •• 156.0 L 48 to 162.6 L - - 52 + 4
99 Business C to 40.0 L 63 " 46.6 L --------------------N/A---------- ---
600 Meters East of US 52 to End of Project
100 Business C NC24-27 63.0 R 59 NC24-27 57.6 R - - 63 + 4
100A Park B " 75.0 R 57 '• 69.6 R - - 62 + 5
101 Residence B •• 54.0 L 60 59.4 L - - 63 + 3
102 Residence B •• 40.0 L 63 to 45.4 L - - * 66 + 3
103 Residence B " 116.0 L 52 to 121.4 L - - 55 + 3
104 Residence B " 97.0 L 54 •' 102.4 L - - 57 + 3
105 Residence B •' 87.0 L 55 to 92.4 L - - 58 + 3
106 Residence B " 42.0 L 62 to 47.4 L - - 65 + 3
107 Residence B 86.0 L 55 " 91.4 L - - 59 + 4
108 Residence B to 50.0 L 61 '• 55.4 L - - 64 + 3
109 Residence B 55.0 L 60 " 60.4 L - - 63 + 3
110 Residence B to 58.0 L 60 '• 63.4 L - - 63 + 3
111 Residence B •' 71.0 L 57 '• 76.4 L - - 61 + 4
112 Residence B •• 40.0 L 63 to 45.4 L - - * 66 + 3
113 Residence B to 81.0 L 56 to 86.4 L - - 59 + 3
114 Residence B •' 41.0 L 62 to 46.4 L - - 65 + 3
115 Residence B to 72.0 L 57 to 77.4 L - - 60 + 3
116 Residence B to 97.0 L 54 " 102.4 L - - 57 + 3
117 Residence B " 86.0 L 55 " 91.4 L - - 59 + 4
122 Business C 52.0 R 60 •' 46.6 R - - 65 + 5
123 Business C '• 47.0 R 61 •' 41.6 R - - 67 + 6
124 Business C " 54.0 L 60 " 59.4 L - - 63 + 3
129 Business C •' 19.0 L 68 '• 24.4 L - - " 71 + 3
132 Business C •' 94.0 R 54 " 88.6 R - - '59 + 5
134 Business C •• 99.0 R 54 " 93.6 R --------------------N/A-------------
NOTE : Distances are from center of the exi sting or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noi se level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise l evels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Tra ffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
P
Ll

A-22
TABLE N3.1 5/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly Co=ty, Project M 8.T680301, TIP R R-2530A
• Alternative 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
tea
.
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LE VEL
ID i LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- M AXIMUM INCREASE

600 Meters East of US 52 to End of Project (Cont'd)
135 Business C NC24-27 53.0 R 60 NC24-27 53.0 R - - 64 + 4
136 Business C " 27.0 L 66 " 32.4 L - - 69 + 3
137 Residence B " 117.0 L 52 " 117.0 L - - 56 + 4
138 Apartments B " 93.0 L 55 93.0 L - - 58 + 3
139 Apartments B " 94.0 L 54 " 94.0 L - - 58 + 4
139A Business C " 31.0 L 65 31.0 L - - 69 + 4
140 Business C to 43.0 R 62 " 43.0 R - - 66 + 4
141 Business C " 34.0 R 64 to 34.0 R - - 68 + 4
142 Business C " 54.0 L 60 " 54.0 L - - 64 + 4
143 Business C " 50.0 L 61 " 50.0 L - - 65 + 4
144 Business C 33.0 L 64 " 33.0 L - - 68 + 4
145 Business C " 45.0 R 62 to 45.0 R - - 66 + 4
146 Business C " 48.0 R 61 " 48.0 R - - 65 + 4
147 Business. C to 48.0 R 61 " 48.0 R - - 65 + 4
148 Business C to 33.0 L 64 " 33.0 L - - 68 + 4
149 Business C " 30.0 L 65 " 30.0 L - - 69 + 4
150 Business C " 65.0 L 58 to 65.0 L - - 62 + 4
151 Business C " 77.0 R 57 " 77.0 R - - 61 + 4
At
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). " _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-23
TABLE N3.2
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project / 8.T680301, TIP A R-2530A
Alternative 2
„f AMBIENT NEAREST
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road)
1/5
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
1 Business C NC24-27 43.0 L 59 NC24-27 43.0 L - - 65 + 6
2 Business C •• 81.0 L 53 " 86.0 L --------------------N/A----- --------
3 Church E 71.0 R 55/<40 " 70.0 R - - 60/<40 + 5/0
4 Residence B " 92.0 R 52 " 90.0 R - - 57 + 5
5 Residence B 36.0 R 61 36.0 R - - * 66 + 5
6 Residence B ° 94.0 R 52 •` 95.0 R - - 57 + 5
7 Residence B '• 44.0 R 59 " 44.0 R - - 64 + 5
8 Residence B '• 58.0 R 57 " 59.0 R - - 62 + 5
9 Residence B " 83.0 R 53 " 84.0 R - - 58 + 5
9A Residence B " 102.0 R 51 " 103.0 R - - 56 + 5
10 Residence B " 110.0 L 50 '• 111.0 L - - 55' + 5
11 Residence B " 53.0 L 57 •' 55.0 L - - 62 + 5
12 Residence B 33.0 L 61 " 26.0 L - - * 69 + 8
13 Residence B 40.0 L 60 " 40.0 L - - 65 + 5
14 Residence B " 82.0 L 53 " 82.0 L - - 58 + 5
15 Residence B 43.0 L 59 •' 41.0 L - - 65 + 6
16 Church E " 27.0 L 63/<40 •• 26.0 L - - 69/44 + 6/4
16A Residence B " 37.0 L 60 " 35.0 L - - * 67 + 7
17 Residence B " 74.0 L 54 " 73.0 L - - 60 + 6
18 Residence B •' 63.0 L 56 " 65.0 L - - 61 + 5
19 Residence B " 57.0 L 57 " 61.0 L - - 61 + 4
20 Residence B " 58.0 L 57 '• 58.0 L - - 62 + 5
21 Residence B •' 58.0 L 57 '• 58.0 L - - 62 + 5
22 Residence B 48.0 L 58 •' 50.0 L - - 63 + 5
23 Residence B " 35.0 L 61 •' 35.0 L - - * 67 + 6
24 Residence B " 106.0 L 50 " 106.0 L - - 55 + 5
25 Residence B •• 99.0 L 51 " 96.0 L - - 56 + 5
26 Residence B " 95.0 L 51 '• 94.0 L - - 57 + 6
27 Residence B " 94.0 L 52 " 94.0 L - - 57 + 5
28 Residence B " 85.0 L 53 " 86.0 L - - 58 + 5
29 Residence B •• 83.0 L 53 " 83.0 L - - 58 + 5
30 Residence B •• 77.0 L 54 •` 77.0 L - - 59 + 5
30A Residence B " 69.0 L 55 70.0 L - - 60 + 5
30B Residence B " 67.0 R 52 •' 87.0 R - - 58 + 6
31 Apts. (4) B •' 104.0 R 50 '• 102.0 R - - 56 + 6
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribut ion.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). - _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 77 2).
A

A-24
TABLE 93.2 2/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Proj ect Y 8.T680301, TIP N R-2530A
• Alternative 2
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
• RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE

Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road) Cont'd
32 Apts. (4) B NC24-27 60.0 R 56 NC24-27 59.0 R - - 62 + 6
33 Apts. (4) B " 61.0 R 56 '• 60.0 R - - 62 + 6
34 Business C " 50.0 R 58 " 47.0 R - - 64 + 6
35 Business C " 53.0 R 57 " 55.0 R - - 62 + 5
36 Business C " 39.0 L 60 40.0 L - - 65 + 5
36A Business C " 45.0 L 59 " 50.0 L - - 63 + 4
37 Residence B " 75.0 L 54 " 80.0 L - - 59 + 5
38 Residence B " 88.0 L 52 " 93.0 L - - 57 + 5
39 Residence B " 105.0 L 50 108.0 L - - 55 + 5
40 Residence B " 130.0 L 48 '• 134.0 L - - 53 + 5
SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138
41 Business C NC24-27 38.0 R 60 NC24-27 34.0 R --------------------N/A-------------
42 Business C " 56.0 L 57 '• 60.0 L - - 62 + 5
43 Residence B " 37.0 L 60 " 43.0 L - - 65 + 5
44 Residence B 86.0 L 53 " 92.0 L - - 57 + 4
45 Residence B '• 89.0 L 52 to 93.0 L - - 57 + 5
46 Residence B •' 91.0 L 52 '• 96.0 L - - 57 + 5
47 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 45.0 L - - 64 + 4
48 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 " 45.0 L - - 64 + 4
49 Residence B " 92.0 L 52 " 97.0 L - - 56 + 4
50 Residence B to 90.0 L 52 to 95.0 L - - 57 + 5
51 Residence B 40.0 L 60 to 45.0 L - - 64 + 4
52 Residence B " 92.0 L 52 " 97.0 L - - 56 + 4
53 Residence B to 95.0 L 51 •' 101.0 L - - 56 + 5
54 Residence B 95.0 L 51 " 101.0 L - - 56 + 5
55 Residence B " 94.0 L 52 100.0 L - - 56 + 4
56 Residence B to 88.0 L 52 " 94.0 L - - 57 + 5
57 Residence B " 39.0 L 60 " 45.0 L - - 64 + 4
58 Residence B " 82.0 L 53 to 89.0 L - - 57 + 4
59 Residence B " 75.0 L 54 " 81.0 L - - 58 + 4
n 60 Residence B " 30.0 L 62 " 35.0 L - - to 67 + 5
61 Residence B " 25.0 L 63 " 30.0 L - - • 68 + 5
62 Residence B " 46.0 R 59 " 39.0 R - - • 66 + 7
63 Residence B '• 46.0 R 59 " 39.0 R - - • 66 + 7
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise leve ls. -Y--> Noise level from other contribut ing roadways.
Category E noise l evels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). • _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-25
TABLE 93.2 3/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE MCPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project / 8.T680301, TIP N R-2530A
• Alternative 2
.-W AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID i LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138 (COnt'd)
64 Residence B NC24-27 76.0 L 54 NC24-27 70.0 L - - 60 + 6
65 Residence B " 82.0 L 53 " 75.0 L - - 59 + 6
66 Residence B " 76.0 L 54 " 70.0 L - - 60 + 6
67 Residence B " 37.0 L 60 •' 31.0 L - - * 67 + 7
68 Residence B " 73.0 L 54 " 67.0 L - - 61 + 7
69 Residence B •' 38.0 L 60 " 32.0 L - - 67 + 7
70 Residence B '• 79.0 L 53 •' 73.0 L - - 60 + 7
71 Residence B " 26.0 L 63 " 31.0 L - - * 67 + 4
72 Residence B " 27.0 L 63 " 32.0 L - - * 67 + 4
73 Residence B " 91.0 L 52 •' 97.0 L - - 56 + 4
73A Business C " 18.0 L 66 " 25.0 L - - 69 + 3
74 Business C " 50.0 R 58 " 48.0 R - - 64 + 6
75 Business C " 47.0 R 58 " 42.0 R - - 65 + 7
76 Business C " 92.0 R 52 " 86.0 R - - 58 + 6
77 Business C 17.0 R 66 22.0 R - - 70 + 4
NC 138 to US 52
78 Business C NC24-27 55.0 R 60 NC24-27 49.0 R - - 67 + 7
79 Residence B " 95.0 R 54 " 88.0 R - - 61 + 7
80 Residence B 80.0 R 56 " 74.0 R - - 63 + 7
81 Residence B •' 61.0 R 59 " 55.0 R - - * 66 + 7
82 Residence B " 41.0 R 62 " 35.0 R - - * 70 + 8
83 Residence B " 63.0 R 59 " 57.0 R - - * 66 + 7
84 Business C •' 47.0 R 61 " 41.0 R - - 69 + 8
85 Church E •' 143.0 R 50/00 " 137.0 R - - 56/<40 + 6/0
86 Business C " 48.0 L 61 " 54.0 L - - 66 + 5
87 Business C " 83.0 L 56 " 89.0 L - - 61 + 5
US 52 to 600 Meters East of US 52
88 Church E NC24-27 90.0 R 55/00 NC24-27 84.0 R - - 60/00 + 5/0
89 Residence B 156.0 R 48 " 151.0 R - - 53 + 5
90 Residence B " 147.0 R 49 " 142.0 R - - 54 + 5
91 Residence B " 142.0 R 50 •' 136.0 R - - 54 + 4
92 Residence B " 138.0 R 50 " 133.0 R - - 54 + 4
NOTE: Distances are from center of the exi sting or proposed roadwa ys. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribut ion.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels . -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 77 2).
A
J
A-26
TABLE N3.2
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
4/5
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly county, Project N B.T680301, TIP M R-2530A
Alternative 2
?. AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEV EL
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
US 52 to 600 Meters East of US 52 (Cont•d)
93 Business C NC24-27 155.0 L 49 NC24-27 160.0 L - - 52 + 3
94 Residence B 133.0 L 51 138.0 L - - 54 + 3
95 Apartments B " 128.0 L 51 " 133.0 L - - 54 + 3
96 Apartments B " 127.0 L 51 " 132.0 L - - 55 + 4
97 Residence B " 148.0 L 49 " 152.0 L - - 53 + 4
98 Residence B " 156.0 L 48 " 161.0 L - - 52 + 4
99 Business C '• 40.0 L 63 " 46.0 L --------------------N/A---------- ---
600 Meters East of US 52 to End of Project
100 Business C NC24-27 63.0 R 59 NC24-27 57.6 R - - 63 + 4
100A Park B 75.0 R 57 " 69.6 R - - 62 + 5
101 Residence B " 54.0 L 60 " 59.4 L - - 63 + 3
102 Residence B " 40.0 L 63 " 45.4 L - - ' 66 + 3
103 Residence B " 116.0 L 52 " 121.4 L - - 55 + 3
104 Residence B 97.0 L 54 " 102.4 L - - 57 + 3
105 Residence B " 87.0 L 55 " 92.4 L - - 58 + 3
106 Residence B " 42.0 L 62 '• 47.4 L - - 65 + 3
107 Residence B " 86.0 L 55 " 91.4 L - - 59 + 4
108 Residence B " 50.0 L 61 " 55.4 L - - 64 + 3
109 Residence B 55.0 L 60 •• 60.4 L - - 63 + 3
110 Residence B " 58.0 L 60 63.4 L - - 63 + 3
111 Residence B •' 71.0 L 57 " 76.4 L - - 61 + 4
112 Residence B 40.0 L 63 " 45.4 L - - 66 + 3
113 Residence B 81.0 L 56 " 86.4 L - - 59 + 3
114 Residence B " 41.0 L 62 " 46.4 L - - 65 + 3
115 Residence B " 72.0 L 57 " 77.4 L - - 60 + 3
116 Residence B " 97.0 L 54 " 102.4 L - - 57 + 3
117 Residence B 86.0 L 55 " 91.4 L - - 59 + 4
122 Business C 52.0 R 60 " 46.6 R - - 65 + 5
123 Business C " 47.0 R 61 •' 41.6 R - - 67 + 6
124 Business C " 54.0 L 60 " 59.4 L - - 63 + 3
n
129 Business C 19.0 L 68 24.4 L - - * 71 + 3
132 Business C 94.0 R 54 " 88.6 R - - 59 + 5
134 Business C 99.0 R 54 " 93.6 R --------------------N/A---------- ---
C
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). " _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-27
TABLE N3.2 5/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP M R-2530A
Alternative 2
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEV EL
ID A LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
600 Meters East of US 52 to End of Project (Cont'd)
135 Business C NC24-27 53.0 R 60 NC24- 27 53.0 R - - 64 + 4
136 Business C '• 27.0 L 66 " 32.4 L - - 69 + 3
137 Residence B " 117.0 L 52 " 117.0 L - - 56 + 4
138 Apartments B ^ 93.0 L 55 '• 93.0 L - - 58 + 3
139 Apartments B '• 94.0 L 54 '• 94.0 L - - 58 + 4
139A Business C '• 31.0 L 65 " 31.0 L - - 69 + 4
140 Business C " 43.0 R 62 '• 43.0 R - - 66 + 4
141 Business C •' 34.0 R 64 " 34.0 R - - 68 + 4
142 Business C '• 54.0 L 60 •• 54.0 L - - 64 + 4
143 Business C " 50.0 L 61 " 50.0 L - - 65 + 4
144 Business C '• 33.0 L 64 •' 33.0 L - - 68 + 4
145 Business C '• 45.0 R 62 " 45.0 R - - 66 + 4
146 Business C ^ 48.0 R 61 " 48.0 R - - 65 + 4
147 Business C " 48.0 R 61 " 48.0 R - - 65 + 4
148 Business C '• 33.0 L 64 •' 33.0 L - - 68 + 4
149 Business C 30.0 L 65 " 30.0 L - - 69 + 4
150 Business C " 65.0 L 58 " 65.0 L - - 62 + 4
151 Business C •• 77.0 R 57 •• 77.0 R - - 61 + 4
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). • -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).

z
A
A-28
TABLE N4
Fam NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project N 8.T680301, TIP 4 R-2530A
• Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Max-,-) i Title 23 CFR Part 772
Description 15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

Alternative A 1 - 4-Lanes/6m median
1. Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road) 71 67 61 18.6m 35.9m 0 3 0 0 0
2. SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138 71 67 61 18.6m 35.9m 0 8 0 0 0
3. NC 138 to US 52 75 70 65 31.3m 54.4m 0 3 0 0 0
4. US 52 to 600 m East of US 52 72 68 62 23.7m 42.4m 0 0 0 0 0
5. 600 m East of US 52 to End 72 68 63 22.7m 41.6m 0 2 1 0 0
TOTALS 0 - 16 1 0 0
Alternative M 2 - 5-Lanes
1. Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road) 71 67 61 17.6m 35.2m 0 4 0 0 0
2. SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138 71 67 61 17.6m 35.2m 0 8 0 0 0
3. NC 138 to US 52 75 70 65 30.4m 53.8m 0 3 0 0 0
4. US 52 to 600 m East of US 52 72 68 63 22.7m 41.6m 0 0 0 0 0
5. 600 m East of US 52 to End 72 68 63 22.7m 41.6m 0 2 1 0 0
TOTALS 0 17 1 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
•
A-29
TABLE NS
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project N S.T680301, TIP i R-2530A
RECEPTOR E)aERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <-0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)

Alternative N 1 - 4-Lanes/6m median
1. Beginning to SR 1900 0 16 28 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. SR 1900 to NC 138 0 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. NC 138 to US 52 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
4. US 52 to 600m E. of US 52 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. 600m E. of US 52 to End 0 38 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 0 78 66 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alternative Y 2 - 5-Lanes
1. Beginning to SR 1900 0 2 42 0
2. SR 1900 to NC 138 0 15 22 0
3. NC 138 to US 52 0 0 10 0
4. US 52 to 600m E. of US 52 0 8 3 0
5. 600m E. of US 52 to End 0 38 4 0
TOTALS 0 63 81 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
(1) As defined by only a substantial Increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
A-30
N
A
A
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
•
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co. RUN: NC24-27,Year 1999, Build
DATE: 06/20/95 TIME: 08:34.0,.
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 OAS/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
-------°°---
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MD03 - 1000. M AMID - 1.8 PPM
PAGE 1
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH ERG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* Xl Y1 X2 Y2 • (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *---------------------------------------- *-- ------------------- -------------- ----- ------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1029. 14.8 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1029. 14.8 0.0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
*
RECEPTOR
--°--- ----*
1. R77, 22.0 m RCL BUS
COORDINATES (M)
X Y Z
-------------------------------
-16.6 0.0 1.8
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co. RUN: NC24-27,Year 1999, Build
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.8
r DEGR. * 4
TEE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.80 PPM AT 4 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-31
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co.
DATE: 06/20/95 TIME: 08:3
RUN: NC24-27,Year 2020, Build
PAGE 2
A
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MI]W - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) = LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEB)
------------------------ *------------------------------- --------- '--------------------- -------------- ----- ----------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1648. 10.7 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -605.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1648. 10.7 0.0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R77, 22.0 m RCL BUS * -16.6 0.0 1.8
JOB: R-253OA: NC24-27, Stanly Co.
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
RUN: NC24-27,Year 2020, Build
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 3.0
DEGR. * 5
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.00 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-32
TABLE A3
CAL3QBC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 3
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co. RUN: NC24-27,Yr 1999, No-Build
DATE: 06/20/95 TIME: 08:33.,
r
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO m 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIID3 - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH
EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
1. Par Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1029. 25.9 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1029. 25.9 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
-----------°°---------- -------------------------------------
1. R77, 17.0 m RCL BUS " -15.2 0.0 1.8
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co. RUN: NC24-27,Yr 1999, No-Build
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 3.8
DEGR. * 7

THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.80 PPM AT 7 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-33
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992 PAGE 4
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co. RUN: NC24-27,Yr 2020, No-Build
DATE: 06/20/95 TIME: 08:34.
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIRE - 1000. M AMB 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH
EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG)
---"---------------------------
* (G/MI)
-------- (M)
----- (M) (VEH)
----------------
-------------------------------------
------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1648. 44.6 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1648. 44.6 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
----------------
-
-
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z "
------------------------- *---
-
-
---
°------"
-
------
---_-------
-°
1. R77, 17.0 m RCL BUS * -15.2 0.0 1.8
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co.
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
RUN: NC24-27,Yr 2020, No-Build
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 7.4
DEGR. * 9
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 7.40 PPM AT 9 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
}
IF
A

A-34