19950644 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources XT.9;WA
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr- Governor '
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ID C C H
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
April 15, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: FONSI for NC 150 From Cherryville to East of the Lincolnton Bypass
Gaston and Lincoln Counties
State Project DOT No. 8.1830401, TIP #R-617
EHNR # 94-0726, DEM # 10578
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Environmental
Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which may impact waters of the state including wetlands. The following comments
are offered in response to the EA prepared for this project which will impact 1.9 acres of
wetlands.
Although the roadway improvements should produce a safer facility, DEM continues to
believe that the probability of a hazardous spill is high due to the heavy truck traffic
(15%). Therefore, DEM continues to request that hazardous spill catch basins be
installed at all water supply crossings.
2. Endorsement of the FONSI by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401 Certification
upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Water
Quality Planning Branch.
nc150ga.fon
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
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources &T4 Y •
Division of Environmental Management W
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
ID FE H N R
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
September 9, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn&V
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb

Subject: EA NC 150 From Cherryville to East of the Lincolnton Bypass
Gaston and Lincoln Counties
State Project DOT No. 8.1830401, TIP #R-617
EHNR # 94-0126, DEM # 10242
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The. Division of Environmental
Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which may impact waters of the state including wetlands. The following comments
are offered in response to the EA prepared for this project which will impact 1.9 acres of
wetlands.
1. Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this project.
2. The water classifications in Table 6 are incorrect. All water bodies listed in the Table
are classified WS IV.
3. DEM requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at all water supply
crossings due to the high truck traffic (15%).
4. The statement that DOT believes that functional value of wetlands is minimal (Section
IV-9) should be more completely documented or deleted.
5. Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401 Certification
upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Water
Quality Planning Branch.
nc150ga.ea
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
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
September 8, 1993
MEMORANDUM
,IT
00 )A
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorndy-?
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA US 17 Widening From NC 50 to Four Lane Section South of Jacksonville
Onslow County
State Project DOT No. 6.269002T, TIP #R-2406
EHNR # 94-0128, DEM # 10243
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Environmental
Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which may impact waters of the state including wetlands. The following comments
are offered in response to the EA prepared for this project which will impact 64.3 acres of
wetlands.
1. Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for the bridge
general permit 31 if wetlands are impacted. Other Certifications probably will be
needed.
2. Why is partial control of access recommended for the bypass of Verona? Full control
of access would apparently maintain an acceptable level-of-service.
3. Development of the wetland mitigation plan should be coordinated with DEM and the
COE to allow DEM to factor this information into our Certification decisions..
4. The quality of the wetlands should be discussed in environmental documents.
5. The wetland information for wetland 9C is missing from Table 9.
6. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Prior to
the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall obtain a 401
Certification from DEM.
7. Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401 Certification
upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Water
Quality Planning Branch.
usl7wid.ea
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
M ?A? 4
a?d ?,,,.mm, n
D
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 2761 ra Jt
August 16, 1993
Mr. Eric Galamb
Division of Environmental Management
Archdale Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Mr. Galamb:
SUBJECT: US-17 from NC-50 in Holly Ridge to the Existing
Four-Lane Section South of Jacksonville, Project No.
6.269002T, TIP No. R-2406
Enclosed is one copy of the Natural Systems Technical
Memorandum to aid in your review of the Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the subject highway improvement project.
The EA was sent to you recently through the Clearinghouse.
If you have any questions or need additional information,
please contact me at [phone].
Yours truly,
Cindy Sharer, P. E., Project Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
III
3104
NATURAL SYSTEMS
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
T

US179 HOLLY RIDGE TO
JACKSONVILLE
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
T.I.P. NO. R-2406, STATE PROJECT NO. 6.296002T
Prepared For:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
C
Prepared By:
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
October, 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
1.2 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
1.3 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
• 1.4 General Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
1.5 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . • . .3
Y :
1.6 Preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
2.0 NATURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
2.1 Vegetation Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
2.2 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
2.3 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
2.4 Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
2.5 Water Resources . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .17
2.6 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
2.7 Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . .18
2.8 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
2.9 Soil Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
2.10 Farmlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
2.11 Rare/Unique Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
2.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
3.0 PERMITTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
4.0 MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
5.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
' FIGURES AND TABLES
APPENDICES
i

List of Tables
1 Plant Community Impacts
2 Wetlands Within Study Area
3 Wetlands Displaced by Alternatives
4 Water Quality Classifications
5 Drainage Summary
6 Soils
7 Farmlands
List of Figures

1 Project Location
2 Study Sections
3 Plant Community Types
4 Wetlands
5 Soils and Farmlands
Appendices

Appendix A
Agency Comments and Coordination
Appendix B
Species Lists

1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The following technical report is a supplement to the Environmental
Assessment for the proposed widening of US Highway 17 from Holly
Ridge to south of Jacksonville, North Carolina; State Project No.
6.269002T; T.I.P. No. R-2406. This document contains information
regarding the natural resources in the study area. In addition,
this document addresses the potential impacts of the proposed
project on those resources.
1.2 Project Description
The project consists of improving existing US 17 from NC 50 in
Holly Ridge to the existing four-lane section of US 17 south of
Jacksonville (Figure 1). The project is approximately 16.7 miles
long and will improve the existing roadway to a multi-lane facility
throughout the project limits. Included with the project is a 2.1
mile bypass of Verona. Currently, US 17 is five lanes from the
intersection of NC 50 to the Holly Ridge city limits. From Holly
Ridge to Folkstone the existing roadway is three-lanes and from
Folkstone to the northern terminus the current roadway consists of
two lanes. The project will also include the construction of
parallel bridges over Southwest Creek. One will replace the
existing structure and the other will accommodate the additional
two lanes of traffic.
The existing right-of-way along US 17 varies in width from 75 feet
in Holly Ridge to 230 feet just north of Folkstone. The
predominate width for the remainder of the roadway is 100 feet.
The proposed right-of-way widths vary from 75 feet in Holly Ridge
to a maximum of 240 feet at the northern terminus of the project.
The predominate width will be 220 feet+.
The two new bridges will be 38 feet wide by 320 feet in length.
1.3 Study Area
The project is located in Onslow County in the southeastern coastal
plain of North Carolina. The study area extends along the entire
project from NC 50 to the existing four-lane section of US 17 south
of Jacksonville. The study area corridor is 500 feet wide (250 on
each side of the existing centerline) for most of the project. In
the area around Verona the study area expands to 2000 feet to allow
for the Verona By-Pass. The study area encompasses approximately
1327 acres and includes wetlands, upland forest, fields, and man-
dominated areas. In many areas, on the west side of US 17, an old
railroad roadbed running generally parallel to the highway. This
disturbance zone, including highway and railroad ditches and fill
areas reflects varying degrees of man-made drainage and/or remnant
2
wetland communities. Portions of these wetlands are part of the
Great Sandy Run Pocosin.
t
1.4 General Methodology
Preliminary data on the study area were obtained from local, State,
and Federal agencies. Aerial photography, National Wetland
Inventory Maps, soil surveys and topographic maps were used to
identify the existing land uses and natural resources._ This data
was then used as a guide for field investigations. Boundaries and
locations were verified by field visits from October 8-11, and 24-
26, 1990; March 11-13, and May 29-31, 1991.
During field visits, investigations were concentrat d e s of
special concern, (such as wetlands and?otential n or
endangered species). Items such as community classifications were
verified by sample site inspections. Specific methodologies for
all required subjects are described in the appropriate sections of
this document.
All impacts were determined using the proposed right-of-way or
construction limits from the preliminary design. Preliminary
design drawings were done at 111:200' scale.
1.5 Alternatives
For the purpose of environmental evaluation and the development
and comparison of alternatives, the project and the project study
area were divided into four sections (Figure 2).
1*1
Section I - Intersection of NC 50 in Holly Ridge to Folkstone.
_ From the intersection of NC 50 to the city limits the
project involves resurfacing the existing five-lane
roadway. From the city limits to Folkstone, the existing
three lanes will be widened to five lanes.
Section II - Folkstone to the intersection of SR 1119 at
Verona.
The existing two lanes will be widened to four lanes with
a 46-foot median.*
Section III - Verona Bypass, from SR 1119 to south of Hicks
Run Creek.
The By-pass, will be a four-lane facility on new location
with a 46-foot median.
Section IV - South of Hicks Run Creek to the existing four
lane section of US 17.
The existing two lanes will be widened to four lanes with
a median. This section will include the construction of
two bridges over Southwest Creek and a transition area,
where the median will transition from 46 to 90 feet to
3
match the typical section for the existing four lane
section of US 17.
7
From these four sections, six alternatives were developed. These
involve basically widening to the east or west of the existing
facility in Sections I, II, and IV; and a by-pass either to the
east or west of Verona in Section III.
Alternative 1 - Widening on the east of the existing roadway in
Sections I, II, and IV and a by-pass to the east of Verona in
Section III.
w
Alternative 2 - Widening on the west of the existing roadway in w
Sections I and II, and a by-pass of Verona on the east in Section
III and widening on the east in Section IV.
Alternative 3 - Widening on the east of the existing roadway in
Sections I and II, with a by-pass of Verona on the west in Section
III and widening on the west in Section IV.
Alternative 4 - Widening on the west in all Sections I, II, and IV
and a by-pass on the west of Verona in Section III.
Alternative 5 - Widening on the east in Sections I, II, and IV and
by-pass on the west in Section III.
Alternative 6 - Widening on the west in Sections I and II, a by-
pass on the west in Section III and widening on the east in section
IV.
1.6 Preferred Alternative
After detailed review of the environmental impacts, cost and
engineering considerations, Alternative 1, as described above, was
selected as the preferred alternative. The impacts of this
alternative are presented in Tables 1, 3, and 7. These tables also
provide impacts for the remaining alternatives. Impacts are also
discussed in various sections of this report. The reasons for the
selection of the preferred alternative will be provided in the
Environmental Assessment for this project.
2.0 NATURAL RESOURCES
2.1 Plant Community Patterns
The following plant community patterns were evaluated and
categorized based on qualitative field surveys conducted over a six
month period from February to August, 1990. Descriptions follow
the classification scheme recommended and utilized by the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Community classifications were modified slightly to better reflect
4
field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found
in Radford et al. (1968). Community types are shown on Figure 3.
2.1.1 Mesic hardwood forests
Mesic hardwood forests are primarily found within floodplain limits
of stream courses and in alluvial draws which carry periodic
runoff. A number of deciduous species dominate --the canopy
including red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), water oak (Quercus ni ra), southern red
oak (Quercus falcata), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and
black gum (N ssa sylvatica). These areas are often typified by a
rich mid- and under-story comprised of saplings and seedlings of
canopy trees, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), sweet bay (Magnolia
virginiana), and wax myrtle (Mvrica cerifera) . Ground cover
components include cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
ctuinquefolia), and greenbrier (Smilax spp.). This vegetational
profile corresponds to NCNHP's Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest -
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood - Mesic Forest classifications.
2.1.2 Mixed pine-hardwood forest
Mixed forest cover is a dominant community type along the US 17
route. These systems have not been subjected to intensive
management, allowing for a combination of pines and hardwoods to
occur in the canopy. Representative species include loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), longleaf pine (P. palustris), red maple, sweet gum,
and a number of oaks (Quercus spp.). In areas where hydric
conditions prevail, pond pine (P. serotina) may be present.
Understory vegetation is comprised of canopy saplings, sweet bay,
red bay (Persea borbonia), wax myrtle, highbush blueberry
(Vaccinium corymbosum), coastal dog-hobble (Leucothoe axillaris),
lyonia (Leonia lucida) fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), and inkberry
(Ilex, glabra). Vines and herbaceous vegetation noted include
poison ivy, Virginia creeper, japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), grape (Vitis
sp.), and greenbrier. This community description corresponds to
NCNHP's Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest - Mesic Pine Flatwoods
classifications.
2.1.3 Pine forest
Forested tracts dominated exclusively by loblolly, longleaf, and
occasional pond pines are also present in the study area.
Understory vegetation is minimal, usually consisting of shrubs such
as inkberry, wax myrtle, lyonia, sweet bay, red bay, sweet
pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and creeping blueberry (Vaccinium
crassifolium). Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), broomsedge
(Andropogon spp.), and bracken ferns (Pteridium aquilinum) often
5
occur in the herb layer. Low understory/groiindcover densities are
often the result of fire, clearing and grubbing, or implementation
of some other management scheme. This system corresponds to
NCNHP's Mesic Pine Flatwoods -Wet Pine Flatwoods - Pine Savannah
classifications.
2.1.4 Successional Pine Stands - Managed
Large expanses of the Sandy Run Pocosin bordering US 17 have been
timbered, ditched, drained. These systems at one time probably
supported uniform cover of bays and evergreen shrubs typical of
pocosin communities. However, recent modifications have allowed
for the bedding and row planting of young pines (primarily loblolly
less than 5 years of age) under intensive management. Canopy
development is lacking, and successional regeneration is occurring.
In addition to the young z b i ttered sweet bay, red
bay, red maple, inkberry, nd a variety of ferns
and grasses are evident. No attempt has been made to cross-
reference these manipulated systems with the NCNHP classification
system.
2.1.5 Open Field
Disturbed systems which receive regular clearing or maintenance
have been classified as Open Fields. Utility right-of-ways, wide
roadside margins, and several cleared fields fall into this
category. Vegetation is dominated by herbaceous growth consisting
of broomsedge, goldenrod (Solidaao stricta), cudweed (Gnathalium
obtusifolium), and a variety of ferns and grasses. Seedlings or
young sapling development of red bay, sweet bay, lyonia, clethra,
and red maple are often present. Ponding and surface saturation
is evident in certain low lying areas, supporting growth of soft
rush (Juncos effusus), cattail (Typha latifolia), woolgrass bulrush
(Scirpus cyperinus), spikerush (Eleocharis spp.), and sedges (Carex
SPL) .
2.1.6 Man Dominated Areas
Residences, businesses, and other human-related activities have
been classified as Man Dominated Areas. Natural systems have been
replaced by buildings or landscaped surroundings supporting
ornamental shrubs and grasses, often intermixed with native trees
and shrubs. These areas are generally concentrated around the
townships of Holly Ridge, Folkstone, Dixon, and Verona.
2.1.7 Impacts
A summary of the community impacts attributed to the six
alternatives under investigation are presented in Table 1.
6
Primary impacts will occur to pine dominated systems (i.e. pine
forests, successional pine stands, and mixed pine-hardwood
forests), regardless of the alternative, Between 6.9 and 59.1
acres of mixed pine-hardwoods, between 17.6 and 68.4 acres of pine
forest and between 4.2 and 11.1 acres of successional pinestands
will be affected.
Mesic hardwood forest systems are concentrated along stream courses
(Southwest Creek, Hicks Run, etc.) and small alluvial draws which
carry periodic runoff. Between 9.4 and 12.2 acres will be
impacted. This woodland type affords diversity and protection to „
wildlife and provides other important ecological functions
(shoreline stabilization, sediment/nutrient removal, erosion
control, etc). Although limited in size and distribution, these
mesic communities are considered an important and diminishing
resource in the area.
It should be noted that a number of Federal and State listed plant
species may occur along woodland ecotonal fringes bordering US 17.
These systems have been defined as open field systems. Certainly,
expansion of the highway alignment may result in potential loss of
habitat and/or destruction of resident species in impacted
communities.
2.2 Wetlands
Wetlands have been described as:
"those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground water
at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas."
.(33 CFR 328.3(b), 1986)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) serves as the principal
permitting agency for wetland activities as mandated under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1344). The COE requires
the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and hydrology) in support of a wetland jurisdictional
determination (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland
Delineation, 1989). It should be noted that aquatic systems
(streams, rivers, tributaries, impoundments) are also subject to
Section 404 review as "waters of the United States". In this
analysis, defined water bodies with permanent flow or containment
have been separated and described as open water systems (see
Sections 3.4, 3.5).
7
Jurisdictional wetlands in the study area are primarily palustrine
in nature, as defined in Cowardin et al. (1979). Categorizations
include: palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01, PF06),
palustrine forested, needle-leaved evergreen (PF04), palustrine
forested, needle-leaved evergreen/scrub-shrub (PF04/SS7), and
palustrine emergent (PEM1) wetlands.
A description, including soil series, of each discreet wetland
community crossed by the various alignments is presented in Table
2.
2.2.1 Palustrine Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous Wetlands
(PF01,PF06)
Deciduous wetlands occur along stream channels and small drainage
depressions which are present throughout the corridor. Primary
concentrations of this wetland type occur in the Southwest Creek
and Hicks Run floodplains. Mesic forest cover predominates with
red maple, sweet gum, tulip poplar, sycamore, and variety of oaks
commonly occurring in the canopy.
2.2.2 Palustrine Forested, Needle-leaved Evergreen Wetlands
(PF04)
Pine dominated wetlands are common throughout the study corridor.
The primary difference between these needle-leaved evergreen
systems and the successional pine wetlands described below is the
maturity of the canopy. Loblolly, longleaf, and pond pines prevail
with a limited understory consisting of evergreen shrubs.
2.2.3 Palustrine Forested, Needle-leaved Evergreen/Scrub-Shrub
Wetlands (PF04/PSS7)
Extensive stands of young pines have been planted in disturbed
areas which constitute the Great Sandy Run Pocosin. These systems
lack a dominant canopy. Shrub vegetation is prevalent during early
regeneration phases. Young loblolly pines often share dominance
with other shrubs including inkberry, bays, lyonia, clethra and
similar species. Although much of this former pocosin has been
drained with subsequent changes in vegetation and hydrology, large
segmented tracts continue to have evidence of the three parameters
(soils, hydrology, vegetation) sufficient to support a wetland
jurisdictional determination.
2.2.4 Palustrine Emergent Wetlands (PEM1)
Maintained roadside margins, right-of-way corridors and disturbed
fields which are subjected to flooding or seasonal
inundation/saturation support a host of hydrophytic plant types.
Soft rush, cattails, bulrush and sedges intermix with other forms
of successional vegetation. Man-induced activities are necessary
in order to maintain these emergent herbaceous conditions.
8
2.2.5 Impacts
Improvements to US 17 cannot be accomplished without infringing on
jurisdictional wetlands. Table 3 shows the wetland impacts, by
classification, which will result from development of the various
alternatives. As shown in this table impacts will range from 41.4
acres with Alternative 4 to 58.3 acres with Alternative 5.
As expected, primary impacts will occur to needle-leaved, evergreen
wetlands (PF04, PF04/SS7) which are so prevalent in the study
corridor. Depending on the alternative, between 0.9 and 6.9 acres
of pine flatwood wetlands will be affected along with between 7.6
and 28.2 acres of young successional pine wetlands. This latter
wetland type occurs primarily in the former Great Sandy Run Pocosin
which has been severely disturbed and modified by clearcutting and
ditching. Pine dominated communities lack the diversity and
perceived value of other mixed forested wetland systems. Even so,
needle-leaved evergreen wetlands do provide habitat opportunities
for wildlife, as well as other wetland functions such as sediment
retention and nutrient removal/transformation. Expansion of the
existing highway corridor will remove fringing systems from
biological production with subsequent loss of function and value.
The project will impact between 9.1 and 12.5 acres of deciduous
wetlands (PF01, PF06). Primary impacts will occur to communities
in the Southwest Creek and Hicks Run basins. Although limited in
size and distribution, these wetlands are important resources
exhibiting a number of functions including habitat for wildlife,
shoreline stabilization, flood control, and sediment/nutrient
removal. Bridging will be employed at Southwest Creek to maintain
the hydrological integrity of the streams and to minimize
encroachment into adjacent wetlands. Even so, limited loss of
function and value will occur in areas which will be filled for
highway expansion.
Emergent wetlands (PEM1) which occur primarily in or adjacent to
the highway right-of-way will impacted. Between 1.6 and 30.8 acres
will be lost depending on the alternative. Vegetational
composition is maintained by regular clearing, creating habitat
opportunities for species unable to complete with more aggressive
plant types. Localized populations of endangered or threatened
plant species which have been documented within these maintained
zones will be impacted by highway expansion. Functional continuity
with adjacent wetland systems will also be lost as a result of
construction.
2.3 Wildlife
With the exception of urbanized pockets around the small towns
crossed by the alignment, most of the project area consists of
rural countryside characterized by woodlands, or successional
9
woodland cover. This mix of community patterns provides
opportunities for various forms of wildlife. A list of fauna that
was either observed during field studies, or known to commonly
occur in the project area, is provided in Appendix B.
2.3.1 Terrestrial Wildlife
Mixed forested tracts offer all the necessary components (food,
water, protective coverage) to support a number of small mammals
and birds. In addition, mesic woodlands bordering streams and
tributaries function as travel corridors for transient or migratory „
species. Mature pine forests, although lacking the diversity of
mixed and deciduous woodlands, do provide cover and protection for
resident or transitory animal populations. Common mammals which
were noted or suspected include the gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Eastern cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), shrew
(Sorex spD.) and fox (Vulpes vulpes and Urocyon cineareoargenteus).
Beaver (Castor canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), and muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus) may be found along watercourses and tributary
systems.
The successional pine stands undergoing intensive management lack
the cover and diversity to support a variety of wildlife. However,
the abundance of herbaceous growth found in these systems, bordered
by large forested tracts, provide opportunities for gamebirds such
as quail (Colinus virainianus) and woodcock (Scolopax minor), as
well as browse areas for deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Small
rodents including cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus) and, hispid
cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) are suspect.
Large expanses of undeveloped woodlands in and around Camp Lej eune,
and the nearby presence of the Great Sandy Run Pocosin (in spite
of recent disturbances), provide potenti 1 habitat for larger
mammals such as deer and black bear (Urs americanus). Bobby
Maddrey, WRC Regional Biologist, noted that significant populations
of both species do occur in these areas (per. comm. 10/17/91).
Harvest records maintained by the N.C. . Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) indicate that Onslow County ranked 7th in the
number of deer taken in this state during 1990-91, and 10th in the
number of black bear (WRC, 1991).
Avifaunal abundance is typical of coastal plain communities in this
part of the state. A number of songbirds were sighted including
blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos),
robin (Turdus migratorius), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and
common flicker (Colaptes auratus). Birds of prey which were noted
or expected include red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-
tailed hawk (B. jamaicensis), and barred owl (Strix varia).
10
2.3.2 Aquatic life
Southwest Creek, Hicks Run, and the other tributaries crossed by
the alignment are capable of supporting a variety of aquatic
macrofauna. The most common amphibians and reptiles include frogs
(Rana spp.), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), spotted turtle
(Clemmys guttata), and water snakes (Nerodia spy?.). Although
fishery sampling was not conducted as part of this investigation,
previous efforts (Dept. of Navy, 1989) and a review of the
literature indicate that likely species include redfin pickerel
(Esox americanus), sunfish (Lepomis and Enneacanthus spp.), yellow
perch (Perca flavescens), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus),
flier (Centrarchus macropterus), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon
oblongus), starhead topminnow (Fundulus notti), golden shiner
(Notemigonus crysoleucas), and taillight shiner- (Notropis
maculatus).
2.3.3 Impacts
Proposed widening of US 17 is not expected to result in significant
adverse impacts to local wildlife populations in the area. Planned
activities will essentially involve widening of an existing highway
with a majority of the impacts concentrated within disturbed right-
of-way. Many of these border communities have limited habitat
value for wildlife.
Even so, natural communities within the expanded alignment will be
lost in term of future biological production, with resultant
effects on potential wildlife usage. Resident species which may
prefer fringe communities along the existing highway corridor
(songbirds, small mammals, amphibians, etc.) will be displaced.
Movement from one side of the road to the other will be even more
dangerous for transient species.
Habitat impacts resulting from construction of the Verona Bypass
alignment will be more significant. In spite of continuing
military exercises which are conducted on DOD properties in Onslow
County, these communities are part of large, contiguous systems
which provide refuge for many mammals and birds. Larger animals,
such as deer and bear, which require extensive ranges, are known
to occur in these areas. Habitat segmentation, may result in
subsequent disruptions to range, feeding/mating patterns, and
movement for many of these species.
Secondary impacts will be an inevitable consequence of roadway
construction. Improvements to US 17 will encourage and support
additional development, resulting in the potential conversion of
large tracts of undeveloped land for business or residential use.
Certainly, the loss of habitat associated with these secondary
concerns will be far greater than the immediate effects caused by
highway widening.
11
2.4 Protected Species
2.4.1 Federally Listed Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified six species listed
as endangered or threatened, and eight species under status review
which may occur in Onslow County. These species include:
Endangered or Threatened (E or T)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borea
Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar)
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mvdas) - T
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia as
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum coolevi) nll??
h7etv-111 Review
lis) - E
E
T
perulaefolia) - E
E
Pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonii)
Sea-beach pigweed (Amaranthus pumilus)
Pine barrens sandre6d (Calamovilfa brevipilis)
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana)
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago verna)
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius)
Boykins lobelia (Lobbelia boykinii)
Awned meadow-beauty (Rhexia aristosa)
Green and loggerhead sea turtles were not considered in this
analysis. The turtles are not expected inland of our coastal
waters: However, the following species were thoroughly
investigated for presence or absence in the project vicinity:
Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar)
The cougar, or mountain lion, was once abundant throughout much of
North Carolina. However, habitat encroachment and over hunting
resulted in this species being eliminated from the mid-Atlantic
states by the late 1800s; many consider the cougar extirpated from
this region (Webster et al., 1985). Although there have been
reports of sightings in coastal swamps of eastern North Carolina,
no such records exist to support the presence of eastern cougar in
the vicinity of the proposed project (personal communication,
Natural Heritage personnel; Bobby Maddrey, WRC).
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is a colonial species found in
southern pine forests of North and South Carolina. In our state,
the woodpecker is located in Piedmont and Coastal Plain woodlands
12
east of Halifax, Wake, Montgomery, and Anson counties. Major
concentrations are found on the Fort Bragg 'Military Reservation,
the Wildlife Commission's Sandhills Game Land and the Croatan
National Forest (Parnell, 1977). Weymouth Woods-Sandhills Nature
Preserve and Camp Lejeune Military Reservation near Jacksonville
also have significant populations of the birds (Wooten, 1978).
The red-cockaded woodpecker is identified by a black head,
prominent white cheek patch, and a back that is barred with black
and white. Males often have red markings (cockades}_ behind the
eye, but these tale-tale signs are often absent or difficult to
see.
Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine 1X
forests, usually including loblolly, longleaf, slash (P. elliotii)
and pond pines (Thompson and Baker, 1971; Henry, 1989). The
woodpeckers prefer large trees with little or no understory.
Traditionally, pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannahs which
have been maintained by frequent natural fires (Jackson, 1986)
serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for the woodpeckers.
These open woodlands allow-the birds to forage for wood-boring
insects, grubs, beetles, and corn worms (Potter et al., 1980).
Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment-of the
colony trees.
Cavities are generally constructed in living, mature pines which
are often infected with red heart fungus (Fomes pini). The disease
weakens the inner heart wood, making it easier to excavate.
Cavities are usually located 30-50 feet above ground level allowing
for easy detection due to the resinous buildup around cavity
openings.
The Camp Lejeune Environmental Management staff has confirmed the
presence of four known RCW colony sites on Marine Corps property.
One abandoned colony tree is located within the project area in the.
vicinity of the Verona bypass. This site was originally deemed
inactive between 1980 and 1983 and no longer maintained on Marine
Corps maps for management purposes. However, under the latest.
biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), this area now requires ongoing maintenance (LBA, 1991a).
In addition, three active colonies are located near US 17 between
Dixon and Verona, N.C. (LBA, .1991a, b) . Two of the colony trees are
within 0.5 miles of the alignment. A foraging habitat analysis was
conducted in June of 1991 using guidelines established by the USFWS
(Henry, 1989) (LBA, 1991b). However, comparisons of pre- and post-
project habitat values (total pine stems, pine stems > 10 inches
dbh, and pine stems basal area) as per proposed takings, reveal
that all remaining values are within the existing surplus available
for each colony (LBA, 1991b).
Because of the presence of known populations of RCWs, studies were
13
undertaken to determine the likely presence of additional nesting
habitat within 0.5 miles of potential foraging habitat. Nesting
habitat is defined as pine or pine-mixed hardwood (greater than 50%
pine) stands 60+ years of age; foraging habitat refers to similar
stands greater than 30 years of age (Henry, 1989). Forest stand
data, including age and species composition, were evaluated through
aerial photo interpretation and on site investigations. When
suitable stands were identified, line transects were established
to provide 100 percent coverage in an effort to identify cavity
trees. No additional colony trees were observed (LBA, 1991a).
Rough-leaved Loosestrife (LVsimachia asperolaefolia)
The rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial, rhizomatous herb
endemic to coastal plain and sandhill regions of the Carolinas.
The plant often reaches heights of 1-2 feet with 3-4 leaves in
whorls which encircle the stem below yellow flowers. Flowering
occurs from May to June and fruits are produced from July to
October (Radford, et al., 1968). The loosestrife is limited to
nine counties in North Carolina, including Onslow County. The
preferred habitat consists of cleared areas between longleaf pine
uplands and pond pine pocosins on moist to seasonally saturated
sands or organic soils overlying sand; the species is also found
in elliptic depressions known as Carolina Bays. Rough-leaved
loosestrife is fire maintained; therefore, suppression of naturally
occurring fires, which allows the species to re-generate, has
contributed to the loss of habitat in our state.
Cooley's Meadowrue (Thalictrum coolevi)
Cooley's meadowrue is a rhizomatous perennial herb with stems that
generally do not exceed 1 meter in height. The plant is normally
erected in full sun but lax in the shade. The petal-less, uni-
sex flowers bloom in June and the fruits mature in August and
September. This species is endemic to southeastern Coastal Plain
communities from North Carolina (9 locations) to Florida. Moist
bogs and savannahs are preferred habitat for Cooley's meadowrue.
Cooley's meadowrue does not occur in heavily wooded areas nor is
it expected in most man dominated systems. This species is
dependent upon some form of disturbance to sustain the open quality
of its habitat. As such, Cooley's meadowrue is sometimes found
along utility corridors, roadside margins, or other maintained
areas. Cooley's meadowrue is threatened by fire suppression and
land disturbing practices (silviculture or agriculture).
Both the loosestrife and meadowrue have unique habitat requirements
necessary for survival. The maintained nature of the US 17 right-
of-way corridor does provide opportunities for establishment of
both species. Natural Heritage records have documented the
presence of rough-leaved loosestrife populations north of SR 1103
bordering southbound lanes of US 17. However, populations of
Cooley's meadowrue have not been recorded in this area.
14
Detailed field surveys of potential habitat areas were conducted
in late May and early June, 1991 for both federally listed species.
Roadside margins, ditches, and woodland habitat edges were visually
inspected. These surveys failed to find presence of known
populations; no additional occurrences were noted.
Species listed as Status Review currently receive no protection
under federal or state law. However, the eight species with ranges
in the project vicinity were evaluated for likely presence.
The only Status Review listed species known to occur in the
immediate area of the project is pine barrens sandreed (Calamovilfa
brevipilis). This species is a grass-like plant with stems 27-
42" long. The species blooms between June and October, producing
a small, purple flower. Pine barrens sandreed occurs in coastal
plain regions from the Carolinas to New Jersey, including nine
counties in North Carolina. The plant is found in bogs or
savannahs, and is dependent on fire or some form of habitat
management for its continued existence (Cooper et al, 1975). NCNHP
personnel have identified populations of pine barrens sandreed
within eastern right-of-way limits of US 17 north of Dixon.
2.4.2 State Listed Species
N.C. Natural Heritage Program records indicate numerous state-
listed species occurring within the project area. These species
include:
E =Endangered, T =Threatened, C =Candidate, SR =Significantly Rare
Animals
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Plants
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia) - E
Pine barrens sandreed (Calamovilfa brevipilis) - E
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius) - T
Carolina goldenrod (Solidago pulchra) - C
Carolina asphodel (Tofieldia glabra) - C
Pale beakrush (Rhynchospora Qallida) - C
Pine barrens goober grass (Amphicarpum purshii) - C
Fitzgerald's peatmoss (Sphagnum fitzgeraldii) - C
Longleaf three-awn (Aristida palustris) - C
Savanna cowbane (Oxypolis ternata) - C
Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) - C
Elliot's yellow-eyed grass (Xvris elliotii) - SR
Short-leaved yellow-eyed grass (Xvris brevifolia) - SR
Savanna yellow-eyed grass (Xvris flabelliformis) - SR
Yellow hatpins (Syngonanthus flavidulus) - SR
Leconte's flatsedge (Cyperus lecontei) - SR
Spoonflower (Peltandria sagittaefolia) - SR
Liverwort (Lophozia capitata) - watch list (1)
15
All of the plant species referenced above have been found by NCNHP
personnel within the US 17 right-of-way between Holly Ridge and
Verona. Concentrated populations of pine barrens sandreed,
wireleaf dropseed, Carolina goldenrod, Carolina asphodel, pine
barrens goober grass, Elliot's yellow-eyed grass, Savanna yellow-
eyed grass, and Venus flytrap occur along northbound lanes of the
US 17 right-of-way immediately north of Dixon. Scattered sightings
of these and other state listed species are documented in various
locations along southern portions of the corridor. Given the
existence of maintained ecotonal fringes between the: highway and
adjacent woodlands, additional populations may be present within
the proposed corridor.
"
Records maintained by the Natural Heritage Program indicate
documented sightings of the American alligator (Alligator
miss issippiensis) in the Southwest Creek basin. However, no record
of occurrence was noted in the immediate vicinity of the US 17
alignment. Should evidence of this species be found during
construction, the NCDOT will notify appropriate wildlife
authorities, so that relocation can be undertaken or efforts
expended to avoid disturbance to these elusive animals.
2.4.3 Impacts
All federal and state listed species were considered during field
investigations. However, primary emphasis was focused on federally
protected species because of documented presence.
Four known RCW colony sites are present on Camp Lejeune property
near US 17. One abandoned cavity tree occurs within the corridor
of the proposed Verona Bypass. This site may be impacted by
highway development. Consultations with the USFWS and Marine Corps
personnel will be initiated prior to construction in order to
determine if mitigation is required for this site.
Foraging analysis was conducted in areas surrounding the two known
colony sites within 0.5 miles of the alignment. Comparisons of
pre- and post-project habitat values revealed that sufficient
foraging habitat would remain after project construction to support
the birds. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated on
these active colony sites.
Remaining pine and pine-mixed hardwood tracts along the US 17
corridor were evaluated for foraging and nesting habitat potential.
Stands capable of supporting RCWs were surveyed. No additional
colony sites were found.
Intensive field investigations were undertaken to determine
presence or absence of federally protected plant species, including
rough-leaved loosestrife and Cooley's meadowrue. No populations
of either species was identified. Based on existing information
and subsequent field surveys, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
16
A number of state listed plant species are known to occur along the
alignment. Suitable habitat is present within project boundaries
to suggest that additional populations may exist. The NCDOT will
work closely with NCNHP personnel to provide an opportunity for
relocation of impacted populations.
2.5 Water Resources
major streams in the study area which are crossed by US 17 include
Southwest Creek and Hicks Run (Figure 4). Juniper Swamp and Kings
Creek headwaters also extend into the project area along with
several minor unnamed tributaries. Permanent streams within the
study area represent 2600 linear feet.
Surface drainage from the northern study boundaries to Verona flows
in an easterly direction across the study area to the New River via
Hicks Run and Southwest Creek. Surface drainage west of US 17. from
Verona to Holly Ridge generally flows into the Great Sandy Run
Pocosin. East of US 17 from Verona to Folkstone, surface drainage
flows in a northeasterly direction to the New River via Stones
Creek. From Folkstone to Holly Ridge, surface drainage east of US
17 flows southeasterly towards the Intracoastal waterway. -
2.6 Water Quality
Water quality classifications for the waterways within the study
area were identified using 15 NCAC 2B.0312 (Water Quality Section,
1989a). These classifications are presented in Table 4. The
appended designation of HQW (High Quality Waters) on some of the
water bodies became effective on August 1, 1990. This water
quality designation was designed to protect certain waters from
continued nutrient and pollution sources.
No measurements or concentrations of heavy metals, toxic chemicals,
toxic compounds, or hydrocarbons are presently known or available
for any of the waterways in the project area.
2.6.1 Impacts
Increased erosion and sedimentation will occur during any storm
event while the soil is exposed by construction activities such as
clearing and grading. The impact of this increase will be
minimized by the use of erosion control measures such as
installation of temporary silt fence, silt basins, dikes, berms,
and dams in compliance with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation Division of Highways' "Guidelines for Control of
Erosion & Sediment During Construction" and any local ordinances
governing pollution control..
17
2.7 Floodplains
Boundaries of 100-year floodplains within the study area were
determined through the use of Flood Insurance Rate Maps published
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 1987. These
floodplain boundaries are shown in Figures 4D, 4F and 4G. Three
primary floodplain areas are crossed by the study corridor. The
first site is located approximately 0.4 miles north of NC 210 in
Dixon, extends for a length of nearly 3,100 feet along the study
area, and generally contains natural ground elevations of up to
approximately sixty feet above mean sea level. The remaining two
sites are located at the Hicks Run and Southwest Creek crossings.
The Hick's Run floodplain is approximately 600 feet in width with
natural ground elevations below ten feet above mean sea level while
the Southwest Creek floodplain is approximately 1100 feet in width
with natural ground elevations typically below 5 feet above mean
sea level within the study area.
Two existing box culverts at Hicks Run and a bridge crossing at
Southwest Creek were evaluated for the anticipated rural conditions
in the drainage basins over a twenty year period. Table 4
summarizes the crossing locations, structure sizes, proposed
modifications, and design data. The crossing locations are shown
on Figure 4G. Since the drainage areas for both the Hicks Run and
Southwest Creek stream crossings are greater than one square mile,
the design flows were based on regional flood relation values
presented in the U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 87-4096. The regional flows for Southwest
Creek were further improved by adjusting due to additional data at
a gauged site on Southwest Creek upstream of the US 17 site. Both
sites are also located in Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) regulated 100 year flood zones. Detailed FEMA study areas
are not involved.
The two existing culverts at Hicks Run are twin reinforced concrete
boxes (RCBC). Due to the extreme proximity of these culverts to
each other, they were evaluated in combination. They were found
to be adequate to handle the projected flows through the design
period, but will require extensions to accommodate the widening of
US 17 with both the East and West Alternatives. Approximately 250'
of channel realignment will also be required upstream in addition
to the culvert extensions with the West Alternative in the area.
If stream channel modification or relocation is required, NCDOT
will coordinate such activities with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission in accordance
with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (72 Stat. 563, as
amended; 16 USC 661 et. seq. (1976)). Since the proposed
modifications are extensions of existing culverts, the project
should have a negligible effect on the floodplain and floodway
modification is not required. No permanent residential or business
structures were found in the existing 100-year floodplain; however,
one house-trailer appears to be in the floodplain based on
18
approximate methods of floodplain determination. A detailed study
will be required to determine the impacts.
A bridge with vertical abutments presently exists at the Southwest
Creek Crossing. Due to structural inadequacies of the existing
bridge, replacement is recommended, even though it was found to
adequately handle the projected flows. Dual bridges with the same
width bottom opening are required with both the East and West
Alternatives. The new bridges should be constructed with
spillthrough (sloping) type abutments rather than vertical
abutments to achieve improved hydraulic characteristics. Dual
bridges with this configuration were found to provide essentially
the same efficiency as the existing single bridge with vertical
abutments. Primarily due to the very large floodplain/wetland area
existing at this site, the constriction of the floodway by the
project is not expected to significantly affect the floodplain, or
require floodway modification. The backwater from the downstream
wetlands and the New River may very well be the controlling factor
hydraulically. Two house-trailers appear to be in the fringe of
the existing 100-year floodplain based on approximate methods of
floodplain determination. A detailed study will be required to
determine the impacts on them.
2.8 Geology
The geology of coastal North Carolina consists of Quaternary,
Tertiary and upper Cretaceous marine sediments underlain by Pre-
Cretaceous basement rock. The study area corridor is underlain
entirely by the Tertiary-age River Bend Formation. This geologic
unit consists of limestone and calcarenite strata overlain by and
intercalated with indurated, secondary, molluscan-mold limestone.
Underlying this formation are older
of the Castle Hayne and Beaufort
Cretaceous Peedee, Black Creek,
formations.
Tertiary formations consisting
Formations, as well as the
Middendorf and Cape Fear
2.9 Soil Types
Soil types located within the study area were mapped and described
using information provided by the Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service (USDA, SCS, 1989; USDA, SCS, 1990) (Figure 5).
The SCS classifies soils into series and phases on the basis of
horizontal similarities and characteristics that affect man's use
of the soils. These characteristics, which are generally
consistent throughout individual mapping units, may include
texture, slopes, drainage, stoniness, permeability, etc.
Additionally, soil units within the study area have been classified
as either hydric or nonhydric (Table 6). Hydric soils include the
Murville, Leon, Woodington, Torhunta, Muckalee and Croatan series.
19
With the exception of the Croatan series, these soils consist of
fine sands whose hydric classification is due to very poor drainage
as a result of their flat orientation and low elevation. The
Croatan, however, is a very acidic organic material with a higher
clay content than the other hydric soils found in the study area.
Periodically during the year, the groundwater table is located at
or within one foot of the ground surface of all hydric soils.
The Muckalee series, which is a poorly drained floodplain soil, is
found underlying and adjacent to streams or creeks and is subject
to frequent flooding. Similarly, the Murville series is found
along flat or slightly depressed areas that generally conform with
the regional dendritic drainage pattern while the Leon series is
located in flatwood areas alternating with the Murville series.
Like the Leon series, Woodington soils are also found -on
interstream divides. Also there are sparse occurrences of Torhunta
soils on stream terraces.
Although the hydric soils occupy a large percentage of the study
area, the properties of all but the Croatan are such that they
would not severely constrain the project since appropriate
stabilization and drainage techniques would be employed during
construction. The Croatan series on the other hand, will require
removal and replacement when encountered within the limits of
construction. Fortunately, the Croatan Series occupies only 1/2
of one percent of the soils depicted within the study area.
Soils along the upland areas of the project corridor consist
primarily of granular deposits. These soils are good borrow
material with low shrink and swell potential. However, these
deposits are highly erodible by wind and water. The granular soils
are generally underlain by soft to medium stiff gray sandy and
silty clay. Soils in Southwest Creek and Hicks Run floodplains
consist of up to approximately nine feet of very soft slightly
organic silt underlain by medium dense sand.
2.10 Farmlands
In addition to the soil properties, the SCS also classifies soils
with respect to prime, important or unique farmland. Farmlands
are depicted on Figure 5, and quantified in Table 7. Farmland
acres do not include any area exempt under the Federal Farmland
Protection Policy Act. Such areas include the Camp Lejeune
Military Base and those acres in urban use.
2.11 Rare/Unique Natural Areas
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program maintains a list of
rare and unique natural areas for the State. No designated rare
or unique natural areas occur within the study area.
20
2.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers
No rivers currently designated as wild and scenic occur within the
project area.
3.0 PERMITTING
Permits will be required for encroachment into wetland communities
as a result of highway construction. Although several different
stream basins will be crossed by the proposed alignment, wetland
takings will be considered cumulatively for permit purposes due to
the continuity of the project.
Application for an Individual Section 404 Dredge and Fill permit
(33 U.S.C. 1344) will be required from the U.S. Army Corps-of
Engineers (COE). Nationwide permits will not apply due to the
significant amount of wetlands involved.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires each
state to certify that state water quality standards will not be
violated for activities which: 1) involve issuance of a federal
permit or license; or 2) require discharges into "waters of the
United States." The COE will not issue a 404 permit until 401
certification is approved. Therefore, the NCDOT must apply to the
N.C. Division of Environmental Management, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health & Natural Resources (DEHNR) for 401
certification as part of the permit process.
Onslow County is one of 20 coastal counties under the jurisdiction
of the N. C. Coastal Area Management (CAMA) Program.. CAMA has
permit responsibilities for activities which occur in designated
Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs). Freshwater wetlands (such
as those found in the project area) are not considered AECs for
permit purposes. However, the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972 mandates that federal actions (including issuance of 404
permits) comply with requirements of State approved coastal zone
programs (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)). Therefore, CAMA will review permit
activities which take place in the Onslow county area for
state/federal consistency. A LAMA consistency determination must
be approved as part of the permit review process before
construction can be initiated.
4.0 MITIGATION
4.1 Policy
mitigation is recommended in accordance with Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 230), mitigation policy
mandates articulated in the recent COE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA; Page and Wilcher, 1990), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961
(1977)), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) mitigation policy
directives (46 FR 7644-7663 (1981)), and FHWA stepdown procedures
21
(23 CFR 777.1-777.11). Mitigation has been defined in NEPA
regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b) minimize; c)
rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse
impacts to the environment (40 CFR 1508.20 (a-e)).
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the COE/EPA MOA, and Executive order
11990, stress avoidance and minimization as primary considerations
for protection of wetlands. Practicable alternatives analysis must
be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation can be discussed.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife service policy also emphasizes avoidance
and minimization. However, for unavoidable losses, the FWS
recommends that mitigation efforts be based on the value and
scarcity of the habitat at risk. Habitat is classified into four
resource categories based on decreasing importance and value, with
subsequent decreases in mitigation planning objectives (46 FR 7657-
7658). Most wetlands in the project vicinity would be considered
as Category 2 or 3 resources (high to medium value) under the FWS
system, requiring a mitigation goal of no net loss of habitat value
(compensation through replacement).
FHWA policy stresses that all practicable measures should be taken
to avoid or minimize harm to wetlands which will be affected by
federally funded highway construction. A sequencing (stepdown)
procedure is recommended in the event that avoidance is impossible.
First, consideration must be given to providing for mitigation
within highway right-of-way limits, generally through enhancement,
restoration, or creation. Mitigation employed outside of the
highway right-of-way must be reviewed and approved on a case-by-
case basis. Measures should be designed !'to reestablish, to the
extent reasonable, a condition similar tb that which would have
existed if the project were not built" (23 CFR 777.9(b)).
4.2 Mitigation Evaluation
Avoidance is not a logical solution to eliminating impacts
associated with this project. With the exception of the 2.1 mile
Verona Bypass, the proposed action will involve widening of an
existing highway corridor. The preferred alternative will result
in impacts to natural communities - both wetland and upland.
Minimization will be effectively employed along the preferred
alternative. Reduction of fill slopes and median widths at
stream/wetland crossings will be used to reduce unnecessary wetland
takings. Bridging of the Southwest Creek channel and adjacent
riparian embankments will help alleviate impacts on this primary
water body. Conservative use of culverts and sensitive placement
of drainage structures will minimize further degradation to
22
wetlands and water quality at other locatirons. Primary impacts
will be focused within disturbed right-of-way limits, minimizing
unnecessary disturbances to adjacent communities.
Compensatory mitigation is recommended for all unavoidable wetland
losses. Primary wetland impacts will occur to palustrine needle-
leaved evergreen communities bordering US 17. The U.S. Department
of Defense (DOD) is in the process of acquiring the Great Sandy Run
Pocosin located west of US 17 near Verona. This area has been
extensively logged, drained and replanted as pine plantation. Most
of the initial wetland functions have been modified by these
disturbances. The DOD would like to utilize portions of this area
for military training exercises; remaining lands may be restored
as wetlands by blocking ditches to re-establish former hydrological
regimes. The NCDOT could participate with the DOD to restore
wetland conditions in sufficient acreage amounts to provide full
mitigation for all palustrine, needle-leaved evergreen losses
attributed to the highway improvements.These restoration/
enhancement actions would be considered on-site, in-kind
replacement in keeping with various resource agency policies.
Potential sites are available in the Southwest Creek and Hicks Run
basins for mitigation of deciduous hardwood losses. Creation or
restoration may be initiated on disturbed tracks or in farm fields
adjacent to both floodplains west of the alignment. As a last
resort, the NCDOT Company Swamp Bank in Bertie County may be
debited for unavoidable and unmitigated losses.

23
5.0 REFERENCES
Audubon Society. 1988. Field Guide to North American Fish,
Whales, and Dolphins. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc, New York. 847 p.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-
79/31. 103 p.
Department of Defense, U.S. Marine Corps Base. 1990. Geographic
Information System Maps of Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base,
North Carolina. Unpublished.
Ibid. 1990 and 1991. Per. comm. with Charles Peterson, Division
of Environmental Management, Camp Lejeune.
Department of Defense, U.S. Navy, Atlantic Division. 1989.
Proposed Expansion and Realignment of the Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, North Carolina. Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. NAVFACENGCOM, Norfolk. No.
N62470-86-C-8775. _
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1987. Flood Insurance Rate
Map, Onslow County, North Carolina. Community Panel No.
37034001900. Nat'l Flood Insur. Progr., Washington.
Ibid. 1987. Panel No. 3703400305C.
Ibid. 1987. Panel No. 3703400310C.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989.
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Cooperative technical publication. 76 p. plus appendices.
Federal Register, 1986. Regulatory Programs of the Corps of
Engineers; Final Rule. Department of Defense, Corps of
Engineers, Dept. of Army. 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330.
41206-41260 p.
Harned, D.A., O.B. Lloyd, Jr., and M.W. Treece, Jr. 1989.
Assessment of Hydrologic and Hydrogeologic Data at Camp
Lejeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina. U.S.G.S. Water
Resources Investigations Report 89-4096. Raleigh, NC. 64 p.
Henry, G.V. 1989. Guidelines for the Preparation of Biological
Assessments and Evaluations for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA.
13p. plus appendices.
24
Jackson, J.A. 1986. Biopolitics, Management of Federal Lands and
the Conservation of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. American
Birds. 40(5). pp. 1162-1168)
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1990. Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, NC. 25 p.
Louis Berger & Associates. 1990. Field observations at the
vicinity of Jacksonville and Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base,
North Carolina.
Louis Berger & Associates. 1991. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Nesting
Habitat Survey.
Louis Berger & Associates. 1991. RCW Post Project Foraging
Habitat Analysis.
Niering, W.A. 1988. Wetlands. Alfred Knopf, New York. 638 p.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, J.R. Harrison III. 1980.
Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. UNC
Press. Chapel Hill, N. C. 264 p.
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1985. Geologic map of North
Carolina. Det. Nat. Resour. Commun. Devel., Raleigh.
Parnell, J.R.. 1977. Birds. in: Endangered and Threatened
Plants and Animals of North Carolina. J.E. Cooper, S.R.
Robinson, and J.B. Funderburg (eds.). N. C. State Museum of
Natural History. 435 p.
Plant Conservation Program.' 1990. List of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species. Plant
Industry Division, North Carolina Department of Agriculture,
Raleigh, NC. 18 p.
Potter, E.F., J. F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. UNC Press. Chapel Hill, N. C. 408 p.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Univ. North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill. 1183 p.
Reed, P.B. 1988. Wetland Plants of the State of North Carolina.
Nat'l Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St.
Petersburg, FL. 40 p.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Sim. 1966. Guide to Field
Identification: Birds of North America. Golden Press, New
York. 340 p.
25
Schafale, P.M. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. ;Classification of the
Natural Communities of North Carolina. NC Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N. C. Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Sharity, R.R. and J.W. Gibbons. 1982. The Ecology of Southeastern
Shrub Bogs (Pocosin) and Carolina Bays: A Community Profile.
US Fish and Wildife Service, Division of Biological Services,
Washington, D.D. FSW/OBS-82-04. 93 p.
Thompson, R.L., and W.W. Baker. 1971. A Survey of Red-cockaded
Woodpecker Nesting Requirements. p.170-186. in: R.L. Thompson
(eds.). The Ecology and Management of the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker. Tall Timbers Research Station. Tallahassee, Fla.
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1989. Hydric Soils of North
.Carolina. SCS, Raleigh, NC. 20 p.
Ibid. 1990. Unpublished soil maps of Onslow County.
U.S.D.O.I. 1987. Gunter, H.C., R.R. Mason, and T.C. Starney.
Water Quality Section. 1989a. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the White Oak River Basin. (amended
effective 8/1/90). North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Division of Environmental
Management, Raleigh, NC. 11 p.
Ibid. 1989b. Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
Water Quality Review 1983-1988. North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of
Environmental Management, Raleigh, lC. Rpt. No. 89-08. 193 p.
Ibid. 1990. New River, Onslow County: Nutrient Control Measures
and Water Quality Characteristics for 1986-1989. North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC.
Rpt. No. 90-04. 78 p.
Weakley, A.S. 1990. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, NC. 56 p.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. UNC Press. Chapel
Hill, N.C. 255 p.
Wooten, C. 1978. Our Endangered Wildlife in North Carolina.
Wildlife Resources Commission. in: Wildlife in North
Carolina. Volume 42, Number 7.
26
Y ?A -
cl,
i ? J ? -_ _ Lam(,
•? - ??, o«< <??' ?; Y ...END PROJECT
W : ?? ? / No, na -
l?'p `?/- V J ?J
1.!

/Any

O

,P s
G v
Z y
0
ONSLOW COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
or
O
n
0
s
\ ' y
ll
, BEGIN PROJECT ..
fT
o?S ? h7 /, ? ?r?s?
G %a: \ \ ??:' ` \
w
II I
.i
i
<. R-2406, US 17
HOLLY RIDGE TO JACKSONVILLE
' FIGURE 1
v
PROJECT LOCATION
SCALE
1 0 1 1 7 ?M n
SECTION IVY
t
Ilk-
SECTION III ?-
a
w !!
ac
S ?,? o v
Z y
1 \
SECTION II
_ .\ spa \`_ , j /

f.
SECTION
R-2406, US 17
1 ?e HOLLY RIDGE TO JACKSONVILLE
lb
FIGURE 2
STUDY SECTIONS
scme
?2? o f o f ..,ats
MATCH LINE A W
B 3NIl Hal YIY Z a -
O T 0
US Q
M
a
_0 CC 5 Z?
cli UJ C. D
°
Q o LL, ?
L
°C
n ? ? p e
? = U
0
siexvs ST. y
?. a o
r.. ? '
r . Axon st
O
cl
o
o
IIAIV Sr
W
y? z
J Z
Q
A O
cuc,
O y
t- LL U 0 0 a
LU 8 v ¢ O
NC so OCi.W All z U. 3: tu
0 O O a a w
0 _ < a
g w w O
b z z
= O
d U a °C 9
O a o
U a X w U w z
SANOVI'S S7 a y O
0 e v R
a
z a co O
W O AYE SL
m
O
0.
O (T Q
J
O
D
S
O
De
9• e?
o
60 4 e vv
V 3NIl II?1Vq
W
J N
3 3NIl HO1VY1 -?
3 3NIl HJ1VIl - W
Z M -
C ? ^0 W rr
rV M
co ,,
go = 4 -8
o Z
N W CL D
¢Q
J e
U
o •
a
i? a
y
a
I
K 4
y
a ? ? W
V
z
N
h w
¢ y
k" J
p
H R ¢ 0
w U. 3 z
y M p ¢ d p
'J` 3 = c a
z z
¢ w w O
a z¢ as w o
S a p 0 a p
_U p LL w
N X Z U w
tu :3 t? Q. a w O
6 4 m a ua)- O 2
6
R
H
O
4
4
N
CL ?O
0 3Nn HOLM 3 3Nn H31V/1

\!PI 4
O
i ?
b
O Ip
Z?OV ? ? pa a?t?
Oi ? O ? ISy
?O
ZJ? ?
?L

0
a

4 O
O
J ?
3
:t //// 'I-
8 3Nn majV 7

13
w

z
a

w
N
U. C
H 2
w o
w
Z 3
w Q a

O

2 Z
!-
W S? 9
S Z N
a p m o
U U. U

Z 2
X O
ai

IL w O
fete OLD IVLanvw Am
w
R
r

a 3NIl HDlVr4
MATCH LINE C

H 3Ni1 kJ1 Yly W
J N

u C
e
_
UNE
Ma1CN Z n.

Q Cf)
.
Z
? W
w
N CL
CL ¢
J O o
a = U

a ?
0
w

W
U
Q
2
co
4
6 ¢ to
O
O

°z L
w
3 w
w

O
?10?
O
J
=
J W
1-
d ?^ '0
CC y x
x W w ZO Z
¢O W
LL o
r g
v? U
w o
X Z U W
S
Sn 6 f a w O 2

_
? LL
a vai O O
?
e

r

?
h 3
x
0
x
s
y

IL
0 C
0

N

¢ N

3NI)
?1 yIATCN UNE G
YW

W
13NIl HJ1VY1 f 3NIl HJ1VY1 J NW C
Z a
.?? 0? M
D a LLI Z
D --3 a. :3
R ?9 G
cr
o = U
0 4
o ?
a o -
3
t
O ?
U
W
h ?
? Z
> f--
W
(1) w
O
a
z
w
?n
O O
o O O ~
2 LL 3 W
In OW O ¢ a W
J 3 S Q Q
O ? to
= a O m E O
U O U 2
C w X z > a
E co O
L U.
CL
3 = co
O
y >
-tL
O
LL.
O
4
O
IL
y 6
y a N
N
13NI1 HXV"
H 3Nn HOIVY1
w
w
w
J
N
€
+ l l
I
Z a
O U.
r

S c
)
o Q
_ 11.1
Z y
0 S
N; a a 5
¢0 - 2

e° J 0
°
? = U
O

O
e
a

0
4
• 0
°
° D
O O

do Q? .°
0
a
° lal o
D
?
b
z o ??

p Oa a ?
a
0 0
°
O
O d ?

0Oo OR
?O
? E3 0
?
' p
ID 0

A
U

7
. p
w
>
0
°
'
.

Z
?
?
avv W
"
Oa 0
a
z
z
k
O
Z
p
3
w

S p a a w
11110 0 3 = -r !R
111111 ¢ W F
o 9
w m
0 1 1 1 1 1 =o? x a 0 N M o
1 e,o 11 8o a W X U. 0 a
00 ? ? a y O ?
?

e °
•1 a co O 2
a

P 3Nn Nalvn

4

3N17 J
> N °o
W -
1{?[Y z a

0
0
V
» ce)

W
F-
Z
o i
o ;o
00 ? 5 Z.
amD CV w C? a DS
0 p `

O ? ? o
o U

!i U
w
O 'O
C
N?? b, w Jy
w
? ?
4op ? p
e
0 0• 2
p
?d V o -

w z
a

O N
y zz

to
1 LL
O ° w
w
zz Q
3 = a
w

Cq
o
w
cc z a
z
O
0 z

9 0

?_411 p U z

cl s w a N
O i
UonO ?

_
a
C5 LL o
O 2

'
G
L
O Z
I
O ? 0O O

N

z
u
0
Q
MC

i
? uNE K
ZO<
M? 3N1, F41Yw
J
N

r
MATCH LINE a B 3NIl Hoty v j
z
?co Q cn
0 [t 0
cn a W Z
g 3
c\I CD
w
Q
0 J
0 J o
d °
0
a
0
no
El 4 2 0
W
O J ® ? i
0
LMN sr
G1P MNS All ?1.+•p
Z ? So,
O
U A ? ? I,y
W 0-
a
AC -V Q?AM fin
O
?
u
A( y
I.- L
S~S sr.
0
w °• o
IL
c
z m
?E
W d sr. 8
0
m C
30
?U.
a U.
.0
E lo
a
CIS
rtm.. 3
D oL
QO° o
w
a.
'C N
9 n 0
0 O LLO
? D o• _
a o o. O
??TT Z
V 31411 H]1V"

3 3NIl H3LVW ! 3Nn H31VN J
z

n 4 O V (?

?W

CV 0 ?R
V
W
Q

r
J o
0

O
N
tc l
t'i C <

O

Q O
W

LLA
a
92
3

12
3 ;f

C
ID
E
m?
.

N d
o
:: ..
- r
N O

m
d
td
? C
?;. C .m

. -l
' O
Y

O C
i7 O
O
N
N m

N .
U
N

o
F
z
0 3NI1 HOiVW 3 3Nn H31VW

MgTCH IINE G N
3NIJ ,,IV tv J QC
xr

lp, IN z

U)
O
N
r U
<n Q W Z
oo
?W
cli
0

? w
?.

.
5
.

I

0
Z M

W

foo W
W i

CC PD-

0

3

m
E
OIZ O w
N m?

. o
;c
m?
m a,
a?
? c
c ?
m?
r 3
om
ca

N C N
"m
?3

4 N

0
z
3ry7 "0 MAICH lNE G
1

13NIl H
D1VIY f 3Nn HOIVM "'3
J C
$

4 3• • Q Q W
a ,4
F- I` Q
c . fn Q
w z
®.
x o cc g :g

S F ', w
CEQ W

x'
w
M ?
S

Z

_ O
i U
'
W
N

3 °z
tAJ
W
J
?? 1

Z
O

W
N
z

W
E

a C o
o
13
c s
W
W C

W N
Co

co
M
O

t
:E
0 O
L

f _
C
O to
to
N
N m
? W

N 00
L
N
o

z
1
3Nn Halvn
H 3Nn E aivn .'
J C
E J
>
H
?
aP?` Z
(5
LL
N
^
r v Cl' ?
U) Q
6 0 LLI
M Z
.? 8
?
op O
r
w Y•
o 0 w

?• J
:a ` • O

k
C
}
o.D
0
4

.? a n

a o
W

. J
D
o O
e? Q
?
O
l
a?° v ea
o

a a.? .00
N &
Oo ?' 9•

0 0
O 0 o
O c

O °pO; e o•-• O 0 0
?
O
b C3 E
4 -c ° m 8
+0a ?° ID •d t 0
°
t
1 ?
o
Ua?? ;
c O O
H O D? 0a n N

C Co
O •
Pa ? 3
0 ?L
cv

Illl? o V N
C3 II1111 ? ?
p 1 1 1 11 0- p.•
1 °-mil 1
n do
n p
oQ Q

0 0 W
•I
° o
o
1B e Z
f 3Nn Ho1Vn
Z

W
J
t

3N17 J. V" J
Z
8
y '? cn cn
n
y ? Q
? O
o
W co
0o o '.T LU
F'
a to J

I
! ¢ LL
U
O J o
O
2
f-
U
W
'
O
w
a

? 4q, tOii O
z
W

.

peps ? ?`'
I
a o• ?

0 2 _

a
iv
n
y

RAN ?, u K
?

}
s } 1-

u ,eoow
t
S?
UQna E

? v
N N
? O
?
? m C
3 O

CD U)
E C
Q C -

0
7 ? O
Z N fl 10
?j k+ U) N
U) 2
CD jD
~
N ? O
o
? N
i
i .a
Z ??E K 0
0 C M ZCIA IN11 F z
ojY

W

Ill
N,p1CN L?

N

8'
Z
Q

Y
V
N

3 ?
? N
-
a RNiNS s.
? D
• RPAF1 s7
w
a
m
Z
m
o
OD

0
(alp VA WS RD
W

N !9
0

A AC 1p OMAN AG
z o.
0
a
SOCERS Sr

W
0 D 5 mr sr
a
o.
z
V
W
m
?
• (
Y
? S

D O•

r 3Hi? H
? fad
9 'sta a
0
OyJN
y

C
O
F• ? C
i
i
? c t 1 ? s
Z
bA17 H?lbly

0 3NI1 HJL b'W
3ryf)

NJ(yn. W

-?
o
s•

z J
Z
n0

m
to Z Z Q
Z

coo W o
J
0
¢0
O
0 Q
in
m
o
m
}
.J.1

0
m
O
m
v
u
CC fo

t
J
. 1

? V
• 1111t
a
? o m
.m m O
N
sg V
U

W j(

i

7 1

? J
A j rQ6SS66
N {?
?
?
11
[•
M
[[
N
N ? ? e? 1 3 s
5
ce av
N
N

i
8 3Nn Ho.Lvii J
'?N?I N
Jlbn ?
a

3 3NIl H31vh J Q

<z m i^ ?• 4
a m
- O
U
LO Z 0
Z
.
< ••? ?
4 j -ai
0
0 w Q
=
?
¢p J
O

e
¢ cl)
LL

L
O
o J
U
w
U)

Z
O
f-
W
N o

i t 777
• ? 5

M
r?r

g

EEEEEE
.
?- ? C? ?.
iv d o t 1? s

N 5

0 3Nn Holvm

N? f w
J
M t0, L?
a
oc Z
O
`n

O
cn
0 D
'" m
0
C
Cl) W ?

?< Z Z

Q
9
1D
a
'6 0 w
CC 3
(n

o
W p
0
0 F-
,r W
N V
=)
a
J /'?'?
O a:

m Q
Q Q
y' U-
°
m

`o
e°0
(?
? - U J
O
U

O o
`
O to.

g W
rN
G ??GU
VAPTOV CA9'N AD.
SA 1/07

°

m to
JNE f
m
7-
MrS&

N '
S John
me Jas •

w
c
g a k
u

• m°

y C}
1I

d: i
/ i
9
? •
` N ?
?
d ?
d
?
?
? . ?
?
C
tp
rp
p !
.. •? ? [[[ aa [[ III e y
?a a ?s ?e e
m

d
f
'
k . o
tdr
4
e
?

• 0
00
D o• m

O - °
a 4
° •ie
m °
3
s
fell
3 3Nn Holy"
z
T
J
m
F
Cl)
U
Q
CL
W
W ~
1Q
r Z
2 m
W
? J
? Q
C.) m
F
z
5
IL
'^
W rw
y N
T pl:
co
T (O
T ll? r
qe
In T N r co
r
00
T
LO Cl) r T N N
ci
cr)
O
? 19t
co
N
G
r

N LO O r T N GD
d
Z ?

C
N
Q
co
co
O
N
O
ti
M
? n M N GaD
r
N ? N O +- O ?7 N
L6
(? T
T C
Q
Co
LO T
T
LO ci r
co
T O
?O N N
J 'W
o
ci w CO ' G T

co
CD

LL ns
'8 o
o
3
W '
?p LL CO
A) co
a 3 CL
E
E m

5

to
C
o O

m =

E

Q
O CL = O
C X d C U fl J
a IL O H
IL CO LL

m
Q
a)
a
TABLE 2
WETLANDS WITHIN STUDY AREA
Area
Number Twe* Size Soils**
(acres)
1 Open water 0.4
2 PF04 4.7 Ln/Mu
3 PF04/PSS7 2.4 Ln
4 PF04 0.6 Ln
5 ----- ---- ----
6 ----- ---- ----
7 ----- ---- ----
8 PF04 2.7 Ln/Mu
9 PF04 5.3 Ln/Mu
9A PF04/PSS7 1.4 Mu
9B PF04/PSS7 5..0 Mu
10 PF04/PSS7 18.9 Mu
10A PF04/PSS7 20.5 Ln/Mu
10B PF04/PSS7 39.0 Ln/Mu
11 PEM1 0.2 Mu
12 PEM1 1.9 Mu
13 PF04/PSS7 14.7 Mu
14 PEM1 8.0 Mu
15 PF01, PF06 1.9 Mu
16 PF01, PF06 8.3 Ln/Mu
16A PEM1 1.5 Ln/Mu
16B PEM1 0.8 Ln
16C PEM1 1.0 Mu
17 PF04/PSS7 2.0 Ln
17A PF04/PSS7 3.0 Ln
18 PEM1 8.5 Ln
19 PF04/PSS7 8.3 Ln/Mu
20 PF04/PSS7 14.2 Ln/Mu
20A PF04/PSS7 8.4 Ln/Mu
20B PF04/PSS7 0.7 Ln
21 PEM1 1.5 Ln
21A PEM1 0.5 MaC
21B PEM1 0.1 MaC
22 PF01, PF06 3.8 Ln
23A PF01, PF06 2.3 MaC
23B PFO1, PF06 1.9 MaC
24 Open water 0.1 ---
25 PF04/PSS7 11.5 Ln
25A PF04/PSS7 19.9 Ln/Mu
26 PF04 14.4 Ln/Mu
27 PEM1 9.6 Ln/Mu/BaB
Comment
Pond
Pond

TABLE 2 - Continued
Area
Number Type Size Soils* * Comment
28 PEM1 6.6 Ln/Mu/Ct
29 PF04 4.4 BaB/Mu
30 PF01, PF06 0.7 Ln
31 PF01, PF06 1.2 Mu
32 PF04 2.5 Ln/Mu
33
34 PF04/PSS7 1.5 Ln/Mu
35 PF04 5.2 Ln/Mu
36 PF01, PF06 1.9 Mu
37 PF01, PF06 2.8 Mu/Ct
38 PF04 18.2 Ln/Mu
38A PF04 3.1 Ln/Ct
39 PEM1 6.7 Ln/Mu/FoA
40 PF04 10.3 Ln/Mu
41 PF01, PF06 1.1 Ln/Wo
41A PF01, PF06 1.0 Ln/FoA
42 PF04 4.0 Ln
43 PF04 0.5 Ln
44 PF04/PSS7 3.4 Ln/Wo
45 PF04/PSS7 6.7 FoA
46 PF04 1.2 BaB/FoA
47
48 PF01, PF06 34.5 B&aB/MaC/Mk
49 PF01, PF06 3.8 MaC/Mk
50 PF01, PF06 3.8 MaC/Mk
51 PF01, PF06 3.5 MaC
52 PF01, PF06 4.7 MaC/On
53
54 PF01, PF06 7.3 MaC/Mk
55 PF01, PF06 5.2 MaC/Mk
56 PF01, PF06 0.7 MaC/Mk
* PF01, PF06 - Palustrine Forested, Needle-leaved Deciduous
PF04 - Palustrine Forested, Needle-leaved Evergreen
PF04/PSS7 - Palustrine Forested, Needle-leaved Evergreen/Scrub-Shrub
PEM1 - Palustrine Emergent
* * For soils legend see Figure 5
Areas 5; 6 and 7 were orginally identified as wetlands, however, they were classified as
uplands after field review.
w
Numbers 33 and 53 were not used.
G
W
UW
g'
aQ
W N
J 2
CO U) LU
c _I-d
Z
g }
W co
3
N M (D CR
co N O C CNI
LO (D U? CR M
CC co 04 ? 1n
N eh N ?O a
(A ? N +- T a
N
2
r
O
C
O
Q cr) co fD OD
C6 (D -1 O Ip
N N M T OD
N O T C6
T to
Lq
co
(D M 4i

a)
z 0
Z?
t

U) a)

7 d
E
2!
F- U-
yC U-
OC U-
CD O W Q
!A C CD
L C
CD C 0 m
a
C
O !n
2)
CO 0
7 m O V
W 7 0
?_a
H
N
n.- J
OvW pa. W pCL 20-
H
Lu O
a IL a
2
C
d
Q
CD
CL
TABLE 4
Water Quality Classifications
Water Body Classification
Southwest Creek . C (HOW)
Hick's Run
C
Juniper Swamp C
Kings Creek C
C - Fish and other aquatic life propagation
Secondary recreation
Agricultural and other uses except primary recreation, water supply or other food-
related uses
HOW - High Quality Waters

Source: Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the White Oak River Basin.
15 NCAC 28.0312. Water Quality Section (1989).

6 Fu aD
0 = 3

co M
°
'p
00 N
c7
O?Q
d
W CD

0) CL 0 fl?
_ -g a) o
T

W Q
CD 0)
U
c?
p U O
-M L
O N ?O
co Cl)
U
U
>- ° a °
?
Q i
o rn
T Cl)
cn
2

Cf) E

Q LU

(} CD

C

N
a

F'
Q
Z CD

Q

O In

co

a: LO
0

« ? d
o mo ?0Ern
? T 3mv 05
a -
V =vm a
?
2
- 0
r_ 0)
a?i
8
CL >
a
V'5 C)
T
N
N
w0 CCNN

X m a
n -
X J
b) 0 co E
X : @) co @) m to p
LLI?

N It N Cr. NN
> Q
_
¢ N
3
M
X

0 Y
U U
.
d
0
2 c
U
?
C N
d

o Z
L
T
U Q to
is
T
0
CL
d
m
y
U
-ate
CD
J
U
0
co

TABLE 6
SOILS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
NAME SYMBOL PERCENT HYDRIC NON-HYDRIC
Murville Fine Sand (Mu) 17.5 232.2
Marvyn Loamy F. Sand (MaC) 5.3 70.0 „
Croatan Muck (Ct) 0.5 6.9
Forestan Loamy F. Sand (FoA) 13.8 183.1.
Woodington Loamy F. Sand (Wo) 3.1 41.5
Norfolk Loamy F. Sand (NoB) 0.5 7.4
Muckalee Loam (Mk) 1.0 12.7
Goldsboro F. Sandy Loam (GoA) 0.8 10.3
Goldsboro Urban Land (GpB) 0.2 2.1
.Leon Fine Sand (Ln) 34.7 460.2
Onslow Loamy F. Sand (On) 2.3 31.2
Torhunta F. Sandy Loam (To) 0.7
Baymeade Fine Sand (BaB) 20.2 268.0
TOTAL 100.0 755.2 Acres 572.1 Acres
L`
W
J
m
Fa-
W
F-
Q
Z
m
W
J
Q
m?
W O
L
UQ
gv
IL
N_
D
!A
QZ
J
Q
U.

c6
T
V, O
T
0 M
W M
co
LO ? i Go
N
c Cl)
to N a

U) O T T
T

ca
C

Q
O C9 O r
Cl) O N Cl)

n Ln an L`
N 5
C c
T

O GO tD ?
C
N CY

CO)
d

O
LT
m
r
U ?

c
0
o
? 0.

i Q a
L E F
-
a 0
j N
r.+
U
Q
V
0
a
C
0
U
d
O
0-
E
L
LL
d
lL
m
r
E
0
_L
C.
E
N
d
L2
m
L
c6
.C
U
L
3
N
C
l?
.t'
N
X
W

i
_N
Q
N
a?
CL
APPENDIX A
Agency Comments and Coordination

7 <l1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 Nortl, Salisbury Street • Raleigh, Nortli Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor DoufAas G Lewis
William W Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
Melba McGee k---
Project Review Coordinator
rAL s ip so
1-1, Nr_
91-0201 - Scoping - Proposed Widening of US 17
from NC SO at Holly Ridge to Four-lane Section
Near Jacksonville, Onslow County
October 11, 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. Our division's comments have
raised some general and specific concerns that are necessary for
us to completely evaluate project impacts and provide beneficial
recommendations when reviewing the environmental document.
The Division of Parks and Recreation recognizes that several
rare plant species and rare natural community types will be
impacted by the widening of US 17. A qualified biologist will
need to conduct a biological survey during the appropriate time
of the year to detect these species. Reference has also been
made to stream erosions (and impacts on wetlands. If these
impacts are anticipated, then every effect should be made to
individually and specifically address these concerns in complete
details. Addressing these and all the concerns mentioned in the
attached comments are necessary for a thorough review by the
department.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
MM: bb
Attachments
cc: David Foster

P.U. N)c 27687 PUIcigh. North Cirohni 27611.7687 Tclco6inc 919.733.6376
OCT 2 3 1990 U
r
s
RALEIGH, N.C..-
State of North Carollna
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
October 11, 1990
MEMORANDUM
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobcy, Jr., Secretary
John N. Morris
Director
w
w
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherland
SUBJECT: 91-0201 Widening of US 17 near Jacksonville
We have the following comments on the above project:
1. At stream and wetland crossings, utilize bridges whenever
possible to minimize habitat losses and floodplain
encroachment.
2. Minimize the loss of timber and pri e farmland.
3. Provide vegetation buffers when highway passes close to
residential areas.
4. Mitigate the loss of wetlands and forests.
5. Minimize the use of curb and gutter; maximize the use of
porous pavement and grass swales.
6. Involve local landowners iD gathering data on impacts; be
flexible on location of alternatives - adjust them to meet
local concerns.

P.O. Box 27687. Ralcigh. North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Ainrmarivc Acton Employer
SIT/,/` 1 i
?04
2 19J0
RALEIGH, N.C.
OCT State of North Cal-olina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
l
James G. Martin, Governor
William W Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Larry Sinv)?
October 10, 1990
David W Sides
Director

SUBJECT: Project Review of proposed widening of U.S. 17 in
Onslow County, N.C. Project No. 91-0201
This portion of highway US 17 goes through several areas that are
designated as hydric soils and therefore the potential for
wetland areas. Although it is proposed as a widening project, it
has the potential to impact on wetlands. All means necessary
should be taken to minimize the impact on wetlands along the
highway.
A modern soil survey report has been d6ne for Onslow County, with
the information and soils map available in copy form. The local
Soil and Water Conservation District office should be contacted
for this information.
LS/tl

PO Mx 17(.37 161cwh N.•r.6 < ?••-a :I i-x- tc6-..1,, . -•I'. 7
17 `:n`

DIVISION OF ENVIRONmENTAi, 1,17,NAGEMIENT }
October 10, 1Q°o
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Steve Tedder
comment on this project.
Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project:No. 91-0201; EA Scoping Comments of Proposed
Widening of US 17 from NC 50 at Holly Ridge to 4-lane„
Section Near Jacksonville, Onslow County
.It is understood that, in all liklihood, some wetlands will
be impacted as a result of construction of this road-widening
project. It is therefore possible that a federal 404 permit,
issued by the Corps of Engineers, and a 401 Water Quality
Certification issued by this agency will be required. DEM will
be reviewing the EA to determine the types and extent of wetlands
that may be impacted by the various widening alternatives_ and
will favor an alternative that minimizes wetlands loss. NCDOT is
also encouraged to avoid use of curb and gutter for this project
so as to minimize the impact of highway runoff on nearby surface
waters. .
Thank you for this opportunity to
Please contact Mr. Alan Clark of DEM's
Branch if there are any questions.
91-0201.Mem/SEPA1

fog 2 31990
RA -C?G
" i
V?
< c'
ar` ? t' D
Yf? t?s"IS? ? I ,1
1 flr
M L?€,??f? OCT 2 3 Iq I J
State of North Carolina RA.LE
- -
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
51) North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Griffiths Forestry Center Harry F. Layman
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 2411 Garner Road Director
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
September 28, 1990
MEMORANDUM ,-r
on
T 1990 "
(\-
vy"rorimenltpl
s_estxmeritu?Unit<<,-:
FROM: Don H. Robbins ?C_ ,v\
Staff Forester 0lei 1k
SUBJECT: EA Scoping of the Proposed Widening of US 17 from NC 50 at Holly
Ridge to South of Jacksonville, North Carolina in Onslow County.
PROJECT #91-0201
DUE DATE 10-10-90
To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed
project, the Environmental Assessment should contain the following information
concerning the proposed widening for the possible right-of-way purchases for
the project:
1. The number of total woodland acres that would be taken out of timber
proAuction as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. The acres breakdown of this woodland concerning presgnt conditions
such as clear-cut areas, young growing timber, and fully stocked
stands of very productive timber within the new right-of-way
purchases for disturbed and undisturbed portions.
3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved within
the proposed right-of-way, so as to be able to determine the
productivity of these forest soils in the area.
4. The number of woodland acres that would affect watersheds in the
area, if the woodland was removed,
PC). Box 27687. Raleigh forth C amlitta 27611.76!,7 10coumc 1119.711 ]1(,?
A,, 1 <Iti.,l . il.r,.rba•:• ?!I,nn.!p??•' A,?!-" i ? ,r.i..
K2 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart At?r
Habitat Conservation Project Leader
Date: October 4, 1990
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation regarding fish and wildlife
concerns relative to widening US 17 form NC 50 at
Holly Ridge to Jacksonville, Onslow County, North
Carolina
These comments respond to a request from Mr. L. J. Ward
of the N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our
concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources
resulting from widening US. 17 to fou- lanes from Holly Ridge
to the four lane section south of Jacksonville. The
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) is concerned over direct
and indirect adverse impacts on wildlife, fisheries, and
wetland resources within and adjacent to the construction
corridor. we are especially concerned over impacts -on
wetland resources and rare, threatened, or endangered
species.
Due to limited information in Mr. Ward's memorandum of
September 12, 1990, we can express our concerns and requests
for information only in general terms. Our ability to
evaluate project impacts and provide beneficial
recommendations when reviewing project environmental
documents and permit applications will be enhanced by
inclusion of the following information:
1. Complete inventories for wildlife and fisheries
resources within, adjacent to, or utilizing the
study corridors. Potential borrow areas to be
used for project construction should be included
in the inventories.
2. Accurate data on State and Federally listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species, including
I%eI'll 0 Pace Octk_-)be:: 4, 1990
2- Accurate data on Stage and Federally listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species, including
State and.Federal species of special concern,
within, adjacent to, or utilizing study corridors.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all projected related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching,,other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
w
5. The extent of habitat fragmentation in uplands and
wetlands and impacts associated with
fragmentation.
6. The need for channelizing or relocating portions
of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
7. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
8. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
this individual project to environmental
degradation. 'I'll'
9. Any discussions or other action regarding right-
of-way acquisition. This information is very
important in that it will allow resource agencies
to priortize work loads as environmental documents
are released.
Be advised that the Wildlife Resources Commission is
not likely to provide a favorable review for any alternative
which does not clearly avoid, minimize, and mitigate
destruction or degradation of wildlife and fisheries
habitat. Based upon our knowledge of habitat values in the
project area, it is most likely that utilizing the existing
corridor would result in the least adverse impacts on
wildlife and fisheries resources. Even by following the
existing corridor, adequate bridging over streams and
wetlands for wildlife and fisheries movements as well as
hydrologic considerations should be included in initial
project designs.
Melba McGee
PPOJECT #91-0201
Page 2
5. With woodland involved, it is hoped that the timber could be
merchandised and sold to lessen the need for piling and burning of
debris during right-of-way construction.
Provisions should be indicated in the EA that the contractor will
make all efforts to salvage any merchantable timber to permit
construction, once the contractor takes charge of the right-of-way.
A
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
the remaining standing trees outside of the right-of-way boundary
and construction limits.
We would hope that the widening would have the least impact to forest and
related resources in that area.
DHR:la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
David Foster - DEM
File

0EPAR7MENT OF ENVIROKMENT,
AND ty1TURAL RESOURCE
DIVISION Of ENYIRONYCNiAL
TZ
P i Number
la 1 i?l?-OZc
C 61
Inter-Agency Project Review. . spa se - - - I
r ...
?
Project Name ? 1
jS r^ YI ?L Type of Project •?
The following are our comments on the above referenced svbject.
The oppllcant should be advised that plans and r:pecl1lcatlons for all wotcr system Improvements
must be approved by the Dlvislon of Environmental Ncalth prior to the word of a contract or The
Initiation of construction (as required by 10 NCAC 100 .0900 at. seq.). For information, contact
the Public Mater Supply Section, [phone].
'x*
Several water lines possibly are located in the path of an adjacent to the proposed project,
Due to a possible rupture during construction, the contractor should contact the appropriate rotor
system offlclals to specify a work schedule.
The proposed project will be constructed near water rosources which are used for drinking, Procaut IC',
should be taken to prevent contamination of the watershed and streom by o(( or other harmful substance
Additlonal Information Is available by contacting the Public katcr Supply Section at [phone],
Beck flow preventors should be Installed on all Incoming potable water lines. _Addltlonal information
is available by contacting the Public Mator Supply Section at [phone].
This project wlII be classifled as a community public water supply and must comply with statd
and federel drinking waster monitoring requirements. For r_ore Information the applicant should
contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
11 this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
.r. voters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish sanitation program.
the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their requirements
for septlc tank Installations (as r6quired under 10 NCAC 10A .1900 at. seq, and/or sanitary facllitle.
requirements for This project It applicable-) For Information concerning septic tank and other
on-sito waste disposal methods, contact the On-slte Sewage Branch at (9191 733-2895.
The applicant should be edviscd that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures,
an extensive rodent control project may be necessary In order to prevent the migration of the
rodents to adjacent areas. For inforAatlon concerning rodent control, contact the local health
department or the Publle Health Pest Management Section [phone].
V
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem.
For Informalton concorning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact
the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919) 7334407.
1Y ? C W to to 11-0
Reviewer Branch Unlt of

a7' \l.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
November 9, 1090
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR

c,
- r C', C•?
t? ? bb

y). ' OIVISIOtd O. VIWAYS
THOMAS J. HARRELSON GEORGE E. WELLS. P E.
SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
STATE PROJECT: 6.269002T R-2406
FEDERAL PROJECT:
COUNTY: Onslow
DESCRIPTION: US 17 from NC 50 at Holly Ridge to Four Lane Section
South of Jacksonville.
SUBJECT: Geotecnnical Environmental Impact Study
Proiect Description
We have made a field reconnaissance along this project-- and conclude
that significant adverse effects on the geological environment are not
anticipated. The prop^sed improvement consists primarily of widening
the existing two lane US 17 roadway to a four lane facility from south
of Jacksonville to the ex istinq five-lane highway segment at Holly
Ridge. Construction will primarily include minor cutting and filling
and drainage improvements.
Physiography and!,5eology
The project lies in a portion of the Lower Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province. Unconsolidated Pleisocene *_-D Recent deposits
occur to depths greater than 25 feet and are underlain by Tertiary age
marine sediments. Topooraphv is nearly flat to gently sloping in the
upland areas where elevations range from 30 to 70 -Feet-- above sea
level. Great Sandy Run Pocosin, a poorly drained upland area
(elevation 60± foot), Iles to the west of US 17 between INC 172 at
Folkstone and SR 1103. Southwest Creek and Hic-s Run, which. occur at
the northern end of the project, are the two m'ajor drainage features
in this area. The f100dD1ain5 generally range bs!tween 350 and 4-00
feet in width- Natural oround elevations of 5= feet-- above sea level
are typical within the floodplain areas.
Soils
Based on reconnaissance borings, soils along the upland areas of tt-•e
project corridor consist primarily of granular deposits (A-2-41 A-3?
Loose to medium den=_e tan to dark brown silty sand (A-2-4) and fine to
coarse sand (A-j) are typically 3 to e feet thic:<- These sails are
,good borrow material ?-, i *_h low sr,r l nk and swell potential. However,
The== deposits are nigh: erodible by wind ana water. The
a"^
Soils are genE-call,/ ?n•?crl_in ;may soft to enedii_!n S_ :r-av sandv
i l r' r,2. _oi 1- ..•1 Scut')w -=`_ ':r: -L' ;rd Hicks Run
orgai
An Equal 0DOor1unity / Affirmative Action Employer
sil` underlain by medium dense sand (A-2-ti, A-3)_ Undercutting and/or
soil stabilization fabric may be requirea to stabilize the soft
organic deposits within the floodp!ain areas:.
Surface Water
Surface drainage along the project from Holly Ridge to Folkstone
flows in a southeasterly direction into Spicer Bay. Surface drainage
from Folkstone to Jacksonville flows northeasterly into the New River
and its tributaries.
• Ground Water
Ground water depths in the upland areas typically lie between 3 and
5 feet below the natural ground surface. In the upland areas, 4
dissected by Hicks Run and Southwest Creek, ground water depths: range
from 8 to 10± feet. Water is generally at or near the surface in the
floodplains. Deep lateral ditches may be required for adequate
subgrade and roadway drainage in the upland areas with high ground
water.
Underground Storage Tanks and Potentially Contaminated Properties
No landfills, dumps or hazardous waste sites are known to-exist
along the project corridor. Nine service stations or former service
stations were recognized. within close proximity to the proposed
right-of-way and are listed from south to north along the project as
follows:
1. An abandoned service station is located approximately 1.7 miles
north of NC 50 on US 17. There is a potential for underground storage
tanks at this site.
2. At the intersection of SR 1518 and US 17, a Union 76 is still in
operation.
3. An abandoned service station, now Folkstone Hardware and
Appliance Center, is located at the intersection of SR 1518 and US 17.
t There is a potential for underground storage tanks at this site.
4. An abandoned service station, now Small Engine Repair, is
located in Verona on US 17. There is a potential for underground
storage tanks at this site.
5. At the intersection of SR 1121 and US 17, Handy Mart (Exxon) is
still in operation.
6. An abandoned service station is located at the intersection of
SR 1121 and US 17. There is a potential for underground storage tanks
at this site.
7. An abandoned service station, now Granny's Gift Basket, is
located approximately 100 feet north of SR 1121 on US 17. There is a
potential for underground storage tanks at this site.
8. An abandoned service station is located approximately 0.1 mile
north of SR 1121 on US 17. There is a potential for underground
storage tanks at this site.
ApproxamateIy l C ?''.es north of SP 112: on US 1 Git -n-Split
tBF as stall an operation.
Construction
Construction problems related to geotechnical factors should be
relatively minor along this project because:
1. The surf icial soils along the project consist primarily of
granular deposits which exhibit good to excellent engineering
properties.
+ 2. Potential borrow sites with similar soils are abundant near the
project. There is a potential for wetland mitigation within borrow
sites in this region.
Respectfully submitted,
D. N. Argenbright, Project Geologist
DNA:gr
cc: Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E.
File
Mr. H. J. Critcher, P.E.

State of North Carolina-
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James C, Martin. Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 27, 1990
To: Melba McGee
From: Randy Cotte?
Thru: Gary Thompson
Charles H. Gardner
Director
h
Subject: 91-0201, Onslow County, Proposed widening of US 17
from NC SO at Holly Ridge to four lane section
south of Jacksonville, State Project No. 6.269002T
T.I.P. No. R-2406
We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 51 geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 2761,1, [phone] prior to
construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4,
GWT/ajs
cc: Joe Creech, NCDOT
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opoor nlty Affirmative Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources I Reviewing Olt c? 1
Pro ect Number Due Date
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
1-o?oj io-/o•9v
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) nd cared must be obtained in order for this project t
comply with North Carolina Law o
.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Normal P
PERMITS
?I Permit to construct d operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer system extensions. d sewer
systems not discharging into state surface waters.
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters.
?I Wafer Use Permit
?I Well Construction Permit
DI Dredge and Fill Permit
A Permit ;o construct 3 operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
? asbestos material must be in compliance with
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal
prior to demolition.
?I Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 20.0800.
(90 days)
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion d sedimentation control plan
will be required If one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 days befo6 begin activity.
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
r
? }.lining Permit
?I North Carolina Burning permit
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
? counties In coastal N.C. with organic soils
J1 Oil Refining Facilities
?I Dam Safety Permit
rocess
Time
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (stawtory time
. limit)

Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
technical conference usual (90 (Jays)

Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90-VO days
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (N/A
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary I 30 days
(N/A)
N/A
7 days
(15 days)

Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner.
On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. 55 days

(90 days)
N/A 60 days
I i*X days)
l I
N/A 60 days
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be permiled.
AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Less than 5 acres S 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5.000
10 but less than 25 acres 12.500
25 or more acres (60 days)
5.000
On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days
(NIA)

On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
than live acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

NIA 90.120 days
(NIA)
It permit required, application 60 days before begin construction
.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans,
i
30 days
nspect construction, certify construction Is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit unde
r mosquito control program. An a
404 permit from Corps of Engineers. (NIA)
•T
Norm?. PrOCBSL-
Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of 55,1700 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations
Q Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form (NIA)
O State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15-20 days
descriptions b drawings of structure b proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
F71 60 days
?1 401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
O ?5 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 510.00 fee must accompany application (180 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application (60 days)
O Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
` Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority): -
/ .
reviewer signature agency date
REGIONAL OFFICES
? Asheville Regional Office
59•Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
? Mooreeville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
.Mooresville, INC 28115
[phone]
?Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Ralelgh, NC 27611.7687
[phone]
0 Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
(919) 2564161
n Winston-Salem Regional Office
Rn01 ciia? r ,o„t oa.kv,av

f°°r.• United States
s Department of
` Agriculture
Soil
Co ervatlon O
0 3 1990
??. o+v+s+o
N OF V
?'LG, H+GNWAYS ?P?
? 'QFSEARG?O
CoN
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: [phone]
October 1, 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Environmental Assessment of the proposed widening of US 17
from NC 50 at Holly Ridge to four lane section south of
Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina; No. 6.269002T,
T.I.P. No. R-2406
Dear Mr. Ward:
This is in response to your request for Important Farmland
Information for R-2406 project area. By utilizing Onslow County
Soil Survey data, we have color coded the approximate location of
the important farmland soils on the attached soil maps. The
color codes are defined as follows:
1) Color
Prime
2) Color
State
3) Color
Uniqu
Code Green--All soil areas meet the soil criteria for
Farmland.
Code Blue--All soil areas meet the soil criteria for
Important Farmland.
Code Orange--All soil areas meet the soil criteria for
Farmlands.
The unmarked areas do not qualify for important farmlands because
of soil properties or urbanization. Soil areas committed to
urbanization are not covered by the Farmland Protection Policy
Act. Since we lack this kind of information in our office, we
color coded the areas that did not appear to be urbanized.
Therefore, in your use of this information, please note that some
of the color coded areas may be in error because of urbanization.
If there are questions, please contact Phil Tant at (919)
790-2905.
t
Sincerely,
e o
State o serv i ist
Enclosures
The so' conservation smviee
` is an agency of the
`? Department of Agriculture
.y .
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P O BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 284021890
October 18, 1990
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:

?6,?7 [9 av9
gCf436?
1 n.
l? O
Vol
We have reviewed your letter of August 16, 1990, requesting
information for "Environmental Assessment of the proposed widen-
ing of US 17 from NC 50 at Holly Ridge to four lane section south_
of Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina; State Project
No. 6.269002T, T.I.P. No. R-2406" and offer the following
comments.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be
required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with this project, including disposal of construction
debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should
first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensation
or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any. work within
waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch
would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans. for a
project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Jeff Richter, Regulatory Branch, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If
we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely, nn
'I
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
rSTAIZo
,$ 1? I U I
-erg ,1 )GT 3 11990 ?. y
1
1
LEIG1-i, N-C-
RA-
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Dr. Philip K. McKnelly
William W Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
October 30, 1990
Robert A. Alvis
Louis Berger and Assoc., Inc.
200 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Alvis:
The Natural Heritage Program has already given comments to the
state's environmental clearinghouse for the proposed widening of
US 17 from Holly Ridge to Jacksonville. We noted that this area
is the site for numerous rare plant species. Since making those
comments, preliminary results ofa rare plant and natural
community survey of Camp Lejeune lands has provided additional
information for the area along US 17. This survey has produced
records for the following rare species along the existing route:
Pinebarrens sandreed (Calamovilfa brevipilis) - state endangered
Pinebarrens goober grass (Amphicarpum purshii) - state candidate
Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) - significantly rare
Carolina asphodel (Tofieldia labra) - state candidate, federal
candidate category 2
Pale beakrush (Rhynchospora pallida) - state candidate
Elliott's yellow-eyed grass (X ris elliotii) - significantly rare
Short-leaved yellow-eyed grass (Xyris brevifolia) - significantly
rare
Savanna yellow-eyed grass (Xyris flabelliformis) - state
candidate s??n1 canf? rah
Spoonflower (Peltandra sagittifolia) - rr
AS Pa.r c9nveXSA_R0n w /O. P. Se_{%a ( a To t'
The Camp Lejeune rare plant survey is still in progress, and
final details of these populations are not yet available, but all
are were found along the US 17 right-of-way. In addition, there
is a historical record of uncertain location for Rough-leaf
loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia) - federal and state
endangered - along US 17 in the same area.
Three additional rare plants and one federally listed animal
species are known within a few miles of the highway, in
potentially similar habitat: .
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis-) - federal endangered,
state endangered
Rough-leaf loosestrife
Yellow hatpins (Syngonanthus flavidulus) - significantly rare
Carolina goldenrod (Solidago pulchra) - state candidate, federal
candidate category 2
Fitzgerald's peatmoss (Sphagnum fitzgeraldii) - state candidate
The Camp Lejeune rare plant survey focused only on relatively
undisturbed areas on federal lands. Many of the plant species may
also occur in more disturbed areas, and are likely to occur on
private lands, potentially along any part of the route.
This project has potential for great impact to rare species,
including several listed species. It is essential that a
thorough biological survey by conducted to pinpoint populations
of these species, and that the project be modified to avoid
impact to them. The survey must be done by competent field
biologists in the appropriate season.
In addition to the rare plant species, this area has potential
for good examples of several rare natural community types-. of
particular concern would be Pine Savanna and other longleaf pine-
dominated communities. These communities also provide habitat
for many of the species listed above. If high quality examples,
or examples with the herb layer intact, occur along the route,
they should be given special consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Schafale
Natural Heritage Program
PLANT SPECIES
Forbs
Common Name Scientific Name
Arrow arum Peltandra virginica
Arrowhead Sagtittaria latifolia
Big cordgrass Spartina cynosuroides
Blackberried elder Sanbucus canadensis
Blackberry Rubus sp.
Blue flag Iris virginica
Bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum
Broomstraw Andropoaon virginiana
Buttercup Ranunculus sp.
Carolina cranesbill Geranium carolinianium
Christmas fern Polystichum acrostichoides
Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea
Cinquefoil Potentilla canadensis
Coastal dog-hobble Leucothoe axillaris
Common cattail Typha latifolia
Dwarf Iris Iris verna
False nettle Boehmeria cvlindrica
Giant cane grass Arundinaria gictantea
Inkberry Ilex glabra
Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum
Lizard's tail Saururus cernuus
Narrow-leaved cattail Typha anqustifolia
Netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata
Orange milkwort. Polygala lutea
Panic grass Panicum sp.
Pennywort Hydrodntyle sp.
Pickerelweed Pontedaria cordata
Reed Phracrmites communis
Royal fern Osmunda regalis
Seedbox Ludwigia alternifolia
Sedge Carex sp.
Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis
Smartweed Polygonum sp.
Soft rush Juncus effusus
Sphagnum Sphagnum sp.
Spike rush Eleocharis sp.
Sundew Drosera sp.
Tall goldenrod Solidac?o altissima
Wild ginger Hexastylis sp.
Wool grass sedge Scirpus cvperin
Shrubs/Vines
Common Name Scientific Name
American holly Ilex opaca
Blackberry Rubus sp.
Coral honeysuckle Lonicera.sempervirens
Devil's walking stick Xanthoxylum clavaherculis
Dwarf Azalea Rhododendron atlanticum
Fetterbush Leonia lucida
Grape Vitis SD.
Greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia
Groundsel Baccharis halimifolia
Highbush blueberry Vaccinium corvmbosum
Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica
Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans
Mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia
Sumac Rhus sp.
Swamp hibiscus Hibiscus moscheutos
Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia
Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinauefolia
Virgin's bower Clematis sp.
Yellow jessamine Gelsemium sempervirens
Trees
Common Name Scientific Name
Alder Alnus sp.
American elm Ulmus americana
American sycamore Platanus occidentalis
Black gum Nyssa svlvatica
Black willow Salix nigra
Cherry Prunus R.
Flowering dogwood Cornus florida
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Groundsel tree Baccharis halimifolia
Ironwood Carpirius caroliniana
Loblolly pine Pinus taeda
Longleaf pine Pinus palustris
Pond pine Pinus serotina
Red cedar Juniberus virginiana
Red maple Acer rubrum
Sassafras Sassafras albidum
Southern red oak Ouercus falcata
Swamp chestnut oak Ouercas michauxii
Sweet bay magnolia Magnolia virginiana
Sweet gum Liquidambar styraciflua
Tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
Virginia Pine Pinus virainiana
Water oak Ouercus nigra
Wax myrtle Mvrica cerifera
White oak Ouercus alba
Sources: Niering, 1989
Louis Berger & Associates, 1990
Radford et al. 1968
Schafale and Weakley, 1990
2
FAUNAL SPECIES
Bird Species
Common Name Scientific Name
American black duck Anas rubripes
American coot Fulica americana
American crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos
American robin* Turdus migratorius
Barred owl Strix varia
Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon
Black-crowned night-heron Nvcticorax nvcticorax
Blue jay* Cyanocitta cristata
Blue-winged teal Anas discors
Canada goose Branta canadensis
Catbird Dumetella carolinensis
Common flicker* Colaptes auratus
Common moorhen Gallinula chloro us
Common snipe Gallinaao gallinaao
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas
Double-crested cormorant* Phalacrocorax auritus
Downy woodpecker* Picoides pubescens
European starling* Sturnus vulgaris
Great blue heron Ardea herodias
Great egret Casmerodius albus
House sparrow* Passer domesticus
King rail Rallus eleaans
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis
Lesser scaup Avthva affinis
Little blue heron Earetta caerulea
Mallard duck Anas platyrhynchos
Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris
Mockingbird Mimus polyalottos
Northern cardinal* Cardinalis cardinalis
Northern harrier circus cyaneus
Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis
Northern shoveler Anas clypeata
osprey Pandion haliaetus
Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps
Pileated woodpecker* Dryocopus pileatus
Prothonotary warbler* Protonotaria citrea
Red-bellied woodpecker* Centurus carolinus
Redhead duck Aythya americana
Red-headed woodpecker* Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus
Red-tailed hawk Buteo iamaicensis
Red-winged blackbird Aaelaius phoeniceus
Ruddy duck Oxyura lamaicensis
Snowy egret Earetta thula
Swamp sparrow Melospiza georaiana
Virginia rail Rallus limicola
Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo
Wood duck Aix sponsa
Yellow-crowned night-heron Nvcticorax violaceus
Mammals
Common Name
Beaver
Black bear
Common mole
Common skunk
Cotton mouse
Cottontail rabbit
Eastern harvest mouse
Eastern mole
Eastern pipistrelle
Fox squirrel
Golden mouse
Gray fox*
Gray squirrel*
House mouse
Least shrew
Little brown bat
Long-tailed weasel
Meadow vole
Mink
Muskrat
Opossum*
Raccoon*
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Red bat
Red fox
River otter
Seminole bat
Silver-haired bat
Southeastern shrew
Southern flying squirrel
Southern short-tailed shrew
Star-nosed mole
White-tailed deer*
Woodland vole
Reptiles
Common Name
American alligator
Black swamp snake
Brown snake
Brown water snake
Cottonmouth snake
Eastern box turtle*
Eastern ribbon snake
Glossy crayfish snake
Scientific Name
Castor canadensis
Ursus americanus
Scalopus aquaticus
Mephitis mephitis
Peromyscus hispidus
Svlvilagus floridanus
Reithrodontomys humulis
Scalopus aquaticus
Pipistrellus subflavus
Sciurus niger
Ochrotomys nuttalli
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Sciurus carolinensis
Mus musculus
Cryptotis ap rva
Mvotis lucifuggs
Mustela frenata -
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Mustela vison
Ondatra zibethicus
Didelphis virginianus
Procyon lotor
Plecotus rafinesquii
Lasiurus humeralis
Vulpes vulpes
iutra canadensis
Lasiurus seminolus
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Sorex longirostris
Glaucomys volans
Blarina carolinensis
Condylura cristata
Odocoileus virginianus
Microtus pinetorum
Scientific Name
Alligator mississippiensis
Seminatrix pygaea
Storeria dekayi
Nerodia taxispilota
Aakistrodon piscivorus
Terrapene carolina
Thamnophis sauritus
Regina rigida
Mud turtle Kinosternon subrubrum
Musk turtle (stinkpot) Sternotherus odoratus
Painted turtle Chrysemys picta
Pine woods snake Rhadinaea flavilata
Redbelly snake Storeria occipitomaculata
Rough green snake* Opheodrys aestivus
Slider turtle Pseudemys scripta
Snapping turtle* Chelydra serpentina
Southern water snake Nerodia fasciata
Spotted turtle Clemmvs quttata
Striped water snake* Nerodia sp.
Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus
Amphibians
Common Name Scientific Name
Brimley's chorus frog Pseudacris brimleyi
Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana .
Dwarf salamander Eurycea guadridigitata
Eastern newt Notophthalmus viridescens
Greater siren siren lacertina
Green frog Rana clamitans -
Lesser siren Siren intermedia
Many-lined salamander Stereochilus marginatus
Mud salamander Pseudotriton montanus
Northern cricket frog Acris crepitans
Pickerel frog Rana palustris
River frog Rana heckscheri
Southern cricket frog Acris aryllus
Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum
Spring peeper Hyla crucifer
Two-lined salamander Eurycea bislineata
Two-toed amphiuma Amphiuma means
Fish
Common Name Scientific Name
Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus
American eel Anguilla rostrata
Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus
Banded pygmy sunfish Elassoma zonatum
Banded sunfish Enneacanthus obesus
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
Bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus Qloriosus
Bowfin Amia calva
Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus
Carp Cyprinus cargio
Chain pickerel Esox niger
Coastal shiner Notropis petersoni
Comely shiner Notropis amoenus
Common carp Cyprinus carpio
Creek chubsucker
Dollar sunfish
Dusky shiner
Eastern mudminnow
Flier
Gizzard shad
Golden shiner
Grass carp
Ironcolor shiner
Largemouth bass
Lined top-minnow
Longnose gar
Margined madtom
Mosquitofish
Mud sunfish
Mummichog
Pirate perch
Pumpkinseed
Red breast sunfish
Redfin pickerel*
Sawcheek darter
Sheepshead minnow
Spotted sucker
Starhead topminnow
Striped bass
Striped mullet
Swamp darter
Swampfish
Tadpole madtom
Taillight shiner
Tidewater silverside
Warmouth
White catfish
White mullet
White perch
Yellow bullhead catfish
Yellow perch
Erimyzon oblon us
Lepomis marginatus
Notropis cummingsae
Umbra pycrmaea
Centrarchus macropterus
Dorosoma cepedianum
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Ctenopharyngodon idella
Notro is chalybaeus
Micro terus salmoides
Fundulus lineolatus
Lepisosteus osseus
Noturus insianis
Gambusia affinis
Acantharchus pomotis
Fundulus heteroclitus
AAphredoderus sayanus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis auritus
Esox americanus
Etheostoma serriferum
Cvprinodon varieaatus
Minytrema melanops"
Fundulus notti
Roccus saxatilis
Mugil cephalus
Etheostoma fusiforme
Cholocraster cornuta
Noturus gyrinus
Notropis maculatus
Menidia beryllina
Lepomis gulosus
Ictalurus catus
Mugil curema
Roccus americana
Ictalurus natalis
Perca flavescens
Molluscs
.

Common Name
Freshwater clam
Mussel
Plain jingle shell*
Scientific Name
Sphaerium striantinum
Mytilus edulis
Anomia simplex
Crustaceans
Common Name
Crayfish*
Scientific Name
Cambarus bartoni
* denotes Fauna observed during Louis Berger field investigations
Sources: Department of Navy, 1989
Niering, 1988
Robbins, et al. 1966
Louis Berger and Associates, Inc. March 1990
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 1990
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, 1985
Potter et al. 1980
Audubon Society, 1988
Martof et al. 1980
w

r •_ .s
,?'STA1Eo-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 17, 1993
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Environmental Management Div.
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:
AUG 2 41993
WATER
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 150 from Cherryville to
east of the Lincolnton Bypass (US 321), Gaston and Lincoln
Counties, Federal Aid Project No. RS-4174(1); M-7681(1), TIP
No. R-617
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural Systems
Technical Memorandum for the subject proposed highway improvement. It is
anticipated this project will be processed with a "Finding of No Significant
impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental Assessment or
at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State Clearinghouse,
areawide planning agencies, the counties, towns, and cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated that Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
el
August 17, 1993
Page 2
Your comments should be received by September 20, 1993. If no comments are
received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of
the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
7 • ??ol. DM
L. J. rd, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
LJW/plr
NC 150
from Cherryville to east of the
Lincolnton Bypass (US 321)
Gaston and Lincoln Counties
Federal Aid Project No. RS-4174(1); M-7681(1)
State Project No. 8.1830401
TIP No. R-617
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Submitted pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(c)

Date
;? // Z- 3
Date
7 - Z,,? //, ?/, ),
s?r Mr. L. J. warn, P.t., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
Mr. N olas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
NC 150
from Cherryville to east of the
Lincolnton Bypass (US 321)
Gaston and Lincoln Counties
Federal Aid Project No. RS-4174(1); M-7681(1)
State Project No. 8.1830401
TIP No. R-617
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Submitted pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(c)
0
JUNE 1993
DocuWat4jion Prepared By Ralph Whitehead & Associates
••..••.?H CAR
c'?`7 •'FEs3? ?•0
S
H CARO
.........
W.
still'
•v:
Cl)
n ' 4 o(
Mr. Edward Je ns .
Project Manager
4Pr lass Mor s, P.E.
Engineer
r
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation

z bo.
Mr J. A. Bissett, Jr., l,.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
r
in Consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, Environmental
Assessment.
2. Additional Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information
concerning this proposal and assessment:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
3. Action Required by other Federal Agencies
Applications for multiple permits from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
will be required for the watercourse crossings on this project. It is
expected that Nationwide Permits (33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) and (26)) will
apply to the small headwater tributaries and isolated palustrine wetland
pockets less than 1 acre in size. Fill associated with the bridging of
Indian Creek and the. South Fork of Catawba River will be permitted under
a General Permit.
4. Description of Action
The purpose of this project is to widen NC 150 in Gaston and Lincoln
Counties, North Carolina, between the towns of Cherryville and
Lincolnton.
The need for improvements to the existing section of roadway is based on
a combination of factors including the existing and projected levels of
S-1
traffic service, accident history, existing horizontal and vertical
roadway alignment geometry, growth trends, transportation linkage, and
public safety.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
improve NC 150 to a multi-lane facility from its beginning in Gaston
County, just west of NC 279 in Cherryville to the Lincolnton Bypass
(relocated US 321) in Lincoln County, a distance of 10.2 miles. The
preferred alignment and recommended improvements begins in Cherryville
with 1.8 miles of five-lane, curb and gutter section. The remaining 8.4
miles of the project will be a four-lane divided section with a 46 foot
wide grassed median. Approximately 4.3 miles of the four-lane section
will be on new location. The new location includes a bypass around the
town of Crouse and a connector from existing US 321 Business to the
Lincolnton Bypass (US 321). New interchanges will be constructed at
existing US 321 Business in Lincolnton and at the Lincolnton Bypass (US
321).
The project is included in the 1993-1999 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (No. R-617), with right-of-way acquisition scheduled
to begin in Fiscal Year 1993 and construction in Fiscal Year 1995.
The estimated cost of the project is $44,450,000, with construction costs
of $26,100,000 and right-of-way costs of $18,350,000.
5. Alternatives Considered
The project was divided into four segments for study purposes (see .
Exhibit 5). Alternatives in segments A and C were limited to choosing
either north-side or south-side widening of the existing roadway, and the
variation causing the most impacts was rejected. Segment B had two
alternatives developed: widening through Crouse (B-1) and a new location
bypass around Crouse (B-2). The B-1 alternative was rejected due to
severe social impacts and the adverse effect it would have on the Crouse
Historic District. Segment D had three alternatives developed: widening
along existing NC 150/US 321 (D-1), and two new location connectors (D-2
and D-3). Alternatives D-1 and D-2 were rejected due to cost,-
residential and business relocations, and construction complexity. The
preferred alternative consists of segments A, B-2, C, & D-3. This
alternative provided the best combination of design and cost with the
least environmental impacts to the human and natural environment.
The No-Build Alternative was also considered but rejected because of the
inability of the existing road system to provide an adequate future level
of service, increased potential for accidents, and its inconsistency with
local and state transportation goals. It does not meet the purpose and
need defined for this project.
6. Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will have an overall positive impact on the area and
include:
* Improvements to the vertical alignment will greatly increase
stopping sight distance.
ti
S-2

* Replacing old, narrow bridges will increase safety and provide
dependable structures well into the next century.
* Providing for safer movement of traffic through the use of left-
turn lanes.
* Multiple lanes will provide more efficient movement of traffic.
* Improved intersections and interchanges will reduce congestion
and accidents.
* Providing an efficient link to the Lincolnton Bypass (US 321)
will reduce through-truck traffic. in Lincolnton.
* The proposed action is consistent with the City of Cherryville
and Lincoln County Thoroughfare Plans.
There will be negative impacts associated with the proposed improvements
which include:
* Relocation of 60 families and twelve businesses.
* Increased noise level: All of the residences modeled show an
increase for the predicted dBA levels The average increase is 7 dBA
but no site will have a substantial increase in noise level.
* Loss of wetlands totaling 1.9 acres from small isolated sites.
. * Erosion and siltation of local surface waters.
* Delay and inconvenience to motorists during construction of the
project.
t
These effects will be short-term in nature. No recreational facilities
or 4(f) properties will be involved in the preferred alignment. No
structures of historical or architectural importance will be affected by
the project. No archaeological resources will be affected.
The NCDOT has policies and programs in place to ensure that these
concerns will be adequately addressed and resolved. The preparation and
implementation of an erosion control plan along with the use of best
management practices during construction will reduce environmental
impacts to their lowest practical levels. Displaced residents and
businesses will receive the benefits of a Relocation Assistance Program
to minimize the effects of relocation. Traffic Control plans will be
designed and implemented during construction to ensure the safety of the
traveling public and guaranteed access for all emergency vehicles.
7. Coordination
Input concerning effects of the project on the environment was requested
from appropriate federal, state, and local agencies in preparation for
S-3
the Environmental Assessment. The contacted agencies are listed.below,
with an asterisk to denote that the project received input from them.
* NC Department of Administration
* NC Department of Cultural Resources
* NC Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
NC Department of Human Resources
* NC Department of Public Instruction
NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources:
* Environmental Management
* Land Resources
* Forest Resources
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission
* Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
* Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV - Atlanta
* Federal Emergency Management Administration - Atlanta
* Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species - Asheville
Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement - Raleigh
* United States Geological Survey
* Soil Conservation Service - Raleigh
* Centralina Council of Governments
Gaston County Commission
* Lincoln County Commission
City of Cherryville
City of Lincolnton
8. Basis for Environmental Assessment
Based on an analysis of potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project, it has been determined that no significant adverse effects on
the quality of the human or natural environment will result from the
construction of the proposed project. Therefore it is concluded that an
Environmental Assessment is applicable to this project.
S-4
Table Of Contents
Section
Page
SUMMARY ............................................................... S-1
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................. I-1
A. General Description . ... ... ... I-1
1. Project Location, Classification,.and?Length ............. I-1
2. Purpose of the Project ................................... I-1
3. Project Setting . .. ........................... I-1
4. Status of Local Planning Agencies ........................ I-2
5. Existing Land Use ....................................... I-2
6. Existing Zoning .......................................... I-3
7. Future Land Use .......................................... I-3
B. Existing Roadway . ... ........ .. . ......... . I-3
1. Roadway Typical Sections and Posted Speed Limits ......... I-3
2 Right Of Way .. . I-4
3. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Movements ....................... I-4
4. Interchanges and Intersections ........................... I-4
5. Sight Distances and Curvatures ........................... I-4
6. Bridges and Railroad Crossings ........................... I-5
7. School Bus Use ........................................... I-5
8. Transit ....... ......................... I-6
9. Public Utilities ......................................... I-6
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT ............ II-1
A. Existing Traffic ............................................
II-1
B. Future Traffic ............................................ II-2
C. Accident Statistics ............... ... II-4
D. Area Growth ............ . II-5
E. Benefits to the Community, Region, and State ................. II-5
III. ALTERNATIVES ................................................. III-1
A. No-Build Alternative .................................... III-1
B. Build Alternative .......... ... ............................ III-1
C. Alternates Considered but Rejected .......................... III-2
D. Preferred Alternative ...................................... III-4
1. Type of Improvement . .. ........................ III-4
2. Typical Sections and Design Speed ............ ....... III-4
3. Right Of Way ........................................... III-4
4. Sidewalks ........ ....... ........................ III-4
5. Median Crossovers, Access Control ...................... III-4
6. Interchanges and Intersections III-5
7. Design Elements .. . .. ............................. III-5
8. Bridges and Railroad Crossings ......................... III-6
9. Retaining Walls ....................................... III-6
10. Construction Staging ................................... III-6
11. Special Permits ....................................... III-7
12. Cost Estimates ......................................... III-7
IV. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................ IV-1
A. Introduction ................................................ IV-1
B. Social Impacts .............................................. IV-1
S-5
Table Of Contents - Continued

--------------------------------------------------------.----------------------
Section Page
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion .................... IV-1
2. Changes In Travel Conditions ............................ IV-1
3. Community Facilities .................................... IV-1
4. Emergency Services ................ ...... IV-1
5. Consistency with Land Use and Thoroughfare Plans ........ IV-2
6. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Considerations ................. IV-2
7. Parks and Recreation .................................... IV-2
8. Regional Energy Impacts ................................. IV-2
9. Effects on Social Groups ................................ IV-2
10. Relocation Impacts ................... IV-2
C. Cultural Resources .. . ................................. IV-4
1. Historic Architectural Resources . IV-4
2. Archeological Resources ............................. IV-5
D. Environmental Impacts ....................................... IV-5
1. Natural Environment ... ....................... IV-5
a. Existing Environmental Conditions ................... IV-5
1) Physiography .................................... IV-5
2) Water Resources ................................. IV-6
3) Wetlands ........................................ IV-8
4) Vegetation ...................................... IV-9
5) Wildlife ... . ..... . .. ................... IV-10
6) Threatened and Endangered Species ............... IV-12
b. Impacts ............................................. IV-13
c. Permit Coordination ................................. IV-16
d. Wetlands Mitigation ................................. IV-16
2. Floodplains Evaluation .................................. IV-17
3. Noise Analysis .......................................... IV-17
a. Introduction .. .................................. IV-17
b. Ambient Noise Levels ................................ IV-18
c. Future Noise Levels ....... IV-19
d. Traffic Noise Impact ................................ IV-20
e. Do-Nothing Alternative .............................. IV-21
f. Construction Noise ............................,...... IV-21
g. Summary ..................................... IV-21
4. Air Quality Analysis .................................... IV-21
a. Introduction ...................................... IV-21
b. Conformance with SIP ................................ IV-23
c. Construction Air Quality .. ....................... IV-23
5. Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands ....... IV-24
6. Rare and Unique Natural Areas ........ ...IV-24
7. Visual Impacts ...................... IV-24
8. Construction Impacts .......... .. IV-24
.. ....
9. Underground Storage Tanks and Hazardous?Waste?Sites ..... IV-25
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ......................................... V-1
APPENDICES
A. Noise Analysis E. Environmental Documentation
B. Air Quality Analysis F. Relocation Report
C. Scoping Letter and Comments Received
D. Public Meeting Information
S-6
LIST OF EXHIBITS

S

NO. DESCRIPTION AT END OF
1 VICINITY MAP ....................................... Section I
2 EXISTING LAND USE ................................. Section I
3 EXISTING ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................... Section II
4 ACCIDENT LOCATIONS ................................. Section II
5 PROJECT LOCATION MAP SHOWING ALTERNATIVES STUDIED .. Section III
6 TYPICAL SECTIONS ................................... Section III
- PREFERRED ALIGNMENT PHOTOMAPS ..................... Section III
7 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES ................... Section IV
8 CROUSE HISTORIC DISTRICT ......................... Section IV
9 WETLANDS LOCATIONS ................................. Section IV
10 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARIES .................... Section IV
11 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ........................ Section IV
S-1
LIST OF TABLES

NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.
1 LEVEL OF SERVICE TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS ........... II-2
2 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS II-2
3 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ............ II-3
4 ACCIDENT STUDY 3 YEARS (9/87 TO 8/90) .............. II-4
5 PROPOSED UPGRADED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION ...... III-5
6 WATER QUALITY & ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION .......... IV-7
7 WETLAND IMPACTS ................................... IV-14
8 PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS ............................ IV-14
9 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS .......................... IV-28
S-8
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
1. Project Location
The proposed projec
279 in Cherryville,
(relocated US 321),
Lincolnton, Lincoln
10.2 miles. NC 150
relationship of the
. Classification, and Length
t consists of multi-laning NC 150 from just west of NC
Gaston County, to the proposed Lincolnton Bypass
currently under construction to the east of
County. The total studied length is approximately
serves as an arterial roadway. Exhibit 1 shows the
project area to the state.
2. Puraose of the Project
The purpose of the project is to provide a high level of service for the
user by increasing the capacity of the roadway through the construction of
additional lanes. An improvement in traffic flow and safety will result
from the reduction in congestion. Trucks constitute a high percentage
(15%) of the project traffic and the improvements will allow rapid and
safe travel to the Lincolnton Bypass, which is a major arterial.
3. Project Setting
The project extends from the suburban area of Cherryville across the rural
countryside of Gaston and Lincoln counties, bypassing the community of
Crouse, then passes through the suburban area south of Lincolnton just
before it reaches its interchange with relocated US 321. Exhibit 2 shows
the existing land use. along the project.
The project begins at Cherryville, just west of the NC 150/NC 279
intersection. Development along the project in Cherryville is mostly
residential with small clusters of light businesses. North of NC 150,
near the city limits, is the Cherryville Country Club, a private facility.
Also on the north side of NC 150, across from the intersection of SR 1630
(Dick Beam Road), are two car dealerships. The CSX Railroad runs roughly
parallel to NC 150 on the south in this area, at a distance that varies
from 100 to 600 feet.
There is a mobile home park on the southeast corner at the intersection of
SR 1622 (Hepzibah Church Road). At this point the railroad diverges from
NC 150 and the land is used for agricultural purposes.
Just across the Lincoln County line is the community of Crouse. This is a
small town that has a cluster of historically significant homes and
buildings, including the now-abandoned Crouse School.
To the east of Crouse, the CSX railroad converges upon NC 150 from the
south, limiting development to a small strip of homes along the roadway.
The north side of NC 150 in this area is forested hillside. NC 150, also
called Cherryville Highway originally, went directly through downtown
Lincolnton, however, in 1956 a bypass was constructed to go around
Lincolnton on the southeast side. Near the intersection of the bypass
and old NC 150 (now SR 1407) is a textile mill. Many of the houses in
this area were built by, or for the workers employed by the mill.
Section I - 1
The project continues along the NC 150 bypass after crossing over the CSX
railroad. Several industrial sites and churches have developed along this
portion of NC 150, as the rural development gives way to suburban
development.
NC 150 continues northeastward to its interchange with US 321 Business
(also known as Gastonia Highway), then the:two roads merge and turn
northward. At this juncture, near a Duke Power Company substation, the
studied corridors split. One corridor continues north along existing NC
150/US 321 Business to its northern terminus at NC 27 (East Main Street).
This corridor is more urbanized with development along both sides
including many small to medium-sized businesses. One section, near SR
1262, has frontage roads on each side.
The other corridor turns eastward and runs behind a small un-named
subdivision. There are several light businesses and a historically
significant site (the Kelly-Link farmstead) in the area of the new
interchange with Gastonia Highway. The Kelly-Link farmstead will be
discussed in greater detail in Section IV-C.
The Lincolnton Bypass (relocated US 321) is currently being constructed on
new alignment as a four-lane controlled access facility. The land adjacent
to the new.road is rural in nature with some portions being farmed. The
project will interchange with relocated US 321 just east of SR 1300 (Smith
Road) and terminate at SR 1301 (Janice.Road) on the east side of relocated
US 321.
4. Status of Local Planning Agencies
The proposed project lies within the planning and zoning jurisdiction of
Gaston and Lincoln Counties. Portions of the project lie within the
municipal boundaries of the Town of Cherryville and the City of
Lincolnton. The most recent Land Use Plans were adopted in June, 1989, by
Gaston County and November, 1992, by Lincoln County.
5. Existing Land Use
The land uses within the project area are generally rural in character,
comprised predominantly of farmland and woodlands. Urban settings occur
around the project's terminus points of Cherryville and Lincolnton.
Consequently, most of the residential and business development along the
project will be found at these locations.
Between Cherryville and Lincolnton the majority of the land use is divided
between residential and farmland. A few small businesses are scattered
along the corridor. The community of Crouse also has some small
businesses located along existing NC 150.
Rhyne Mills (Plants 7 & 8) are the only industrial facilities located
along the corridor and is situated adjacent to the South Fork of Catawba
River in Lincoln County. The corporate headquarters of Carolina Freight
is located at the beginning.of the project in Cherryville, along with a
large terminal facility, and is a major employer in the area.

Section I - 2
6. Existing Zoning
GASTON COUNTY - Most of the project in Gaston County lies within the Town
of Cherryville's jurisdiction. The portion of the project under Gaston
County jurisdiction is zoned Residential-Agricultural.
TOWN OF CHERRYVILLE - The portion of the project from NC 279 (Rudisill
St.) to SR 1622 (Hepzibah Church Road) is zoned mostly for low-density
residential uses with a small amount of general business use that includes
Carolina Freight and Cherry Motors. The portion of the project from SR
1622 to SR 1628 (Old Lincolnton Road) remains unzoned.
LINCOLN COUNTY - Lincoln County adopted zoning ordinance text in 1991,
however, no sections of the county are currently subject to zoning laws.
The portion of the project under Lincoln County jurisdiction begins at the
west side of Crouse and ends at SR 1222 (South Grove Extension).
CITY OF LINCOLNTON - The portion of the project-from SR 1222 to SR 1300
Smith Road) falls within Lincolnton's jurisdiction. The zoning for this
area is-mostly Rural-Residential with pockets of General Manufacturing and
Commercial areas with one Residential-Multifamily area near the
intersection of NC 150 and US 321 Business.
7. Future Land Use
GASTON COUNTY - The 1989 Gaston County Land Use Plan does not predict any
changes in the current land use for the project area. There is support
for attracting new industry to the area and the proposed improvements to
NC 150 would enhance the possibility of this occurring.
LINCOLN COUNTY - Future commercial development is anticipated to occur in
close proximity to existing commercially developed areas around Lincolnton
and along the project corridor. One of the County's goals is to promote
road improvements that will assist with the County's Land Development
Plan.
B. EXISTING ROADWAY
1. Roadway Typical Sections and Posted Speed Limits
The existing roadway begins as a four-lane curb and gutter section in
Cherryville that quickly tapers to a two-lane shoulder section just east
of the signalized NC 279 intersection. The lanes are eleven feet wide and
the shoulder width varies from two feet to ten feet, although it is
predominately eight feet wide. The posted speed limit inside the
Cherryville city limits is 45 mph and then becomes 55 mph from Cherryville
to Crouse. At Crouse the posted speed limit drops again to 45 mph and the
roadway widens to accommodate parking lanes on each side of NC 150. The.
total pavement width at this point is approximately 44 feet. Recently,
some of the parking was eliminated in order to provide a center left-turn
lane. East of Crouse, the pavement width returns to 22 feet with variable
width shoulders, and the posted speed limit returns to 55 mph.
At the intersection of NC 150 and SR 1407, the existing roadway divides to
accommodate channelized movements and left turn lanes. The project
Section I - 3
continues along NC 150 and narrows to two lanes before crossing over the
CSX railroad on a bridge. None of the intersections along the bypass have
left-turn lanes and the posted speed limit is 55 mph.
2. Right Of Way
The right of way width along NC 150 from the project beginning to the
Cherryville Country Club varies from 60 feet to 120 feet. The right of
way width is 150 feet from the Cherryville Country Club to SR 1622
(Hepzibah Church Rd.), then narrows to 60 feet until reaching SR 1171/1628
(Old Lincolnton Road), where it returns to 150 feet. The 150 feet right
of way width is maintained into Crouse and narrows to 120 feet at a point
approximately 1000 feet from the SR 1172 (St. Mark's Church Road)
intersection. At the SR 1172 intersection, the right of way width narrows
to 100 feet of width for the next 1500 feet. From that point, the right
of way width returns to 150 feet for the remainder of the project.
The existing roadway is centered in the right of way from NC 279 to SR
1407 (Cherryville Highway). From there to US 321 Business (Gastonia
Highway) the right of way width on the south side is 48 feet from the
center of the existing pavement and 102 feet on the north side. This
arrangement allowed for the future widening of NC 150 on the north side by
adding a 30 foot wide median and two additional lanes.
3. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Movements
The only sidewalks on the project are along the parking lanes in Crouse.
There are no major pedestrian movements on the project.
4. Interchanges and Intersections
There is one existing interchange along the corridor, where NC 150 and US
321 Business intersect, south of Lincolnton. The only controlled access
on the project corridor is limited to the interchange area.
There are 51 intersections along the corridor. The following
intersections are currently controlled by traffic signals:
NC 279 (Rudisill St.)
SR 1262 (South Laurel St./Country Club Rd.)
SR 1222 (South Grove Extension)
SR 1419 (Gaston St./Gaston St. Extension)
NC 27 (East Main Street)
The remaining 46 intersections are controlled by traffic signs.
5. Sight Distances and Curvatures
All horizontal curves along the existing roadway meet current design
requirements for the desired design speed. The vertical alignment is
substandard in many areas and will be adjusted to ensure that stopping
sight distance requirements are met.

Section I - 4
6. Bridges and Railroad Crossings
The project has no at-grade railroad crossings. SR 1630 (Dick Beam Rd.)
and SR 1622 (Hepzibah Church Rd.) will need realignment to reduce the skew
10 angle at the intersection which will cause adjustment to the existing at-
grade rail crossings.
' Six existing bridges are along the study corridor. The first is NC 150
over Indian Creek, located approximately one mile east of Crouse. The
bridge was built in 1928 of reinforced concrete deck girders. The clear
roadway width is 28'-0". It was last inspected on September 10, 1991, at
which time it was estimated to have a remaining life of 14 years.
The second is NC 150 over the CSX Railroad, located approximately 500 feet
east of the intersection of SR 1407 (Cherryville Highway) with the NC 150
bypass. The bridge was built in 1955 of steel girders with a reinforced
concrete deck. The clear roadway width is 281-0". It was last inspected
on September 10, 1991, at which time it was estimated to have a remaining
life of 16 years.
The third bridge is NC 150 over the South Fork of the Catawba River. The
bridge was built in 1955 of steel girders with a reinforced concrete deck.
The clear roadway width is 28'-0". It was last inspected on September 11,
1991, at which time it was estimated to have a remaining life of six
years.
The fourth bridge is NC 150 over the former Carolina and Northwestern
Railroad. This railroad has been abandoned and the rails removed. The
bridge was built in 1955 of steel girders with a reinforced concrete deck.
The clear roadway width is 28'-0". It was last inspected on September 11,
1991, at which time it was estimated to have a remaining life of seven
years.
The fifth is US 321 over NC 150, located on the southeast side of
Lincolnton. The bridge was built in 1955 of steel girders with a
reinforced concrete deck. The clear roadway width is 28'-0". It was last
inspected on September 11, 1991, at which time it was estimated to have a
remaining life of ten years.
The last is US 321/NC 150 over the CSX Railroad, located on the east side
of Lincolnton. The bridge was built in 1955 of steel girders with a
reinforced concrete deck. The clear roadway width is 28'-0". It was last
inspected on September 11, 1991, at which time it was estimated to have a
remaining life of three years.
7. School Bus Use
There are several schools situated within one mile of the project that
will generate school bus traffic. The areas of heaviest use are in the
suburban areas of Lincolnton and Cherryville. Median breaks will be
designed to accomodate school buses so that they may safely make U-turn
movements.
Section I - 5
8. Transit
At this time, there is no public or commercial transit along the project
corridor. 10,
9. Public Utilities
Major utilities within or near the right of way of NC 150 include: .
* Aerial power lines with most of the poles set along the existing right
of way line.
* Cherryville Water Department's 12-inch water line that is located 12
feet from the south edge of the pavement from the beginning of project to
SR 1002 (Bud Black Rd.), where it crosses NC 150 and runs along left side
of SR 1002 for 1000 feet.
* A four-inch gas line runs along the north edge of pavement from
Cherryville to SR 1407 (Cherryville Highway).
* A four-inch gas line crosses NC 150 at SR 1236 (Riverview Road) then
runs along the north edge of NC 150 until reaching SR 1222 (South Grove
Extension) where it turns north along SR 1222.
* An overhead power transmission line with 100 feet of right of way
crosses NC 150 at the existing US 321 interchange. A substation is
located in the southeastern corner of the interchange.
* The City of Lincolnton has a large waste water treatment plant situated
along the South Fork of Catawba River on the north side of NC 150.
Other utilities may include aerial or underground telephone lines, cable
television, and service laterals for water and sanitary sewers.
Interruption of utility services will be minimized during construction.
A

Section I - 6
% . t $ ti s
Cn , n
V m
G)DZ
r-L
m
„- N
co O
=
O ? CIO
ZOO
\mcANW
r n ?i - m ?O
-? = x f
ol
aJ ?.
nom-
r-? N o ?
Z ? -?
Or
90
C^ A) =. •
% ir C:) pp
C p 4 ?,?? w
Z Z
m0) A?
CA
z
0
n
0

-?, , Al
CD ' Z
( v
O
n
RN '
y 'a i
% a

rn !Z
?
'A
oo
C
z

r ? X
?
oz I? Z
O'
O lo
Z Z o

vN
n?m
%W i
Z o n7
?Z
' m
m
?
ca? ? Ico
L
v
D -0 C7 < rn
X a mmo ( c m
r M C
C z D
1 n
X G) r r
<
rri
Z
Z ?
M
Z ?
r D
r
'a
SOUTH GROVE EXT.
RUp/SItt ST HUy?
4Ck RD.
Rp
'F (sR?233J
Qp
J
OR •- ?I N
r ST T
?oU? C
n
«
« a «
t a t
• • ? ?
? t f •
.0 • • ?
t • . j « • 04D
« .
CROU
':• « « « SF RO
a « ? (SR?228
r )
190, Q??r•?•.
s? `f `f `f
f
9Q « .
? a
f
:a a
? • >?? {
4* 4 4
{ r
• . ?
• • •::
t f':'r
? Ekr,
(S/?+/222>
- - - _
rk
> C
q
S_i
rs,
B
Lnsn)
/GA?
T
ONIA HWY. (US327) NIH dINO
1SVO Q ?
R0. (SR130?)
°aYp
A
SS (US3?/J
.y
k
Y
A

I t •?
f « «e c
t r ? kR
a r • O (SR
• •
It 4
t
titi%~a ; . a
4 4
C?? 1 { { f • . . • ? ?
a t t« f a
Oa . f / f f f
f • . f f f
a • f ? f
f ? ? • {
f
t
°? f f a a • a t a
<ya t i { f • f
a a • • t
C" r r f • r a
% f ? ? t ? a
J t f ? f t • f
/? « r • t f f
/'t • r t f f
•J . • t • a
• • f . . t
f ? a ? f • f
f f r
f a • 1 • •
f It f a { t
f f • • • «
• t a ? a
?? f $_ t t • '
a ?. ?. a f a a
t ? Syr r
• t pa
a r ?y• a
f ? a •Q • f
a • r a
r ? t ? a
a f
4 4'*
f 1 a • V"
a f f « .%
• ? a a ? &j
f f « f a
• ? a f
r a ? « f
f ? f • ORD
-d • ROUSE R
Oyu ? :;.: ?6Ry169
O 0'144
? a
? a f
RZ -0
ST
CN(jR h Res Yy
GASTO WEBBS a ? 7 a { f
CHURC RD. (SRi{Z?}: 1 f a
• ••f r r
' ::? f f Fjj. ?
a f f
4 4
4 4
? ? a . a `
::4•(f f • 1 f
1 « t • • a0
• ?i a t a =
r a /
t ? ? ??
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT
A. EXISTING TRAFFIC
Existing traffic volumes along NC 150 range from 6-,800 vehicles per day (vpd) to
15,100 vpd. Exhibit 3 shows the traffic volumes along the project and the
connecting streets. The directional split for this project is estimated to be
46/54. The largest traffic flow in the A.M. peak is toward the east, and the
largest P.M. peak flow is toward the west. Dual tired trucks make up 11% of the
ADT, and tractor truck semi-trailers contribute an additional 4% of the ADT.
Level-of-service (LOS) is an alphabetical notation from A to F which identifies
a road's "ease" of operation. The following list briefly explains the LOS
rating system:
Level-of-Service A describes primarily free flow operations at average
travel speeds of about 90-percent of the free flow speed. Vehicles are
completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic
stream. The average stopped delay per vehicle at signalized intersections
is less than 5 seconds.
t'
Level-of-Service B represents reasonable unimpeded operations at average
travel speeds of about 70-percent of the free flow speed. The ability to
maneuver within the travel stream is only sightly restricted and stopped
delays are not bothersome. The average stopped delay per vehicle at
signalized intersections is between 5.1 and 15 seconds. Drivers are not
generally subjected to appreciable tension.
Level-of-Service C represents stable operations. However, ability to
maneuver and change lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted
than in LOS B, and longer queues and/or adverse signal coordination may
contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50-percent of the
average free flow speed. Motorists will experience appreciable tension
while driving. The average stopped delay per vehicle at signalized
intersections is between 15.1 and 25 seconds.
Level-of-Service D borders on the range on which small increases in flow
may cause substantial increases in approach delay and, hence, decreases in
arterial speed. Average travel speeds are about 40-percent of free flow
speed. The average stopped delay per vehicle at signalized intersections
is between 25.1 and 40 seconds.
Level-of-Service E is characterized by significant approach delays and
average travel speed is one-third the free flow speed or lower. Such
operations are caused by some combination of adverse signal progression,
high signal density, extensive backup at critical intersections, and
inappropriate signal timing. The average stopped delay per vehicle at
signalized intersections is between 40.1 and 60 seconds.
Level-of-Service F characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds.
Intersection congestion results in an average stopped delay per vehicle at
signalized intersections of greater than 60.1 seconds.
In order to determine how the study area's road system is functioning, capacity
and LOS are calculated using methodology found in the Highway Capacity Manual,
Section II - 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 - Intersection Level Of Service Analysis
NC 150 Existing 1990 Existing 2014 No-Build 2014 Build Signal
Int. With Signal AM PM AM PM AM PM Warrant
(Preferred Align.)
NC 279 Y A B E F B B* Y
SR 1630 N A A E E A A N
SR 1002 N A A E E A A N
SR 1622 N A A E E A A N
SR 1628/1171 N A A E E A A N
SR 1169 N A A E E A A N
SR 1177 N A A E E A B N
SR 1228 N A A E F A A N
SR 1407 N B B E E A B* N
SR 1236 N B B D D A B N
SR 1222 Y B B E E A B Y
SR 1253/1238 N B B E E A B N

4

US 321 NB RAMPS N C C E F B C* Y**
US 321 SB RAMPS N C C D E B C* Y**
SR 1300 N N/A N/A N/A N/A A A N
US 321-BYP SB RAMPS N N/A N/A N/A N/A A A N
US 321-BYP NB RAMPS N N/A N/A N/A N/A A A N
SR 1301 N N/A N/A N/A N/A A A N
(Existing NC 150/US 321)
SR 1256 N D E F F B C Y***
SR 1262 Y E E E F B* C* Y
SR 1419 Y D E E F B* C* Y
NC 21 Y E F F F C* E* Y
* - Requires extra turn and/or through lanes to achieve this LOS
** - Will Be installed
*** - Division will review at time of construction
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 shows a comparison of levels of service at four segments along the
project. The 1990 traffic is used for the existing condition, and is compared
to the 2014 design year traffic for the no-build and build conditions. The
build alternative exhibits a marked improvement of the LOS for each segment.
Table 3 shows a comparison of intersection levels of service for the 1990
traffic and the design year no-build and build alternatives. Existing
signalized intersections are also shown in Table 3, along with the intersections
that warrant signals for the design year traffic volumes. As shown, all of the
intersections on the no-build alternative will be functioning at LOS D,.E, or F
by the design year. The build alternative shows a marked improvement of the LOS
for all of the intersections. Some intersections will need to be improved with
additional lanes on the side roads to achieve the desired LOS. The existing
signalized intersections continue to meet warrants, and several additional
intersections will meet warrants for the design year traffic volumes.
Section II - 3
the fatality rate is 13% lower than the statewide rate. Rear-end collisions
account for 32% of the accidents in the study area. The proposed improvements
to NC 150 include left-turn lanes, medians throughout the more rural areas and
improved vertical alignment, which should reduce the number of rear-end
collisions and other accidents. NC 150 has a large percentage (159'0) of truck
traffic composed of 4% semi-trailer and 11% single-unit trucks. Semis account
for 4% of the accidents. When all forms of trucks are considered (pickups,
delivery, semis) the percentage of involvement rises to 36%. The multiple lanes
and grassed median will allow better integration of the trucks into the traffic
flow by providing safe and convenient areas to pass when the truck speed does
not match the average speed of the traffic.
D. AREA GROWTH
According to the Regional Databook, published by the Centralina Council Of
Governments, the town of Cherryville's population has increased 36% from 3,492
in 1950 to 4,756 in 1990, while Lincolnton's has increased 26% from 5,423 to
6,847 over the same time frame. From 1980 to 1990, though, Cherryville's
population has decreased 1.8%, while Lincolnton's population has increased
40.3%.
Gaston County has experienced a population increase of 58% from 110,836 in 1950
to 175,093 in 1990, and the projection for 2010 is an additional 14% increase to
199,519. Lincoln County has experienced a population increase of 83% from
27,459 in 1950 to 50,319 in 1990, and the projection for 2010 is an additional
20% to 60,456. With the projected growth in the two counties, the need for the
proposed improvements becomes critical.
E. BENEFITS TO THE CONNUNITY, REGION, AND STATE
NC 150 serves as a major link between Gaston and Lincoln Counties. Improvement
of this facility will provide safer, quicker access between Cherryville and
Lincolnton as well as making the undeveloped areas more accessible. By
connecting to relocated US 321, travel times will be reduced for residents and
businesses to other parts of the state.
Section 11 - 5

D
rr
p m
x?
?O aL Z
m?
a
.?i
0 0
p
4--A
0
A

>m z
4- 1 n
o m I
ZO
i 0 r
O
O .?
M - -4
OZ M -n
op
r, o o -z
0
z?
Ow ! < <
3 O W
Z ? ? m X
zs z CO
m^
co) I Zj
CS
r
v
.06
0
n
2
19O,c o
,P00
G N
?O
N
W
co N 0010
L yi
-4w???'z?! 4 Ro ?S'Qi
'?" 233J
F?
?
-4 70
00 tT J
o ?J
SOUTH GROVE EXT. (SR1222)
(A _.
OD S?
0)
N
'y 0,?
c
p
ove
FkT
(SR?22

co cS
2)
O
G?

m o co
?O
R?
;o Q c?RO<i 01Tgly?
ti

'op
'Q
(S qQ?
0^S
Q?2S
, ???
5ti
Do
ti RR
s
r ?qs
W _
OS
-a0\s ? 4eo'Qq
N ° TORY
o
NO?nNO RO
W ° rR'2
3eJ
N?
GASTONIA H N
WY (US321) ° (SS3NISn9 Lzssn)
J,MH VINOISVEJ
v O
s
con -4 ?
A
3
`
0 •y
y
pIM013
Oa o
O

Co
? \?G
y O
y1 N11 m
N C?SO ?`?\'?
Z o?
(g8rs`?S? a\0 3
o \,\4% AO

=
W %

%
ac
O
c6ZL8S) oa dwnao kNN3r FF ?,
S
F w 4
y
SA
lop
'
Ra O ?' n
cn o r
T
z to a „?
? ~
fij
C.

f
D -Y
l

m
.o -
y
??C, W W US321

4yCO?'TON IV
`?
ono
tAn
Q e?4SS y ?2\ cwi1
SAN
ICE (!/3+3? v
RD
?SR?30j)
y

A

? e fR?q
RUOISkC Sr (? e
?Ck Ro
N?9
N
4
?
8T N ?
C)
2
D44 e
?
RAM
?R 1 ' 1
/?
o
SF
T
F? s •
N
? /?
`•; yfOp
R Cj
oU
'?
R
r
.--- cur., ? ?- Alp _n
m Z T
o .40
T
D
O CA
Q+ D
W
N
O co
A
W 0
a
A N W -4 e(,gCk RO
?tiatia
?c
.o?
O?
00
< O
T
?s,?,yP A N
NJ ?
N
f4
?cF RD
b J
8 co 0
Oi N C
0? ? 2 m
Sp ??' CO y? N
CyGR y Res Yy? ?.? P 0 n
ASTON WEBBS
G
CHURCH RD. (SR1173)
A,
cp p °
° m
w cy?? y ?T
RO , N,
0 N J
A
\O[D
CI?OUS f RD
CsR?228)
0 s ? T •
O RVolsl(t St yUss q LF.
cn Z O (ate>s)
(D C m
-0 3 vZ N
cG
OD 0
cri
I
?Dm o
co)
1-0
OM
OO
Z
gym,- 0
v
r -o ;m z X

05)
0Z'm
!o
fi

oz
z <
06 m 0-
q ?
00 co 19

c ? m -
o
z
z o Z
Fn- m
Ica
%4
o n -4 -O,
c
h N?1dW
co)
A r
co N 2 t'
O -?
ODD
CROUse Ro
(S/?,228)
.(Xb
01"ej
SOUTH GROVE EXT.
s ?'2
rSR2
? ? 33J
r?
?O p0?
r J
?j
J
cRp? FkT
np5'
G? ND??NO 30\S
O
??SZ\.bsl ?'? o
JO
GASTONIA H
(US32Q ???IILJJJ
0
CBgc,`a5? -1A\O
0

D
(?O?NTO`N
49)7
((is32' J
D ? ??Jy
00 110
Cq
Q Cqlp01 r91y9
`gyp
vol
X ?^ ryly?
ro y?cy N R
s ? r4o
00 RD. (SR130j)
BCgCk

Oo RD.
(7

Rgy
? R,
•ogze rn
i?. 1
Se
cZ4/ ST
/vcF
R
?OV
?og?

C
Ufa r

rn
un
_n
o
O -n
D
m
0
J ,t
w
ego
B4 CN
Ro (sR100.
)
W
?c
A>
O?
Ly
00
!2
J?
(A
: rs
J
?cE RD

TpRy ? O -' u,
Rp CST Yy =C o
rR??38J tivR y Rks Yy ? T
9 n
? v N
2)
(ss3Nlsne La£sn)
AMH VINO1SdD ?y
GASTON WEBBS
O
???60a0?0 r CHURCH RD. (SR1173) c n °yy?y? Z 01 A m
O A <
O 0 c+ F
o?a\ ? yG'?Cy tir
CRO
SO .?`?? C05 W rs,
?a N
A683r B ??' o?FF 5??? a`0=
ss, 8
?.R,29 0 o D o ??,dW
>) (n a n H
?COO ??` ??p? z ?? co
k
Y
A
V
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. No-Build Alternative
The No-Build or "Do-Nothing" alternative would forego any improvements to NC
150. The roadway would become increasingly congested, many of the
intersections would experience long delays, and the potential for accidents
would increase dramatically. Considering the current and projected levels of
service, the No-Build alternative is not considered to be a satisfactory
alternative.
B. Build Alternative
The scope of the project is to improve NC 150 to a multi-lane facility from NC
279 at Cherryville to US 321,at Lincolnton. Combinations of a four-lane
divided roadway and a five-lane curb and gutter roadway were utilized to
minimize impacts to residents and businesses along existing NC 150. The
proposed grass median will be 46 feet wide. The posted speed limit for the
four-lane sections will be 55 mph and 45 mph for the curb and gutter sections.
The project was split into four sections for study purposes. Part A is from NC
279 to the Gaston/Lincoln County line. Part B is from the Gaston/Lincoln
County line to a point east of Crouse. Part C continues from Crouse to
Lincolnton just past SR 1238 (Laboratory Road). Part D is comprised of three
different build alternatives. Part D-1 goes north along existing NC 150/US 321
from SR 1238 to NC 27. Parts D-2 and D-3 head eastward on new location from SR
1238 to the Lincolnton Bypass (US 321) that is currently under construction.
Exhibit 5 shows the study alignments and their relative position to area
roadways.
Part A will consist of a five-lane curb and gutter facility widened
symmetrically along existing NC 150 from NC 279 for approximately 2200 feet.
From this point, the curb and gutter facility transitions for approximately
1100 feet to north-side widening just east of SR 1622 (Hepzibah Church Road).
From SR 1622 the curbed section transitions into a four-lane divided facility
with new lanes being constructed on the south-side to the Gaston/Lincoln County
Line. This method of widening will allow portions of the new facility to be
used for traffic control while the existing NC 150 is reconstructed.
Part B will consist of a four-lane divided facility with a 46 foot wide grassed
median from the Gaston/Lincoln County line to a point east of Crouse. Two
alternatives were developed at Crouse for Part B. Part B-1 widens existing NC
150 through Crouse and Part B-2 bypasses Crouse on the northwest. The town of
Crouse has a group of sixteen buildings identified as eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. Two of these buildings are fronting on NC 150.
Widening through Crouse could require property acquisition form these two
sites.. Part B-2 was developed to reduce impacts to these historical properties
and preserve the small-town atmosphere of Crouse. The bypass will be
approximately 1400 feet from any historical property. Parts B-1 and B-2 impact
approximately the same number of residences and businesses.
Part C will consist of a four-lane divided facility with a 46 foot wide grassed
median from Crouse to east of SR 1238 (Laboratory Road). Widening from Crouse
to SR 1407 (Cherryville Highway) will be on the south side of existing NC 150,
Section III - 1
between NC 150 and the CSX Railroad. At SR 1407, Part C goes on new location
for approximately 1600 feet as it crosses the CSX Railroad south of existing NC
150. The new location then transitions to north-side widening utilizing
existing right of way and continues to SR 1238 (Laboratory Road). The NC
150/SR 1407 intersection will be realigned and left-turn lanes added. The
existing bridge over the South Fork of Catawba River will be replaced. The
existing bridge over the abandoned Carolina & Northwestern Railroad will be
removed and replaced with fill embankment.
Part D-1 follows the existing NC 150 roadway to NC 27 and will consist of a
four-lane divided facility with a 46 foot wide grassed median from SR 1238 to
north of the existing US 321/NC 150 interchange. Widening would occur on the
north side in this area. Approximately 900 feet south of SR 1262 (Country Club
Road) the roadway begins transitioning to a curb and gutter section with
widening on the west side to utilize existing right of way.
Part D-2 will consist of a four-lane divided facility with a 46 foot wide
grassed median from SR 1238 to the Lincolnton Bypass (US 321), currently under
construction. This section turns eastward on new location at the existing NC
ISO/US 321 interchange, which will be reconstructed into a modified diamond
shape. Part D-2 will form a new intersection with SR 1298 (Victory Grove
Church Road), bringing about major residential and business impacts. From SR
1298, the new roadway turns southeast creating a new intersection with SR 1300
(Smith Road). Part D-2 then continues eastward to the Lincolnton Bypass (US
321) ending at a point just east of SR 1301 (Janice Road). A diamond-shaped
interchange will be constructed at the new NC 150/Lincolnton Bypass
intersection.
Part D-3 will consist of a four-lane divided facility with a 46 foot wide
grassed median from SR 1238 to the Lincolnton Bypass (US 321) currently under
construction. This section turns eastward on new location before reaching the
existing NC 150/US 321 interchange. The NC 150/US 321 interchange will be
reconstructed into a diamond shape. Part D-3 passes near a historically
significant site known as the Kelly-Link Farmstead. Noise and visual impacts
will be minimized on the property since the new roadway will be constructed
lower than the surrounding surfaces. This alternative then continues
eastwardly to the Lincolnton Bypass (US 321) ending at a point just east of SR
1301. A diamond-shaped interchange will be constructed at the new NC 150/
Lincolnton Bypass intersection.
Parts D-2 and D-3 propose to remove the existing US 321 interchange at existing
NC 150, including the bridge over NC 150. This interchange will be realigned
with US 321 tying directly into existing NC 150/US 321 heading north to NC 27
in Lincolnton. Existing US 321 will be widened to include turn lanes at the
proposed signalized ramp intersections.
C. Alternatives Considered but Rejected
Part A alternatives studied were limited to whether the widening to a five-lane
section in Cherryville should be accomplished on the north side, the south
side, or symmetrically. Studies showed that the impacts to residents and other
roadside developments for the first 2200 feet would be severe if the roadway .
was widened non-symmetrically, therefore, the non-symmetrical alternatives were
rejected. From Dellinger Circle to SR 1622 (Hepzibah Church Road) the
residential development was predominantly on the south side of the existing
Section III - 2
roadway, so widening on the south side was rejected for this area. Using a
four-lane divided section in this area was also rejected due to the severe.
social impacts that would occur. Widening with a five-lane section on the
north side through this area reduced the impacts and simplified the
maintainance of traffic because the new roadway grade will be six feet to eight
feet higher in some locations to bring the vertical alignment into conformance
with the design criteria.
The use of a five-lane curb and gutter section was rejected for.the rest of the
project because the desired design speed cannot be obtained,.therefore, only
four-lane divided 46 foot wide grassed median roadway alternatives were
considered. Studies showed that east of SR 1622 to SR 1628 (Old Lincolnton
Road) more residences and businesses would be impacted if the grassed median
and new lanes were constructed on the north side of the existing lanes, so.that
alternative was rejected and the new lanes are proposed for the south side.
The widening then transitions to the north side from SR 1628 to the county line
to avoid conflicting with the CSX Railroad, which is immediately adjacent to
the existing roadway on the south side.
Part-B alternatives consisted of going through Crouse or bypassing Crouse. A
decision was made not to consider bypassing Crouse to the south because of the
additional expense that would be incurred by crossing the CSX Railroad twice.
The B-1 alternative passing through Crouse on existing NC 150 was rejected
because of the severe impacts to adjacent residents and businesses. A group of
residential dwellings in Crouse, identified as a Historical District, have been
• determined to be eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic
Places and the proximity of the roadway improvements would have an adverse
effect on the District.
Part C alternatives considered were limited to choosing which side of the
existing roadway to place the widening improvements. The north side was
rejected for the area from Crouse to the CSX Railroad bridge due to the greater
number of residents on that side of the existing roadway. The portion of Part
C from the CSX Railroad bridge to Part D had been previously reserved for
future improvements to be constructed on the north side of the existing
roadway.
The Part D-1 alternative was rejected due to the high cost of construction
(approximately $525,000 more than Part D-3) and right-of way acquisition, the
impacts to businesses along the roadway, the complexity of traffic control
during construction, and the lack of a direct connection to Relocated US 321
(Lincolnton Bypass). This alternative would require re-constructing the
existing interchange of NC 150 and old US 321 using new geometry to conform to
current design standards while maintaining traffic on the existing roadway.
The intersection of NC 150 and NC 27 in Lincolnton would have to have two
through-lanes, two left-turn lanes, and a single right-turn lane in each
direction and an additional right-turn lane going from northbound to eastbound
just to achieve LOS D.
Part D-2 was rejected due to the high cost of construction (approximately
$1,275,000 more than Part D-3) and right-of-way acquisition, and the severe
social impacts that would occur to the community living near the existing NC150
/US 321 interchange.
Section III - 3
D. Preferred Alternative
1. Tvpe of Improvement
The Preferred Alignment is-composed of A, B-2, C, and D-3. The proposed
improvement will provide sufficient capacity to meet increased travel
demand, provide a higher grade facility, and increase average running
speed as well as safety. The improvements would provide a five-lane, 64-
foot wide curb and gutter facility in Cherryville with improved vertical
alignment. The remainder of the project would consist of a four-lane
divided facility with a 46 foot wide grass median. The bypass at Crouse.
would maintain the 55 mph posted speed limit and reduce congestion in the
town. The new alignment at the CSX RR crossover will improve safety at
the SR 1407 (Cherryville Highway)' intersection. The new alignment that
connects to the Lincolnton Bypass (US 321) will allow traffic to connect
directly to a major distribution artery, thereby reducing through-traffic
in Lincolnton. This alignment is shown on photomaps 1 through 20.
2. Typical Sections and Design Speed
The proposed typical sections for the project are shown on Exhibit 6.
The five-lane curb and gutter section has a 50 mph design speed and will
have a posted speed limit of 45 mph. This section has five 12 foot wide
lanes, with 2'-6" concrete curb and gutters on each side. The overall
width from face-to-face of curb is 64 feet.
The four-lane median-divided section consists of two 12 foot wide lanes
in each direction divided by a 46 foot wide grass median. The design
speed for this section is 60 mph with a posted speed limit of 55 mph.
3. Riaht Of Wa
Additional right of way (R/W) will need to be acquired to construct this
project. The total R/W width for the four-lane portion through A, B-2,
C, and D-3 is approximately 250 feet wide, which includes the existing
R/W that varies from 60 feet to 150 feet in width. The new interchanges
with existing US 321 and the Lincolnton Bypass will require additional
R/W. The proposed R/W width is shown on photomaps 1 through 20.
4. Sidewalks
There are no sidewalks proposed for this project.
5. Median Crossovers. Access Control
The project will have partial control of access only for Part D-3 from SR
1238 (Laboratory Road) to the end of-the project at SR1301 (Janice
Road). The only access points will be at the interchanges and at SR 1300
(Smith Road). The existing network of roads will be able to provide
access to properties adjacent to the project in this area.
Part B-1 at Crouse will have partial control of access which will be
limited by driveway permits. The remainder of the project will have no
control of access. Median crossovers will be spaced at a minimum of 1500
feet.
Section III - 4
6. Interchanges and Intersections
The NC 150 interchanges with US 321 Business and the Lincolnton Bypass
(US 321) will be constructed as discussed in Section III.B.
All intersections were analyzed as discussed in Section II.B. The basic
side road configuration for all intersections calls for 1 combination
through/right-turn lane in each direction and 1 left-turn lane.
Improvements such as signalization and additional turn lanes will be made
to bring the intersections to a more efficient level of service. Table 5
illustrates the proposed configurations for the intersections requiring.
more lanes than the basic configuration.
The traffic signals at NC 279 in Cherryville and SR 1222 in Lincoln
County will need adjustment when the additional lanes are added.
-------------------------=----------------------------------------------------
Table 5 - Proposed Upgraded Intersection Configuration
Intersection/Approach Lane Configuration
ANC 150 is EB & WB) (L = Left, T = Through, R = Right)
NC 279 - Rudisill St.
EB 1-L, 1-T, 1-TR
WB 1-L, 1-T, 1-TR
NB 1-L, 1-R
SR 1222 - South Grove Extension
NB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
EB 1-L, 2-T, 1-R
WB 1-L, 2-T, 1-R
Existing US 321 (NB/SB) with Ramps A & B
NB 1-T, 1-R
SB 1-L, 1-T
WB 1-LTR
Existing US 321 with Ramps C & D
NB 1-L, 1-T
SB 1-R, 1-T
EB 1-L, 1-TR
Note: EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound
7. Design Elements
The design year for the project is 2014. The level of service of the
proposed improvements is LOS C. The design speed is 60 mph for the four-
lane divided portions and 50 mph for the five-lane curb and gutter
portions. The maximum superelevation is 0.08 ft./ft. with a normal
crown slope of 1/4 in./ft. The maximum horizontal curve is 4°45' for the
Section III - 5
60 mph design speed and 7°30' for the 50 mph design speed. Spiral
transition curves will be used on the mainline. Side road approaches
will be designed to 30 mph criteria. The maximum allowable grade is 6%,
and the K-factors for vertical curve design are 190-310 for crest
conditions and 120-160 for sag conditions. The mid-range of these K-
factors will provide adequate stopping sight distance.
8. Bridges and Railroad Crossings
The existing two-lane bridge over Indian Creek will be replaced with dual
bridges having full width shoulders on an improved grade. The existing
bridge will remain in place until the new parallel bridge is ready for
traffic, then the existing bridge will be replaced.
The existing two-lane bridge over the CSX RR near the SR 1407
intersection will be replaced with dual bridges having full width
shoulders on new alignment and grade. The existing bridge will remain in
place until the north-bound new bridge is ready for traffic, then the
existing bridge will be demolished and the south-bound bridge
constructed.
The existing two-lane bridge over the South Fork of Catawba River will be
replaced with dual bridges having full width shoulders. The existing
bridge will remain in place until the new parallel bridge is ready for
traffic, then the existing bridge will be replaced.
The existing two-lane bridge over the abandoned Carolina & Northwestern
Railroad will be removed and backfilled with earth embankment. The
existing bridge will remain in place until the parallel roadway is ready
for traffic, then the existing bridge will be removed. This replacement
of the bridge with embankment will reduce maintenance costs and can be
done because there are no known plans to utilize the old railroad right
of way for any other purpose.
The existing two-lane US 321 interchange bridge over NC 150 will be
replaced on new alignment as the entire interchange is rebuilt. The new
bridge will require an on site detour to carry US 321 traffic around the
construction site.
New dual bridges will be constructed on new alignment over the Lincolnton
Bypass (relocated US 321).
9. Retaining Walls
There are no retaining walls currently proposed for the project.
10. Construction Staging
During the construction of the additional lanes, service will be
maintained on the existing roadway. Once the new lanes are complete,
traffic will be shifted and the existing lanes will be improved.
Temporary widening pavement may be required in the vicinity of the
Cherryville Country Club as the new lanes are constructed to their
revised grade.
11
Section III - 6
11. Special Permits
Applications for multiple permits from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
will be required for the watercourse crossings on this project.. It is
expected that Nationwide Permits (33 CFR 330.5(a)) (14) and (26) will
apply to the small headwater tributaries and isolated.palustrine wetland
pockets less than 1 acre in size. Incidental fill associated,witn bridge
extensions over Indian Creek and the South Fork of Catawba River will be
permitted under a General Permit (Permit #198200031):
If an individual Corps of Engineers permit is required for the wetlands
affected by the preferred alternative, the requirements of the
"Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Department of the Army concerning the Determination of Mitigation
Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines" will apply.
12. Cost Estimates
The estimated construction cost for the preferred alternative is
$26,100,000. Right of way costs are estimated at $18,350,000, bringing
the total project cost to $44,450,000. These costs, in 1992 dollars, are
based on preliminary studies and are subject to change during final
design. The 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program estimated
$11,280,000 for right of way cost and $26,100,000 for construction cost.
Section III - 7
t ! • 1
w
CA
4
> 11 Z O
co
I?
m 0
al ??
Z
o
z0
O O
G)`
?m
rn - m
X
z?
oz m r v
ZO,
o. p >Do
zLL
OOD m < o
O0 1K tm/?Z
c?. m Cl) 3

co M
V/ C ?
v
? v
N 2
? O
CRpUSF RO

m Z
? (S
R7228)
of o
Pn
OG
po

0010 Ilk"
3
3J
?l

?O l7
J
O
J
/'SOUTH GROVE EXT. (SR1222)
Stern
Qyo
l'F

cS F?,T
(SR?222)
r
CD OG?
?

5w

m
>

1l,0?? O

c
4Tq/y?

o 4
Ri

(S?'2
N
?
OO^ OP
?S?R
S' yj

Gy S N
R
R
T ?q6
nos
F?
D? NpanNp -30\S
asl
GASTONIA HWY
a?
?r v
•,a\J
1 ?88(s1.2?
aW

¦
Z
v

O4NT pN
e
?
4
SS
(lrS32' J
RD CSR1301)
4TORY
RD
rR'238J
Z
rsn)
z
(SS3 1Hna l
l
?

;Zl?!S) ti • ??
?G?
? r
Z D

L3J?3
O?
00 r

c ¦
m ?`SO ??Y'r
X91, ? v 5
O
o ?
GS `q ` Xo C
?\ 2y
a dwna3 kNH3r
9S.
,y?i
S
!
?FRRY O,p
-- CR I
--- - -------
?p
0
---
z

^?
C 74
GA
'
c MeCe DR
??/P
.O'
'

Oy i
2
y ?
•y ti
V
k
Y

A
ST (N 2 4 It eFN?q ;19) 81,4ck RA
J
2
Og4F I-TT7I
? RgMSFyR. /v
DF(? ST
NG
\??FpD FR C/j? --?
C04IR
? R,?? r
SLlwn Alp 7 1 _ 1
Ti O0
D
N
N
.-1
ago
G)
9?qC
k RD
V/ (S"700
O >
zw
?c
0 s?
O o-
O?
c
Z O
00 J. I J?

/ asp
J

D
y? ? ROUSE RD
(SR1169
o

O? ?
?C
C
y
sl ? ?
cyGR y R s ?
D Y?, ? n

(SR'7>
z) T
1
N
?? O
GASTO YJEBBS
CHURC RD. (SR1173)
n C

1
C f)
A
cy 1 1
G'QQY tir
G
RO rR101z'
T
P
Z
? ao
n
a ?
o
y n

w
y
_= N

ry
Z
O
F
• UUw

o z
O
F

W
« N <
p
{!?1 ??Tjj U
W
fA

ac9
a 3
W
io

N yOJ
?? N

es
_ S
a

_- o
r W---4
W
i
in ?
N `O
a ZW
? ..
y 1? ? W
3
? ? 1
1' t

W
T1 ? D
> ?
i0
a ?1 iv
a
\ F

U

b I
Z
O
F
V
h
U
Exhibit No. 6
b TYPICAL SECTIONS

ti m
NC150IMPROVEMENTS

STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1830401 (R-617?
GASTON / LINCOLN COUNTIES
w

l

r.
w
' ae f ( 1 /
I'Aw
- k-
p.
r ? f
01 4b
Z NMI
I 1 rn
I rn . ,
M -u
V Co
-0 -0
O?
CD CD
cD m x a d
(TI
6 ji
O O 7 j t.9 v
j i --------------------------
-------------
Black =I
•r s J
Black Avg, f
.1.
I , Y+ i
----- ---------------
t
I „ r •a`r
'
b a .
V'
. ¢I s Ave,
E
_ • '.-
e
, I 11 ( 1 I •yF j MiS.?
n
i
0
TM, R
4 1 C.
a.ar I Nq27 ".: r,,irt)Ilii j !rlii:i?!(1
' }• nPerations Drive
"
° t
. " 'ilk 1
-. t -:.. I ? w x
•c „
r?
totqw? ti
I Irk f r
loo
'oo
1 f 1 ? T ? ?'? fi.. ,y 1
S? i 6/I 1 1' ?1 `
m
I 1
14
P,?
1
N f f ?"
. - 1
, Of,
1 ,
1 I ' f '
val&
1 ? f
µ a
I I /
o r,
r 4;
r°
E
A
d
1 i
S
o tea, _ ? '--r 44
"
y ,
i
a ,
TC)
HEET ?,.

• ` * \} /? ` y are
'T A,
` a a
+jc
At A-
'?'• } / }tea

a

MATCH Tn cI-AFFT 2
I
i

Z ( / o p

m
D z
0
7 /
w
D _v XI
O -
O 0 - o
00
^ _O
o 70,)
o
( -U
o W <
O (D
G ° ?D x
_ o (-C)
(
a m
n

o
3
o +v (D
?ID a

'a . S
0 0
7
V i
O
?s
?5q
.
j?

10 A

1?

?I Club Dr --•-
?• ?+. Country . -
..! ,. .a
AIN
A' 10
Fair
way .
y 46
r 1
It 1 I
1 : ; zl
,
? .? 1 I
1
,
11 ? I 1
?
?
,
,
1
,
,
,
?

1
t
- ? 1
1
i
1
'
!
i

!

1

1
1
1
1

51
1 \ ? 1
, a +s "?
0
d

1 oI
?
1
r
°s, ysrd L
7 ? 4v

MATCH 1 0 SHEE T 4

MATCH TO SHEET 3
> 4
r
r
1 {a
04
Z ,
I ? 0 P-
^v ,
MATCH 1 c) SH`tr= T

rnnri-;H 7?? cF..? r 4

r
. "; `v!
s ?+

Frl

I
z
v,
t
m CC) 7C)
Irk
> 70,700
U) co
co <
n O O CD CD
cD O cD _ e5w
X Q Q O +
3
u c? 57
v
t? U +
r ?.
?^`? 3`pLL' ??f y* . .. . ? ... ?,? \ VN eW ..' i ?b-•.. 'fie:
?'' ? 0 mot., '?i X ,YW ..?r?. t ,
' a ..,.
\ "A
y? H
., Y
•rt
k
t

MATCH TO SHEET 6
"fit
? ? ? It R
I ¢!

0
?60

1 ln
`' - CH TO SHFFT ?.
f ` I
,, ^w,
f
1 ^
1 ? .1
\ r v Z I ? o
` O I r
} s
ern 03 co -0
\ I s
FTI
1 P O x O 0 co O mµ
flo T 0_ (C)
?\ w
"41 x
all
aa

\ I ? 9+• fl
Cil
- \
z = 1 O
I \
r 1 {
1
1 Z co -6 I i, \
N -u rTl -0 - 0 I
{
JJ x \ "
00
CA) <
CD p T (n :3 0 0 1 \
tD y? 2 cD cD i \
D Cl a 1 1
z?
v
O (D
n Z 1 i \
N o ? r-+ 1
o o
o , i
-- I 1
' t \
1 1
I 1
1 1 \
1
i 1
'wf p \
P
I 1
d Jr j i"
APO
{
I / 1 1
? ?,;: / eat, •y ?r.; ':. f .,' t
x` 1
Ufa. -- ? t' ,4'+I?'•^ ,. :. "? ' -. 1
s
f , I 1 1
a
1
4tb
IJ/ - 1/ 1 0
11 Y119
MATCH TO SHFF 1 8
60
R ?

,. 'hey ?.,+ vdR 6
low
,, Wl
lip,

i I ? '? I
1 1 1 ? i I ,
y 1 1
CD 1 1 1
1 U1 1 \ I
O i I
1 I ,.
}? .?-. ti I ? fll Z t 1
\ 0 3
Z 1 \ 1
-T' X C , 1
D o 0 0:) ® y , I
0 W< s A 1 1 ! 'S
FF 0 a (n (n C) (D
x (D CID 4??. ilk,
> CL
3 n? 1 ,^ 1 , FI t Vll?
w C F
V'? 41'k 41
CD a (D
4 al ? 1 ? i ? ? 5 `
J 4-
"' 11 A
1 1? ?' I ? r
11 V1
1 ?
s 1 t 1 I `? ?" ?
1* .14
40
,.: l\ \ } clri. .,e R m," ? A ` L ? `? ?• ° ? ? t•,,? ,? •- `;*.?. ms's ` ?'. Y
?w
?
It,
I'm
? N-1
Ile
401
_
VIC
40
-# A
fA*
tom, i .W
.
E°.
a?S,
-
I '? . rn
' I 1 ?, k? 1 I
? c ?+r '?:. ? Yt'rq ? ? ? 1 }? I \ I a le ? .'+k?.; fn .. v .+zl•?i?,.a, ? „? ?
°# 1 I }r
y4w
? jF _
?,? "?w'r,,, " w 4 ; P i •? ! 1!''t t 4 N s_ .w
.;_ 3r 1 ! / 1 r € .?'' p? per
°.. r ! . \
A
3k
4 Alit,
"IF
ILI
iY
-Ir Cj' ,,,,
g
y,
ro .
it YK
t f f i,
- Aw
rf? T
?a 1,
d. ?. ?
.x- ?? ? ? -i.. ??"1? •? cf ? „^v? •#`rq aF,g <;1 `.?`'? fin, ?`` ;
M rte' .. ' 9$w ~ :.,Ye" a ^.:a j t..r? ,.. I ^1 ?°'.
t
' .y f-27,
inn l ?' ,:r y +".
AAI?
? ? i??HS U1 HJ1dW
?' i`"

i

?0 ?Ia
__ us
Ail,
t ? j .??•• .s??
ANN ???• -ice
v
.T 1
r
!Ilk
r
L
x°
f ,
I
- S

14.
i
1
'Ail

1
1
1
s

s
1

3'z 1
4

!

L

,
t
1
1
,
i
? tl
A I
1
/
a 1
±eo ., .mss-.
w ? a
paw': _ "?

low
MATCH 10 SHf-FT 12
- ? 3
?}a5 K

K
>g _
-, •. rte.
;r

NA/\T(-.H TO SHEET 12
4
00
41,
f
»t O ?
d
e
x-? r
Y
`i3+
4
?Y.
? W
s?
.x`
.. _? 11"It 4
tv-
Yry.
M_ of Y
4y? c
s
: w
lip,
_ T, ? w
i
lot
j
IA e/
i
sA r .
ti ?

q' V s's.lY2 ;.
i
4i
a,
RW+^
m at A 8
ax ,y r a

ar
?e ?? ? ? ? a Gam.
t?
f V
I It I Nq
%-9.0
I ? A.
106

,/) ? I

+a- ? r

F
?
yy
F.
,

w
MATCH TO SHEET 15
F
n?
R a
I d;. a :s
7 1 i ?a
w
MATCH 10 SHEE 1 1, _:....3.
? ? . r 1? f

_ N m
\ 3
ii i \ fTl p0
X" -o p 000
D D p _ O

? e
\1 (? u I
SHE" 18
sit I V I, \ 1 1
b . i 1
MATCH TO SHFFT
1441 IN
1, -_XF4111`1
rr
, , r ,¢r, !" lI r
Z
S §
M
?ie
Ill ?_ " 1 rat'° a . e m r ° #
O W O ..yy 5.. Yo T e 2.
5 (n
r '•' 1
? o
Ir,
v ;
j CS •r i*:A mom. "? , '?? ,? -':-
i4',e b < .
y e? \ d
ek,
.
woo
n
t N,
µ r ,
xl-i
{ f '
a
11 y
? t
.. ! 9d v Y 7 , _ l
w 'sf
SOL V,
r
Itz
14
• fix' X
???. h ?1? y
l _
.
Jf a _ ,., ".. '?* ..,, ?'-W, t zr?,,•t ?• g y?`,.C- w- - , ,
- „,%,°?. "+?? ?? '' fl ?. ,' ' ?ra ^? w• rev„ ' a,!g : ? ' $ ? ? v; ? ? ? •¢a ,
40.
,
-41 A"
?-
e'er •+. "°'`ti': , r ?pa " ? ?.?' ?, 't " ? °!« - \ e ?s'C., -•qc'r ai' K .. ?
.. P A '?i ypyi ? k y
%
4 ,.
' \ \
,
. 't
z
Y ; om -
p
10
??yr
i rk
m `? # '4
a '
w y
i S
{ r x
-ir
c.
,n
`• W
7-7
A%l
,
a
a
i'' .- ,... x., - `??
H lU SHEF ??

MAT!-? ?, P
Cf) Al, .

i
i
dr"''^t
O 'IMF
U:
n
10f,
1 Y. ? ?` ? .7k ad 4 ?
ell
L
n
r
> 1 µ a..
"'+++444
S y
ay L t ? ?^y t .,
3
,
. - yra
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
rn s 4 _41 Evil' IT
y..
>
a - t
YA
u
,
,
""+''+ O •XN a e
a u.
14
,
r'
?kd ? „? a.? ?!f ,?, `"may ?a4 ?•> ? s ? e
y Nca'`" ?. 4a ` yf
.y4,
CO
/
i cn o W C ! Q!
CL CD
w, {{II J N ? C^?' !r g?, 7ig
W O O 7
1- ,
e • ! sl ui.. Y
, L
_ E ..
4*1
I'll ?Vl
o3ull
UOIUI
(? ?? - -
\ ?_ °
.nom ?
.° ?.
0,^J ell, "k
m -;
lit"
tM,
-"
M y

t
-------------- --
----- - --_-__-__ - -
4
*61
4:'11REgE'- _
AA, 'Ilk
4 ?

r r= rr ? "

III - ?

Ilk

- aJC w
-.?
. - - - - .- - - - - - .4 n.,

IV. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Introduction
The proposed improvements to NC 150 will not have significant adverse
socio-economic or environmental impacts on the human or natural
environments.
B. Social Impacts
1. Neiqhborhoods and Communitv Cohesion
The preferred alternative does not divide any communities because most of
the improvements utilize the existing roadway corridor. The new right of
way required to construct the improvements is not expected to have any
major, long-term effects on the communities. The bypass alternative at
Crouse was chosen to avoid the noise and congestion impacts of the
through-town alternative that would be a serious impact on the small-town
nature of Crouse. Part C will impact the driveway to the Church Of God
near SR 1236 (Riverview Road). Part D-3 impacts the neighborhood around
SR 1250 (Red Bud Road) as it crosses SR 1250 with a new interchange for US
321 Business.
The preferred alternative will not impact any schools or community
buildings.
2. Changes In Travel Conditions
The realignment of existing US 321 Business (Gastonia Highway) and the
subsequent closing of the old NC 150/US 321 interchange will create minor
changes in traffic patterns for some users. Since the improvements for
this project include a median for 83% of the project length, traffic will
not be able to cross the road at every access point. Median crossovers
will be provided along the project, but not at every driveway. Some
drivers will have to make U-turns to complete their trips.
The selection of Part D-3 as a portion of the preferred alternative has
the potential for making the biggest change in traffic patterns by
providing direct access to the Lincolnton Bypass (relocated US 321).
3. Community Facilities
The only existing community facility along the project corridor is the
Crouse Community Center, and it is not affected by the preferred
alternative.
4. Emergency Services
NC 150 is used by emergency fire, police and ambulance vehicles. Traffic
will be maintained during construction to enable emergency vehicles to
pass through the construction area. The additional lanes constructed as
part of the project will improve the safety and accessibility of emergency
vehicles.
Section IV - 1
5. Consistency with Land Use and Thoroughfare Plans
The Gaston County zoning map shows no land use inconsistent with this
project. The Cherryville Thoroughfare Plan adopted October, 1981, by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) refers to NC 150 as a
Major Thoroughfare and is consistent with the proposed project.
The Lincoln County Land Development Plan, dated November, 1992, shows no
land use inconsistent with this project. The Lincoln County Thoroughfare
Plan.dated March, 1991, classifies NC 150 as a Minor Arterial and
recommends widening to four-lanes. This is consistent with the proposed
project.
The NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program lists project R-2705 as being
an extension of this project to NC 73 near its intersection with NC 27.
R-2705 is scheduled for right of way protection. R-617 was located with
its eastern terminus at US 321 to allow for its future extension to NC 73.
There are no valuable natural resources, 4f sites, or historic properties
located in the immediate vicinity of the eastern terminus. Therefore, the
future extension of NC 150 is feasible at this location.
6. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Considerations
The proposed project does not encourage pedestrian or bicyclist activity
because of its speed limit classification. NC 150 is not a part of the
bicycling highways system, although tours utilizing this roadway are
organized by local enthusiasts. The proposed project incorporates a paved
shoulder four feet in width, which can be used by bicyclists.
7. Parks and Recreation
There are no public-owned parks or recreation fac.ilities along this
project.
8. Regional Energy Impacts
The energy impacts of the proposed project will be small but positive.
Reduced delays and smoother traffic flow will result in decreased energy
consumption and a more efficient movement of people, goods, and services.
9. Effects on Social Grouos
The project will not specifically
impact any social group, including
minority, or ethnic.
benefit, harm, or disproportionately
the elderly, handicapped, nondrivers,
10. Relocation Impacts
Although the preferred alternative will displace 60 residences and 12
businesses, relocation studies in the project area indicate that an
adequate supply of comparable replacement housing and commercial property
is available. Copies of the relocation reports are in Appendix F.
r

Section IV - 2
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and federally-
assisted projects. 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.
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 Programs, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing
Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to
owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are
eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) and the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). 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 housing
offered will be within the financial.means of the families and individuals
displaced and 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 get
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.
Section IV - 3
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate
in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such
as 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 Provisions.
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 North
Carolina Department of Transportation'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 purpose 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 since there appears to be adequate opportunities
for relocation within the area. However, it will be available if
necessary.
C. Cultural Resources
1. Historic Architectural Resources
An architectural survey within the area of potential effect of the NC 150
improvements project was necessary for compliance with both Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act. The report entitled "An Architectural Resources
Survey and Evaluation For Proposed Multi-laning of NC 150, Cherryville to
US 321 Interchange" was prepared and.is available for review by the
public.
In order to meet the requirements of the architectural resources survey,
the Work Program included the following: (1) historical and architectural
background research focusing on the project area -- NC 150 from NC 279 to
the NC 150/Business US 321 interchange including a bypass around the Town
of Crouse on new location, improvements along existing NC 150 from NC

...

Section IV - 4
150/Business US 321 interchange to NC 27, and extending improvements from
the NC 150/Business US 321 interchange eastward to relocated US 321, and
its environs in Lincoln and Gaston counties; (2) field work within the
survey area to identify the location of properties listed in or
potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; (3)
determination of the "area of potential effects" (defined as the
geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause changes in
the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties
exist); and (4) report preparation describing the project, the survey
process, and the conclusions of the survey.
Six individual properties and one district considered eligible or
potentially eligible were evaluated: Roberts Log House, Indian Creek
Railroad Bridge, Crouse Historic District, Benaja Black, Jr. Farm Complex,
Kelly-Link Farmstead, the Rudisill House, and the Shull House. Exhibit 7
shows the location of the sites along the preferred alternate, and Exhibit
8 provides details of the Crouse Historic District.
The Rudisill House, a modified, early twentieth-century Colonial Revival
farmhouse, and the Shull House, a deteriorated, antebellum, hall-and-
parlor log house, were determined to be not eligible for the National
Register. However, the other properties and district were evaluated as
being eligible for the. National Register. It has been determined that the
project will have no effect on the Roberts Log House, Indian Creek
Railroad Bridge, or the Kelly-Link Farmstead. The Benaja Black Farm
Complex and the,Crouse Historic District are considered outside the area'
of potential effect. The State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) has
concurred with these determinations by letter, a copy of which has been
placed in Appendix C.
2. Archaeological Resources
The archaeological survey of the NC 150 corridor in Gaston and Lincoln
Counties resulted in the identification of 32 historic and prehistoric
archaeological sites. In addition, several historic sites were evaluated
that had been previously identified as potentially eligible for nomination
to the National Register. The study assessed all 32 archaeological sites
as not significant. The Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in a
letter dated December 13, 1991, responded that all 32 sites were
determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places". Therefore, no additional archaeological work is recommended for
this project.
D. Environmental Impacts
1. Natural Environment
a. Existing Environmental Conditions
1) Physiography
` Gaston and Lincoln Counties are considered part of the Inner
Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. This
region is characterized by broad, gently rolling interstream
areas intermixed 'with` steeper slopes along well defined
Section IV - 5
drainageways. Elevations in the vicinity of the project range
from 750 to 1,000 feet above mean sea level (USGS Lincolnton East
and Lincolnton West quadrangles). The counties support a
mixture of residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural
development. As such, the landscape is variable, dictated by
past and present land use practices.
Soil patterns are the result of a number of biotic and abiotic
factors including past geologic activities, parental material,
environmental and human influences, age of the sediments, and
topographic positioning. Soil characteristics are summarized in
Table 1 included in Appendix E (unpublished SCS soils
information, Gaston and Lincoln Counties).
Soils belonging to the Gaston, Pacolet, and Georgeville series
represent the most widely distributed soils in the project area.
Gaston sandy clay loam occurs on upland ridges were slopes range
from 2 to 15 percent. This moderately well drained soil may
occasionally contain inclusions of hydric soils, particularly
when found in depressional areas along drainageways. Soil
samples examined from areas where Gaston soils are known to
exist exhibited moderate permeability and high water capacity.
Pacolet and Georgeville soils are also prevalent throughout the
project area. A majority of the uplands along the study
corridor consist of one or both series. Pacolet and Georgeville
soils are considered well drained and moderately permeable,
generally occurring on side slopes of uplands or on broad
interstream divides. Neither series is considered hydric by SCS.
Hydric soils are uncommon in the vicinity of the project, and
are defined as "soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic
conditions in the upper part" (USDA, 1991). The only soil
classified as hydric by the SCS which is present in the project
vicinity is Worsham fine sandy loam. Worsham soils are
concentrated in narrow strips bordering stream channels along
Part D-3. This poorly drained soil type typically occurs at the
heads of drainageways, on foot slopes, and in upland depressions
were slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. Worsham soils have a low
potential for most urban and recreational uses because of
wetness attributed to periodic flooding.
Although Pacolet soils are not considered hydric by SCS,
evidence of gleying, mottling, and saturation was noted in
several isolated pockets along NC 150 characterized by poor
drainage. Several of these areas were later identified as
jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Water Resources
Watercourses in the general vicinity of the proposed highway
improvements are part of the Catawba River drainage basin.
Water quality in area streams is considered good relative to

-41
Section IV - 6
other tributaries within the Inner Piedmont and Charlotte Belt
regions (DEM, 1989).
Affected streams include Indian Creek, South Fork of Catawba
River, Lithia Branch, and tributaries to Muddy Creek. Most of
these systems are bank-to-bank headwater tributaries averaging
3 to 4 feet in width. Water flow is often intermittent, based
on seasonal conditions. More than 30 such headwater crossing
were identified along the 10.2 mile project corridor.
Primary water bodies include Indian Creek and South Fork of
Catawba River. Although a number of small feeder tributaries
belonging to the Indian Creek system are crossed by NC 150, the
main body of the creek is located approximately one mile north
of Crouse. This 20-ft. wide stream is highly disturbed and
appears to have been channelized; spoil deposition was noted
along creek embankments.
South Fork of Catawba River is the primary receptor of runoff
in the project area. The main body of the river flows through
the project corridor immediately southwest of the metropolitan
town limits of Lincolnton. Although the river is impacted from
a variety of point and non-point source dischargers, the river
is considered supporting for designated uses (DEM, 1988).
Water quality classifications published by the NC Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), Department of.Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), are based on existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams. In cases where a
stream is not listed in the schedule of stream classifications,
the system is assumed to carry the same classification as that
assigned to the stream segment to which it flows.
Table 6 - Water Quality and Ecological Classifications
Water Quality Ecological
Waterbody Standard a Classification b
South Fork, Catawba River
Lithia Branch
Muddy Creek
Indian Creek.
a DEM, 1991
b Fish, 1968
WS-III Sucker
C Too small to be of
fishing significance
WS-III Too small to be of
fishing significance
C Too small to be of
fishing significance
Lithia Branch and Indian Creek are both listed as Class C
tributaries, indicating suitability for fish and wildlife
Section IV - 7
propagation, secondary recreation, agr.iculture, and other uses
requiring waters of lower quality (DEM, 1991). Both of these
systems are too small to be of fishing significance (Fish,
1968).
Although the main channel of Muddy Creek is outside of the
project limits, its headwater tributaries are in the vicinity
of Victory Grove Church Road. These small feeder systems carry
the same Class WS-III stream classification as the main Muddy
Creek channel. The Class WS-III designation is the least
sensitive classification for municipal water supplies with no
categorical restrictions on watershed development or
discharges, as well as all Class C uses (DEM, 1991).
The South Fork of Catawba River also carries a Class WS-III
stream classification in spite of the fact that the Lincolnton
wastewater treatment plant discharges into the river near the.
NC 150 crossing. The facility has a permitted discharge of 6.0
mgd (OEM, 1989). Even so, monitoring studies undertaken by the
DEM indicate that water quality is good in this particular
segment of the river (DEM, 1989).
Several small impoundments less than one acre in size are
present in or near the proposed alignment. These man made
ponds have generally been constructed from headwater seepages
or along small steam segments to serve as water sources for •
agricultural use. Since many of these systems also serve as
catchments of agricultural runoff or indirectly function as
sediment receptors, water quality is generally poor.
Subsequent ecological importance of these impoundments is
expected to be minimal.
3) Wetlands
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of
discharges into "waters of the United States". Although the
principal administrative agency of the CWA is the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the COE has major
responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement
of provisions of the Act. The COE regulatory program is
defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to
jurisdictional consideration under the Section 404 program.
However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered "waters of
the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Wetlands have been
described as:
"those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetations typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include e
swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."
(33 CFR328.3(b), 1986)
Section IV - 8
The COE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of hydrology) in support
of a jurisdictional determination.
Jurisdictional wetlands in the study area are limited in
extent. Small swampy areas identified within the study
corridor are confined to lowland pockets bordering headwater
drainageways and defined stream channels. For the most part,
these wetland communities represent disturbances to the
landscape; they were caused by human disturbances and resultant
poor drainage. Exhibit 9 shows the location of the areas
determined to be wetlands.
Functional value of these systems is considered minimal. The
small size of the communities, localized disturbances, and
limited distribution suggest minimal ecological importance.
4) Vegetation
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout
the project area reflect the effects of topographic
positioning, hydrologic influences, and past and present land
use practices.
Pine woodlands are limited to specific upland areas throughout
the region where natural succession has been altered. Loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda) and scrub pine (Pinus virginiana) dominate
virtually all of the overstory. Greenbrier (Smilax alauca),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica) and Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia) form the ground cover. This
community type represents the pine dominated stage of NCNHP's
Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (Dry Pine variant).
Upland mixed pine/hardwood forest cover occurs in a patchwork
arrangement throughout the project area. These systems
generally represent later stages of forest succession and can
be found on dry upland ridges. This forest type is dominated
by a mixture of pine and oak specimens including white oak
(Quercus alba), southern red oak (Q.falcata), post oak
(Q.stellata), chestnut oak ( rinus), loblolly pine, scrub
pine, and mockernut hickory (Carva tomentosa). Understory
development is an amalgam of sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum),
mockernut hickory (Carva tomentosa), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and dogwood (Cornus
florida)., Blueberry (Vaccinium vacillans) and strawberry-bush
(Euonvmus americanus)comprise the shrub layer. This
vegetational pattern corresponds with NCNHP's Oak-Hickory
Forest with mixed pine variant.
Upland hardwood forest is limited in distribution throughout
the survey area. These climax communities occur on along ridge
lines, dry slopes, upland flats, and other dry-mesic upland
areas where disturbance has been minimal. Upland hardwood
forests are dominated by mixtures of oaks an hickories, with
white oak most prevalent.' Southern red oak, northern red oak
Section IV - 9
(Quercus rubra), post oak, chestnut oak, mockernut hickory, and
pignut hickory (Carya labra) are also common. The understory
is comprised of sapling regeneration of canopy species. Ground
cover is generally lacking in mature systems with a closed y
canopy. However, several hardwood forest tracts have been high
graded for desirable species, allowing for successional
regeneration of herbs and shrubs. In many cases, proliferation
of briar, honeysuckle, and blackberry (Rubus spp.) form
impenetrable mats.
Mesic forest communities are prevalent along stream channels
and mesic slopes bordering intermittent tributaries. This
cover type is dominated by sweet gum (Liguidambar stvraciflua)
and red maple (Aces rubrum). Other important species include
poplar'(Liriodendron tuligifera), sycamore (platanus
occidentalis), water oak (Quercus nigra), and occasional green
ash (Fraxinus americana). Groundcover is generally sparse,
with honeysuckle and greenbrier often in evidence. This
vegetational profile corresponds to NCNHP's Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype).
Successional communities are highly disturbed areas that occur
throughout the project vicinity where routine maintenance
alters the advancement of natural succession. A host of
grasses and successional herbs including asters (Aster sp.),
broomsedge (Andropogon sp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), cudweed (Gnaphalium obtusifolium), fleabane
(Erigeron sp.) blackberry (Rubus argutus), and honeysuckle
characterize these areas. Successional communities include
utility corridors, roadside margins, and certain cutover areas.
Agricultural land is a common landscape feature along rural
areas of the project alignment. Soybeans, corn, and small
grain crops appear to the primary agricultural commodities.
Pasture lands supporting live stock and other grazing animals
are also included in this category.
Urban/Disturbed areas occupy a large percentage of land in the
project vicinity, particularly around the urbanized centers of
Cherryville, Crouse and Lincolnton. These systems are places
where businesses, residences, or other human related activities
dominate the landscape. As a result vegetation, is limited to
landscape plantings and successional species interspersed with
native specimens.
5) Wildlife
Terrestrial Life
With the exception of urban fringes around Cherryville and
Lincolnton, most of the project area consists of rural
countryside. Clearing and conversion of large tracts of land
for agricultural uses has eliminated cover and protection for
many traditional forms of wildlife. Even so, the mix of plant
community patterns provides a variety of opportunities for
various forms of wildlife. Forested systems offer all the
Section IV - 10
necessary components (food, water, protective coverage) to
support a number of small mammals and birds. Woodland strips
bordering small tributaries complement existing ecotypes, often
serving as travel corridors for transient species. Common
mammals which were noted or suspect include the grey squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern
cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), eastern mole
(Scalopus aquaticus), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris),
eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), white-footed mouse
(Peromvscus leucopus), fox (Vulpes vulpes and Urocvon
cineareoargenteus), and white tailed deer (Ocdocoileus
virginianus). Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) may be found around
the small ponds in the project area.
Avifaunal abundance is typical of rural communities in the
Piedmont region of North Carolina where a patchwork of habitat
types is available. The general nature of a highway corridor
is certainly a factor affecting local distribution; resident
populations are anticipated in areas away from the highway
alignment where better coverage and protection is provided.
Common passerine species which were sighted or can be expected
include Grackle (Ouiscalus ouiscula), American Robin (Turdus
migratorius), Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Blue Jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), Mockingbird (Mimus poly lottos),
Carolina Wren (Thrvothorus ludovicianus), Carolina Chickadee
(Parus carolinensis), Tufted Titmouse (Parus bicolor), Wood
Thrush (Hvlocichla mustelina), common Crow (Corvus
brachvrhvnchos), Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), Solitary
Vireo (Vireo solitarius), and White-throated Sparrows
(Zonotrichia albicollis). Raptors such as Red-tailed Hawk
(Buteo J amaicensis) were also observed. Game birds including
Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginianus) and Mourning Dove (Zenaida
macroura) are anticipated within forest/field ecotonal edges
and in open fields throughout the survey area.
Aquatic Life
Lithia Branch, Muddy Creek, and Indian Creek are considered too
small to be of fishing significance (Fish, 1968). As such,
these tributaries are not expected to support a viable
recreational fishery. Even so, a number of small fish are
likely to exist in these headwater systems including mosquito
fish (Gambusia affinis), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus),
and shiner (Notropis so.). The South Fork of Catawba River is
expected to support a more diverse fishery than smaller feeder
tributaries. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), and catfish (Ictalurus so.) are common
gamefish typically found in Piedmont rivers. In addition, this
major water body provides suitable riparian and benthic habitat
for a variety of amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the
eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), green frog (Rana clamitans),
snapping turtle (Chelvdra serpentina), painted turtle
(Chrvsemvs picta), and northern water snake (Nerodia fasciata).
Section IV - 11
Limited populations of bluegill and largemouth bass may be
found in the small ponds and impoundments situated in the study
area. Snapping turtle, crayfish, and southern leopard frog
(Rana sQhenocephala) are also expected.
6) Threatened and Endangered Species
Federal Species
Federally listed plant and animal species with Endangered (E)
or Threatened (T) status receive protection under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.). The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service identified two species listed as
endangered or threatened and one candidate species that is
currently under status review which may occur in the Gaston and
Lincoln County area. These species include:
Endangered or Threatened (E or T)
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) (E)
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) (T)
Status Review
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula).(C2)
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Michaux's sumac is considered one of the rarest shrubs in the
eastern United States (Moore, 1988). The species tends to grow
in disturbed areas where competition is reduced, such as along
roadside margins or utility right-of-ways. Michaux's sumac
appears to prefer sandy or rocky substrates consisting of basic
soils. These rhizomatous shrubs are generally 2 to 3 feet in
height and densely pubescent (Radford et al., 1983). The
plants are dioecious in nature, producing fruits (drupes) and
seeds in late summer. All but.two populations in North
Carolina appear to be monocolonal in nature, consisting
exclusively of male or female plants. Although able to
propagate vegetatively via rhizomes, the continued reproductive
success of known populations is questionable without a viable
seed source. There have been no documented sightings of Rhus
michauxii in Lincoln County in more than 20 years (USFWS,
1991).
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora)
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a rhizomatous herb which is
normally found on slopes, bluffs, and ravines in rich deciduous
forests. The plants appear to prefer an acidic environment,
and is often associated with rhododendron or mountain laurel.
The leaves on this low-growing plant are green with white
mottling and generally clustered. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is
also on the state endangered species list (North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), DEHNR, 1990).
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula)
Although nestronia does not receive protection under federal
law, the species was considered during field investigations.
Nestronia is a low-growing colonial shrub with simple,
Section IV - 12
lanceolate leaves and small, greenish flowers (Radford et al.,
1983). The species flowers in April and May with fruits
(drupes) being produced in July. Plants are generally found in
upland forest communities, occurring as parasites on the roots
of oaks and pines. The distributional range extends from
Virginia south to Alabama. The loss of mature upland forest
throughout southeastern Piedmont regions of North Carolina has
been a causative factor contributing to the decline of this
species in this state.
State Species
Based on a review of NC Natural Heritage Program records, there
are no state-listed species known to occur in the vicinity of
the proposed project.
b. Impacts
Physical Resource Impacts
Long term impacts to streams and above headwater tributaries as a
result of roadway construction are expected to be minimal. The
present alignment crosses a number of intermittent systems, and
additional widening will require proper sizing of pipes and culverts
in order to maintain the integrity of these small streams. Impacts
to the South Fork of Catawba River and Indian Creek will largely be
negated by bridging of these two major water bodies.
Temporary impacts due to erosion and sedimentation during
construction will be minimized through implementation of a stringent
erosion control plan and the use of best management practices. In
addition, the Contractor will be required to follow contract
specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in
the Department of Transportation's policy entitled "Control of
Erosion, Siltation and Pollution Dikes, berms, silt basins, etc.
can be used as needed to control runoff. Rapid re-seeding of
disturbed areas will also help alleviate sediment loading in area
waters. Increased runoff from new highway surfaces can be partially
mitigated by providing for grassed road shoulders and limited use of
ditching whenever possible.
Wetland Impacts
Table 7 illustrates the relative impacts of project activities on
waters and wetlands subject to jurisdictional consideration under
the Clean Water Act.
Wetland losses will be minimal. Wetland impacts are generally
restricted to small disturbed pockets less than 0.1 acre in size.
A number of small above headwater tributaries will be crossed by the
alignment described in Table 7 as bank-to-bank waters of the United
States. Impacts at individual crossings will be limited in scope,
with cumulative impacts along any one segment generally totaling
less than 0.5 acres. The preferred alternative would impact a total
of 1.6 acres of bank-to-bank waters of the U.S. and an additional
0.3 acres of wetland type PF01C/.A..
Section IV - 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 - Wetland Impacts
(in acres)
Terminal Segments
Wetland Type Part A Part B-2 Part C Part D-1 Part D-2 Part D-3
PF01C/A 0.2 - 0.1 1.0
PEM - - 0.1 - -
Bank to Bank 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.4
Waters of the US
Legend
PF01C/A: Palustrine forested, Broad-leaved deciduous, Seasonally/Temporarily
flooded.
PEM: Palustrine emergent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8 - Plant Community Impacts
(in acres)
Terminal Segments
Community Type Part A Part B-2 Part C Part D-1 Part D-2 Part D-3
Pine woodlands 2.4 5.7 7.8 5.5 4.4 5.7
Upland mixed -
pine/hardwood 3.2 2.2 10.0 2.8 3.2 3.3
r
Upland hardwood 1.9 2.1 9.9 3.6 3.6 9.1
Mesic/bottomland
hardwood 6.6 3.2 7.5 7.8 17.5 27.4
Successional 4.5 11.1 7.5 4.9 11.5 6.6
Urban/Disturbed 61.8 9.2 38.4 32.2 32.6 20.8
Agricultural 24.9 13.5 11.9 0.0 6.1 8.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biotic Impacts
Table 8 summarizes potential losses of plant communities which could
result from roadway development within each alternative alignment
corridor.
In spite of the rural nature of the project area, urban/disturbed
communities represent a significant portion of the impacts
associated with the proposed improvements. In the more urbanized
segments (Part A, Part B-1, and Part D-1), impacts average around
50% of the total anticipated losses. However, even in rural
segments, urban impacts range from 20% to 40% of total takings.
Agricultural impacts will be greatest along rural stretches of NC
150 between Cherryville and Lincolnton (Parts A and B-2; Table 9).
Section IV - 14
Agricultural losses are significantly less along terminal
alternatives around Lincolnton.
Total woodland (pine woodlands, upland mixed forest, upland
hardwoods, and mesic hardwood forest) losses consistently range from
15% to 35% along all study segments. However, Part D-3 will have
more than 50% of the impacts targeted within forested systems, with
a majority of those impacts occurring to mesic woodlands. This
potential loss reflects the rural, undeveloped nature of this
particular segment.
Loss of wildlife habitat is an unavoidable consequence of
development, regardless of the alignment chosen. However, proposed
improvements are not expected to result in adverse impacts to local
wildlife populations. Primary improvement will consist of widening
the existing NC 150 alignment from Cherryville to Lincolnton with a
majority of the impacts concentrated within disturbed right-of-way
limits. Infringement on contiguous natural systems will not affect
sensitive natural areas nor result in significant loss or
displacement of known plant or animal populations. Resident
species, such as passerine birds and squirrels, are cosmopolitan in
nature, easily adapting to urbanization. However, movement from one
side of the road to the other will become more dangerous for
transient species such as raccoons and opossums.
The proposed Crouse bypass and terminal alignments around Lincolnton
involve highway construction on new location. Many resident
wildlife species that occur within the corridors will be displaced
by construction. Larger mammals, such as deer, which seek refuge in
large, undisturbed tracts, may experience disruptions in mating,
feeding, or migratory patterns. Resultant habitat reduction and
segmentation is expected to impact all area species.
Protected Species Impacts
There is no evidence to suggest that federal or state listed species
(or status review species) will be impacted by construction. A
review of NC Natural Heritage Program records indicated no
documented sightings of such species in the project vicinity.
The presence/absence of Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) and
Hexastylis naniflora (Dwarf-flowered heartleaf) was evaluated within
the study alignment from information concerning habitat requirements
(Radford et. al. 1968, NCNHP 1990), and field investigations.
NCNHP personnel (pers. comm. Dr. Harry Legrand, 5/24/91) indicated
that dwarf-flowered heartleaf could potentially occur in the
Cherryville-Lincolnton area. Field investigations revealed that
prime habitat areas are generally lacking for this species is in the
study alignments. No sightings were noted during field surveys
along draws and wet drainages which are crossed by the project.
Roadside margins, ecotonal fringes, and successional areas capable
of supporting Michaux's sumac were surveyed on July 9 and 10, 1992.
Similar surveys were conducted along bypass alignments in May, 1991.
Seventeen potential habitat areas were identified and surveyed,
Section IV - 15
comprising approximately 35% of roadside margins, 50% of pasture
margins, all open woodlands, and all successional areas within the
study alignment. Systematic transects were walked at suitable
intervals to allow for complete visual coverage of selected areas.
No sightings were noted during surveys.
Based on field investigations and review of available records, this
project is not expected to affect protected species with ranges that
extend into Gaston or Lincoln Counties.
c. Permit Coordination
A variety of permit options are available to allow for encroachment
into jurisdictional waters/wetlands. Because infringement will
generally be limited to small headwater tributaries and isolated
palustrine wetland pockets less than 1 acre in size, Nationwide
Permits (33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) and 26) are expected to apply.
Incidental fill associated with bridge extensions over Indian Creek
and South Fork of Catawba River will be permitted under a General
Permit.
General 401 Water Quality Certifications issued by the DEM, DEHNR,
are currently in effect for all permits listed above.
If an individual Corps of Engineers permit is required for the
wetlands affected by the preferred alternative, the requirements of
the "Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army concerning the Determination
of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines" will apply.
d. Wetlands Mitigation
Mitigation will be in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
of the CWA (40 CFR 230), FHWA stepdown procedures (23 CFR 777.1 et
seq.), and mandates expressed in Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961
(1977)).
The project cannot be designed to avoid all wetlands associated with
this project because it utilizes the existing roadway corridor. The
proposed actions will primarily involve widening of an existing
highway, and any new alignment alternatives on would likely result
in significantly greater impacts to natural communities - both
wetland and upland, as well as being more costly.
Conservative use of culverts and sensitive placement of drainage
structures will minimize further degradation of water quality, and
reduce adverse impact on aquatic habitat viability in streams and
tributaries.
Due to the limited nature of the impacts, best management practices
will be used as appropriate mitigation for unavoidable losses.
Elimination of staging areas in lowland sites, careful containment
of oil, gasoline and other hazardous materials near creeks and
tributaries, reduced canopy removal in or near floodplain systems,

Section IV - 16
and employment of strict erosion and sediment control procedures are
a few of the practices which should be employed.
2. Floodplains Evaluation
• The study area lies within the drainage area of Indian Creek and the
South Fork of Catawba River. Exhibit 10 shows the studied route in
relation to these two water crossings.
In accordance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, the
proposed project was evaluated with respect to potential impacts on
regulated floodplains/floodways. Construction of new roadway embankment
across drainageways and in floodplains brings the potential for increases
in floodplain area and property damage upstream of the roadway. To
ensure that floodwater property damages due to roadway construction are
minimized, drainage structures are designed with upstream (headwater)
elevation in mind. All bridges and culverts on this project will be
designed and constructed in accordance with Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) floodplain impact requirements. FHWA requires the
minimization of upstream headwater elevations due to the construction of
roadway across floodplains. For Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) regulatory floodways, this increase cannot exceed one-foot for
100-year flooded events or the elevation needed to protect structures,
whichever is less.
The portion of Indian Creek and the South Fork of Catawba River has been
mapped by FEMA as part of the Lincoln County (Unincorporated areas),
` regular Flood Insurance Rate Study.
For FEMA floodplain crossings, structures were sized to limit the
headwater increase to less than one foot or to protect structures from
being flooded, whichever was lower. The floodplain is encroached by
roadway fill at both of the described water crossings by approximately
five acres at the Indian Creek Crossing and three acres at the South Fork
of Catawba River crossing. Under the conditions described, the proposed
project does not constitute a significant encroachment to the floodplain.
3. Noise Analysis
a. Introduction
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
project on noise levels in the immediate project area. This
investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land
uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
survey 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. If
traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
• the alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating
the noise impacts must be considered.
In order to determine whether or not highway noise levels are
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and
Section IV - 17
procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways. These
abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in Part 772 of Title
23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. A summary of the noise y
abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table 2 of
Appendix A.
Briefly, Category A use is an extraordinarily quiet, serene, area
that needs to be preserved and has a maximum Leq dBA level of 57 for
exterior sounds. Category B uses are residences, active sports
areas, hotel/motels, schools, libraries, park/recreation areas,
playgrounds, etc., and has a maximum Leq dBA level of 67 for
exterior sounds. Category C uses are developed lands, properties,
businesses, and other uses not described for Categories A or B, and
has a maximum Leq dBA level of 72 for exterior sounds. Category D
is for undeveloped land, but has no maximum level assigned.
Category E is the category B and C indoor uses and has a maximum Leq
dBA level of 52 for interior sounds.
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.
This project has no Category A land use and no interior sound levels
were measured to predict Category E values. The amount of Category
D use is largely farmland but is surrounded by Category B uses,
effectively negating this category.,
b. Ambient Noise Levels P
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing background noise levels. The locations of
the monitoring stations and the resulting ambient noise levels are
shown in Exhibit 11. 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. The field
data was also used to establish ambient noise levels for residences,
businesses, and other noise-sensitive receivers near the project.
The lowest ambient noise levels recorded for the project are 63 - 64
dBA.
The STAMINA model was calibrated for this project by modeling the
measured traffic from the field survey and adjusting the output to
the measured noise levels. This procedure takes into consideration
site-specific attenuation such as sound absorbing terrain (alpha
factors). The calibration was conducted using the highest measured
sound level at 50 ft from the road of 68.2 dBA (Run 6). Since the
results of the model showed 70.7 dBA, model results were calibrated
by subtracting 2.5 dBA. All-subsequent model runs used this factor.
To determine .baseline noise levels, peak hour traffic volumes were 41
input to the STAMINA model. Table 4 of Appendix A presents traffic
data for this baseline case as well as for other cases considered in
NC 150 widening studies.
Section IV 18
c. Future Noise Levels
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated procedure.
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars driving at different speeds
through a continually changing highway configuration and surrounding
terrain. To assess the problem certain assumptions and
simplifications must be made.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure (BCR), STAMINA 2.0 The
BCR procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise
Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction
model uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway,
their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road (curves,
hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and height,
and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and
barrier top elevation.
The proposed project with preliminary alignment was modeled assuming
no special noise abatement measures would be incorporated. Only
those existing natural or man-made barriers which could be modeled
were included. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were
assumed to be flat and at-grade, Thus, this analysis represents
"worst-.case" topographic conditions. The noise predictions made in
this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic
conditions during the design year of 2014.
Peak hour design and Level-of-Service (LOS) C volumes were compared,
x and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with
proposed speed limits. Thus, 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 to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour in the design
year 2014 would be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding
the FHWA noise abatement criteria and those land uses predicted to
expect a substantial noise increase. The basic approach was to
select receptor locations such as 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and
1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to
both sides of the roadway). The location of these receptors were
determined by the change in projected traffic volumes along the
proposed project. The result of this procedure was a grid of
receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise levels
were calculated for each identified receptor.
There are 161 receptors identified for the project, including all
alternative locations. 17 receptors are Category C (businesses,
etc.) and 144 receptors are Category B (residences, etc.)
The Leq traffic noise exposures for each
Tables 5 through 8 of Appendix A. Table
listing of all receptors proximate to the
predicted noise levels and the estimated
each receptor.
roadway part are listed in
9 of Appendix A is a
project, the ambient and
noise level increase for
Section IV - 19
d. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels s
either (a) approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
(NAC), with approach meaning within 1 dBA, or (B) substantially
exceed existing noise levels, as defined in the lower portion of
Table 2 of Appendix A. For ambient noise levels above 50 dBA a
substantial increase is defined as 15 dBA or greater. Noise
abatement measures must be considered when either of the two
preceding conditions exist..
None of the Category C receptors are predicted to approach or exceed
the NAC criteria. Of the Category B receptors, 121 are predicted to
exceed the NAC criteria due to their closeness to the roadway.
The predicted exterior noise level increases in the vicinity of the
project are expected to range from 5 to 8 dBA, therefore no
receptors are anticipated to experience a substantial increase in
their exterior noise levels. When real-life noises are heard, level
changes of 2 to 3 dBA are barely perceptible. A 5 dBA change is
more readily noticeable, and a 10 dBA increase is judged by most
people as a doubling of the loudness of the sound.
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
defract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid
mass, attenuable measures may include earthen berms or artificial
abatement walls.
r
The project will maintain partial control of access on only a
portion of the roadway meaning most commercial establishments and
residences will have direct driveway connections to the proposed
roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be
of substantial height and length as 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 eight times the distance from the
barrier to the receptor.
In addition, business, 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 their case.
3
No noise abatement measures are recommended for this project because
none of the receptors is predicted to experience a substantial
increase in noise levels.
Section IV - 20
e. Do Nothing Alternative
` The traffic noise impact for the "Do Nothing", or "No Build"
alternative was also considered. As listed in Table 6A in Appendix
A, the no-build alternative is predicted to increase the noise
T levels by 3 dBA, which, when added to the base values of 63-64 dBA
results in 66-67 dBA. Therefore, the total number of impacted
receptors whether by approaching or exceeding FHWA Noise Abatement
would be all of the 144 Category B residences.
f. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts,
such as temporary speech interference for passersby and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected from
paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading
operations. Overall, construction noise impacts are expected to be
minimal, since the construction noise is relatively short in
duration and is generally limited to daytime hours.
g. Summary
The projected increase in noise levels and associated noise impacts
for the proposed widening project are expected. The horizontal
alignment has been located to minimize impacts and costs. However,
based on these preliminary studies no traffic noise abatement is
reasonable or feasible along this project, due to the uncontrolled
access feature of the facility and none is proposed.
4. Air Ouality Analysis
a. Introduction
Air pollution is produced many different ways. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent
sources. Other sources of common outdoor air pollution are solid
waste disposal, forest fires and burning in general. The impact
resulting from the construction of a new highway or the improvement
of an existing highway can range from aggravating existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air conditions. Motor
vehicles are known to emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides
(NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particular matter, sulfur dioxide (S02),
and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate).
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide.
Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the
project area. For these reasons, most of the analysis presented are
concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the
vicinity of the project.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor
near a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local component is due to CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within
Section IV - 21
100 meters) of the receptor location. The background component is
due to CO emissions from cars operating on roads further from the
receptor location.
Automobiles are generally 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 installation and maintenance of pollution control devices
on new cars, and thus help lower ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide
levels.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of
ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of
hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as
sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to
form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants.
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than seven percent of particular matter emissions
and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and
agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide from vehicles 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 emit lead as a result of burning.gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the octane
rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the
reduction in the lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall
average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon. By
1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon.
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.makes 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 NAAQA
for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
CALINE3 was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest
sensitive receptor to the project.

Section IV - 22
particular attention being paid to water distribution lines.
Construction activity will have an impact on an estimated 25 geodetic
survey markers. The NCDOT and the NC Geodetic Survey will coordinate
efforts to have these markers replaced.
A number of potential impacts to the environment could occur due to the
proposed construction of the project. Many of these impacts will be
controlled through careful attention to construction methods such as
those discussed below.
Water Ouality. The majority of potential construction impacts to water
quality stem from erosion associated with roadway embankment
construction. An erosion control plan will be developed for the project
that will make use of mulch, sod, diversion berms, sediment catch basins,
and effective cleanup practices as described in the North Carolina
Administrative Code, Chapter 4, Sedimentation Control (DEHNR, 1985)
should limit impacts. Other control techniques include limiting exposed
areas by phasing construction work and use of Best Management Practices.
Wetland areas will be protected from discharge from construction areas
and will be monitored to prevent unpermitted fill and waste flow.
Efforts will also be made to prevent unnecessary entry of construction
machinery into wetland areas during construction.
• Biotic Communities. Impacts to biotic communities would stem from
habitat degradation or destruction. Noise, erosion, and lower air and
water quality associated with construction could potentially degrade
habitat, while clearing activities would destroy it. Noise impacts would
temporarily disrupt normal habits of terrestrial fauna by keeping them in
a state of stress or causing displacement until they become acquainted to
increased sound levels.
Soil disturbance, erosion, and associated degradation of air and water
quality would impact flora and fauna of surrounding biotic communities.
Emissions and fugitive dust would impact vegetation by settling on
foliage and lowering efficiency of metabolic processes. Siltation
associated with erosion may bury smaller plants and eventually enter
streams. While benthic macroinvertebrates and fish normally recover
quickly from such stresses, such circumstances during spawning seasons
may disrupt reproductive success.
Mitigation for these impacts may include planning construction activities
to avoid peak breeding or spawning periods, developing and adhering to an
erosion control plan, limiting movement of machinery outside the
construction corridor, adherence to clean-up procedures, minimizing fill
in wetlands or drainage areas, and use of Best Management Practices.
9. Underground Storage Tanks and Hazardous Waste Sites
An initial site assessment was conducted to determine if any potential
hazardous waste sites occur within the study corridor. Hazardous waste
includes waste material, or combinations of waste materials that pose a
hazard to human health, welfare, or the environment. Hazardous waste may
be in the form of gases, liquids, sludges, or solids and can be
Section IV - 25
classified as flammable, corrosive, toxic, reactive, radioactive, or
infectious.
The initial assessment included a review of government documents and
lists concerning hazardous material usage and storage within the
alignment. Specifically, these documents included:
* North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NC DEHNR) Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database.
* EPA Wasteland (CERCLIS - ERRIS) Sites Report 3b
* (NC DEHNR) (DEM) Inactive Hazardous Waste Site Priority List
* North Carolina National Priorities List
* (NC.DEHNR) (DEM) Incident Report
Other sources of information used to locate hazardous waste sites within
the study corridor include topographic maps and aerial photographs of the
study area.
The assessment included a windshield survey of the project corridor to
locate potential problem areas such as abandoned buildings not listed in
government documents. The corridor was also examined for signs of
contamination or areas where dumping has occurred.
A review of nearby listed hazardous waste facilities did not identify any
generators of hazardous waste along the extent of the project.
A review of public records did not identify any solid-waste landfills
near the subject site that could be possible impact sources. There is a
new Lincoln County landfill located approximately two miles north of NC
150 along SR 1171 (Old Lincolnton Road).
A review of public records identified H & S Processors on NC 150 in
Lincolnton (NC D049772023) as a nearby Superfund (CERCLA) site under
assessment by the Environmental Protection Agency or state regulatory
agencies. The Lincolnton Post Office reported that H & S Processors was
located on Old Highway 150 (Cherryville Highway), approximately 2,000
feet north of the intersection of NC 150 and Old Highway 150 and
approximately 1,300 feet from NC 150 at its closest point to the former
plant. The plant location is near the top of a topographically high
ridge. It appears that groundwater would flow away from the proposed
highway improvement project. No file review occurred concerning this
property.
A review of the FINDS List identified the following facilities as having
a hazardous waste data management system (HWDMS) or a permit compliance
system (PCS):
ID Number Name and Address Tvne
NC D006996342 Carolina Freight Carriers Corp. HWDMS
Highway 150 East Cherryville

T
y
0-

Section IV - 26
NC D980604540
There are no properties
Environmental Management
contamination on or near
Lincolnton. There is no
Lincolnton WWTP PCs
Highway 321 - By Pass
identified by the North Carolina Division of
(DEM) as reported sites of ground water
NC 150 from Cherryville, through Crouse, to
record of any soil or surface contamination.
The listed Underground Storage Tank Record was compared to the identified
surrounding properties and the subject site. The record review
identified the designated sites shown in Table 9.
We note that the U.S. EPA and the North Carolina State regulatory lists
are limited and include only those sites known to the regulatory agencies
at the time of publication that produce hazardous waste, have a reported
incidence or are suspected of having had a contaminant release due to the
generation or handling of hazardous material.

It

4
Section IV - 27
------------------------------------
Table 9 - Underground Storage Tanks
Name No. of Tanks
C. B. Dellinger 4

Carolina Freight Carriers 8
Kiser Chevrolet 3
Crouse Handy Mart 3
Marvin Beam Ford 1
Tri-County Farm Supply 1
Marvin S. Beam, Inc. 2
Catawba Timer Co./Crouse Wood 1
John's Get-N-Go 5
Nitso, Inc. 3
(Also listed as J.R. Leasing-possible former Lee's Service)

Duke Power Lincolnton Office 1
Lincoln County Hospital 2
f
Lincoln County Hospital 1
Wise Pantry No. 2 5-current
One Stop Food Store 6
Reedsville Garage 2-pulled in 1988
Rhodes and Beal 2-pulled in 1980
Victory Service Station 3
Southside Food Mart
-------------------------------------- 4
-------------------------------------
11

Section IV - 28
fl
v
(D
O
co)
?•
-a o
a m Z 0 '? 3Nn H? dw -
?? j n z
om 01
ZOO M
m ?_ n
r-o r, 7- mx
O Z+ M`, OZ z cROUSF R? (S
R1
O -1z a0 v X28)
r C o M 00? o
Z OD C W M
s
0 OD M > ? 5; n06,
o G)
C 4A m m m 1>
Z 2O ' Z O s000
M
n 4 ?o
??33J
co) v M???31,?t? ?i4? rSR
oa
`9r,zoc-,
?
?O 70
J
J
SOUTH GROVE EXT.
Q?OLZ
fkT,

;o ?q
p cq'?otti Tgty?
?
D m M o°^ ?F
r" (S?'?s N
J v 5ti s'?Rti
,
r Cy ST RR ?4?

Z gti
J
OX
geO
3Ms -p°s RgT°Ry
O?pNO a Ra
rR
Nv.1?
o Z
GASTONIA HVvy (US321 (SS3NISn8 turn) 0
1,MH VINOISVO
O

?IJ 3N = m
'

(ag51?!
A
o 4 P
Gs3? 00
.Gy
f
O p
L6ZLNS) -oa dWn8o kN63r B q` , OFF
(SR1SO1) R
a
oc,
41
D
8
n_ z
v
I RUO?S?<< S7. ?NCS 4 it
2>9) :
m z
rt
o?
W
D,
mn
X
0
0
O
?V;-;r
tia
ff
m 0
ti
A,
r
?
_
O
3
CI
m O
rs,?°2
>
'?
s
o
?
J 1
C
v_
r
r
O
co
m
r
&?4CK
RD.
C7

`DACE 0
R,gM
R 1 ' 1
SFy
sr
<Ciy
D?,R
<
R
!i
; V r
r
&.Z6- o T
1 1

D

B4q
ck Ra (SR7002)

?s
J
?cF RO
Sp YY
oy?R h ROS Y
(SR?,T2)
GASTON WEBBS
CHURCH RD. (SR1173) c
L
C
(A
m
2 =? u
Jc
O 1
a
Y
a?
co y
a (n
? 2 ?
-co
5321 ?
`)
T
N
O
C
o?

0
2
4 ? r r
z
O
zAv
v=•
c
C?W
D;U;u
D (A
z
N ;
mm
;u cA 0 C D
OWN
;u 0
rn Z
W o
?Z
<
m
CO)
D

M
Z
o

m
cCO
o m CA
o c
zo co)

^^
r"
- m

= X
- -1 Co 3
?
nZ
OO O -4
M

zL&
` O
n.
nw m °-
c? m -4
z2 z m
OD
y?y
.i
0
0
m
z
D
m
v
co
C
v
z
G7
D
Z
z
O
-A -4 -A -L -L -A WM-4 MC?-gh, WN -- -4mu.PWN O WD
c Cp CCp ? CCCCO CCU p p p
Q 7 7 7 7 1 7 C ,D -0 ?-0
ICD I< :3CD:3?(DCDn ??-?
p CD p%< p p p p 2p p rrr+p .+
0 3 rn 3 3 1 cn3 3 3 3 0 3 3 Km m 3 0
ncD 0- rn C 0? a a. o. o. D a a '+ I I I
v c? a a
(D %-i p .?%--, -- O .??.?.? (D S CO
ap OO r0
c o
o? m am
1 `<
= co
O O C7 C) co =2
?n
tcn = co c C c
m
=r CD
p
O 2
O
c
N
tD
I' -
,I o
I
O : 11
tl
II
I?
J
_ -1 1
I 1 -?
II
11
11 ? \
t ?\
I
1
1 •
11
II
11
II
11
II
.I p
11
II
o
o I??
? J I
r? X11
j II
II
II
II
y 1
_ II
O ?_ II
11
II
II
.,
II
I I \
I
.i
x
o ?
0
iS
i
.
z
0
c

3
X
D
I
1

/
i/
/
r
m
v
i
a . . +4
Z
O
m
o
0 m
A c
r
z
h o v

co) CD D

m
D
I
m Z a
co 10

zo o
-?
`m
n -
M
Z x
Z--
0 Z _9
M W ?
Orp o 00
,
Z OD C 0
?w m
c° 46 m

Zo
Z Z
ca
ca ( co
:
L
zi
olt:6sl a
SOUTH GROVE EXT. iyuss? RUDI S/CC St. (N ALr
2>9) :
CRO(JSe RD
<sR1z28)
?P,p Rp
?4F ?s,??233J
-lP
170
r- J
S'p
J
GRO?e
F?-T
(SR?222)
68
Qv;v1s1 o
N?, ?c
GASTONIA HW. (tj A ,% O
-? ?GS3?J
(SR1301)
0 A'oPf
oq
cgQ0 T4`?
0 q? 9Ri
'I'O,pTy ?c p
ro °'y?cy 'Q.y P
ST R ?q9
4,y
J
,,q &44Ck
RD
0

.044e
Rg4f
R. m
x
.
> sl
?
ry Z7
Ge
R C/
p

L---J rrj
ua
_n 1 - 1
9 ^'
s 0
,
O -n

O N

y- ??;
a`'v
d
R
?c
.6a
ova
0 %
rm°ti
'9 T
oRy \
y
Rp (SR'
S3 y
CyDRC qRk Y
ti
S Y
r
8J Rp
Z (SR,??2
Lzcsn)
(SS
HOd
?
1SdD
INO

-
GAS'TON WEBBS
CHURCH RD. (SR1173) c
h

?
??s
\? O
Z
O
??
G ?q? 'po
P ?
ANW3r qss\,
FF? yy c
9 a?

Cli
_cC` GAS... ?f• . ?? 2
R
y
A
c(o
V
rl;l?i
?,
J
,rev RD
94q
C
k Rp (S,p1OO2)
i ? t t • ?
°

-q
a
Z o
.?
?? n
0 a
M
Om
ZO O
?m
r.0 -
p
o
m
X =r
Z v
Z
OP O z
Z j° C Z ,
00D
W m W o
c ,
° m c
z° Z Z
F
co
:p
co
>
v co

Fri
0
m
z
v
?? D
0-0
O a
0-1
O
?x
n
°o
(D
1
Rouse- Ilk lS
R?X28)
1o? o
'Colo
o
llp
Pa X°.,
J
J
8VD/S/(1. Sr yVSS A11:
lNC2j9) .
?q BCACk
R°
J
M

?PACF °
R,
RgM T
1 ' 1
SeY
'W ST
NG
f
°?
R cage" C

` r
u6 ^ m

? p0

o ?
a

? f
W "<
O
?/f

?tiatia
?o
?c
.o?
o?
0
o
?S,p Z
>S ?
c?
e?qck
/?A ()-rlO02)

.?
o
SOUTH GROVE EXT.
GRO
I'F FkT
9
ok? rq?? Ri
_gRc
+01 !?. p
PIS' ? rSnc
'PIP
`S'T ?q6
J
J
?cF RD
3o`S
os ?4T oRr
.a? ?o??NO ?°
R? (S
r- Q?238 cy o
?RCy RoS ?y pr
r1
Nod J
z A
(SR'',2 J
o ?TJ
GASTO?IIA HWy. (US321 (SSI3MNHnVINO1S
d0

O ?y

GASTON WEBBS
' O

C

o
ti- r CHURCH RD. (SR11
n ' ^
V
mo
//?
(gGzws
00
? a Nrnol3oaoa o i

°
F
m
\
? y
qs
Rcy tir
o ? m ?`.? 0 Ro G'Po
d1

110 A
gggti2! N
c
m

v GS .?c -P
00

pc,

^

,

o? L6ZQJS) -ON drina° kNN3r ys ?, yc, ?
2
1,
1
..
o Y old
Y

r..._ c? ? Y a?
Pll 2
Q "Oki; e)714S
S (532' J
eo,
1sR13o1J
2y
cl
y
y
A
V

co)
D
m
Z

co) o co)
m
om
z 01
O K
0 m
?m

ro cl)
m
c x
Z

Oo v-
m ?:

Z O 0
C mZ
Z
OOD I
CA)
O
1 M

K
0
C.5, p
y
Z2
i
Fn
co)

ICJ
O

v Z
4
OD
D Z rn
3 o
cD z
rn v
CD
Z a
O co
C
CD CD
r rn
(D ?
(D
cn r-
0
C n
D 0
UJ
0
b
z
cRODSe RD
(SRI-IRS)
Rp
-Pi ??<<c?` (sR/?33J
?O 70?
J
z
P?
o
J
.?
9?2`?Sl O
SOUTH GROVE EXT.
M
0
m s0
OG
PO
r
co
D
0
;u Q
00
b1
0
GR0
V Fkt
(sR?zX21
I Ao
cl,
?-?RO<?,1, ?qty??
P6, rS?
ti/ Rti R
?y sT R (qe
4,y
J
s? a ` "01R
0? NO??NO 30\5 0?0 4 ArOiQyR p
`?52\2\S? GO r,72*)
NL p
o (z
GASTONIA HWy. (US321 (SS1.MHne Lzv `))
? o O
OS • .?.O?o" > r
3Lao yo Z
a ? a o1 ?•Y Y
y 0
?g85\a bA o 9 s3?, ;'; ,gam
pa L63LMS) '08 dwn80 A883r .9 O'AFF? yy
ti??y • ----- ?FRRY CR p' O? ?`?y1
z x(`00 9? 4R?p z
?S OC,?o 4Me c?' p IV G4
-NCn. 1
9
rA4
0 ITS
(c,S32?J
(sRJ.301)
2 =
?
y V
R
.y

A

RUOIS14 Sr (ySS
? • ? 'A e( gck
9
? ?'0
.
C7

,444f
OR
,, /V

I s
OF4i ST
N
G
FR c/g ,
? ?Foo
.,?, ---
c
o
C
m
UR

r '
? i$ r
r
Q
-- ? si awn ? _? -L
.LLp _n m
asp ti aD
J?
!sN/p0 1
cy?R ? ? ps Yy
(sR77T2)
GASTON WEBBS -
CHURCH RD. (SR1173)
Y
a
? Y
.y ?
a
} 2
.Y
?S
J
icF RD
y X17
? 00
Q `M T
MN D
a
e?4ck
RQ (S,p/002)
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Input concerning effects of the project on the environment was requested
from appropriate federal, state, and local agencies in preparation for
the Environmental Assessment. The contacted agencies are listed below,
with an asterisk to denote that the project received input from them.
* NC Department of Administration
* NC Department of Cultural Resources
* NC Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
NC Department of Human Resources
* NC' Department of Public Instruction
NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources:
* Environmental Management
* Land Resources
* Forest Resources
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission
* Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
* Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV - Atlanta
* Federal Emergency Management Administration Atlanta
* Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species - Asheville
Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement - Raleigh
* United States Geological Survey
* Soil Conservation Service - Raleigh
* Centralina Council of Governments
• Gaston County Commission
* Lincoln County Commission
City of Cherryville
City of Lincolnton
r
A copy of the scoping letter and copies of the comments received are
included in Appendix C. No significant problems or objections were
raised in the comments.
A public workshop was held October 30, 1990, at the Citizen's Center Main
Auditorium with several hundred people attending. The aerial photo and
general corridor was presented. Most comments and discussions pertained
to the need for the project, which side of the road would be widened, the
width of the finished project, and time scheduling.
A small group meeting was held October 27, 1992, for the residents of
Crouse to discuss the bypass studies. Comments pertained to the need for
the improvements to NC 150, and the location of the bypass alternative.
A public workshop was held February 24, 1993, at the Cherryville
Community Center with several hundred people attending. Preliminary
plans using the public hearing color scheme were presented. Comments
received during the meeting pertained to the effect that the project
would have on the property owners, need for the project and scheduling.
Section V - 1
-ry'=
-;;
R
,..
Appendix A - Noise Analysis
91 Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many
y sources including highway vehicles. Traffic noise is usually a composite
of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since
the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used
to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the
decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted
scales (A, B, C or D).
The weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency range to
which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels
measured using A-weighting are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this
report, references will be made to dBA, which means an A-weighed decibel
level. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in
Table 1.
Review of Table 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, and 3) the type of activity occurring
where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note
that individuals have different hearing sensitivity to noise. Loud
noises bother some more than others and some individuals become aroused
to anger if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of noise also
enter into an individual's judgment of whether or not a noise is
objectionable. For example, noises occurring during sleeping hours are
usually considered to be much more objectionable than the same noises in
the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the annoyance
of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from other
sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at night when
background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would generally be much
more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn in the afternoon when
background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities
of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal conversation would be
possible while sleep might be difficult. Work activities requiring high
levels of concentration may be interrupted by loud noises while
activities requiring manual effort may not be interrupted to the same
degree.
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises which
intrude into their lives. Particularly if noises occur at predicted
intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to regulate many of
these types of noises including airplane noises, factory noise, railroad
noise, and highway traffic noise. Methods of analysis and control of
highway traffic noise have been developed.
Ambient Noise Measurements
Ambient noise measurements were taken along Parts A, B and C of the
project at six locations. Measurements were taken at two points along
the existing NC 150/US 321 highway to determine ambient sound levels for
Alternate D-1. For Alternate D-2/3, sound levels were monitored at three
locations along existing roadways near where the proposed roadway would
be located, All of the measurements were made using a Quest Model 1800
Precision Integrating Sound-Level Meter and Analyzer. The locations were
selected based on proximity to sensitive receivers (residential areas)
and high traffic volumes. The noise levels were recorded at distances
varying from 10 to 50 feet from the roadway. Noise was measured for .
durations ranging from 20 to 31 minutes. Traffic counts were taken at
each location during the sampling and differences in the measured noise
levels are attributed to variations in site conditions and traffic
volumes. The locations and measured Leq noise levels are shown in Table
3.
TABLE 1
TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS
NC 150 IMPROVEMENTS; STATE PROJECT #R-617
v
A
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff Pain
Motor test chamber Human ear pain threshold
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
11 Amplified rock music Uncomfortably loud

Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
90 Heavy city traffic, noisy factory Loud

Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
D 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
E Average factory, vacuum cleaner
C 7 Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away Moderately loud

I Quiet typewriter
B 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
E Quiet automobile
L Normal conversation, average office Quiet
5
S
Household refrigerator
4 Quiet Office Very Quiet

Average Home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustling leaves
Average person's threshold of hearing
1 Whisper Just audible

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. Olishifski and E.R. Hartford
(researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago Tribune in an
illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz).
TABLE 2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
NC 150 IMPROVEMENTS
STATE PROJECT R-617
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL-DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
(Exterior) significance and serve an important public 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, playground, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries,
and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
(Exterior) Categories A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration.
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBEL (dBA)
Existing Noise Level
in Leq (h)
< 50
> 50
Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
Levels to Future Noise Levels
> 10
> 15

A
A
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
M
ri
2 ?
E
ze
l/'1
z
n NO 00 000 <
Z v t%n to 00
O
O
F
U
a?
U

>
M
Z
M
to
M
M app
M
09 tD t0 O C; N N 00 -. h
b t- ?o
to
t0 00 00
tn
c? O
yy
w
ttnn
vOy
000
N
in
%n
N
om.
O
A w v
w

i
U ? b
a
O

q w
O
v
i
U a?
3
?

'
U
^ Q o
M 7
y ?
y ?4 O ACl
p
p 00 e
a $ N to
V C iY,
N `" .C co 'a a
O A

Q

w ?
oo
f.
w v

3
.r
tn tn
'r
0 cd .?
.+
F?., ?' O q
3 y
° C w w 0
x e, .1
o 4 0
0
3 y
a
o v
?,°
w a? o
0 o
4) ? 4)
v

v .S S
?z S
?a
3
a N ,,
v Cn 6
zu ?
3
00
u
ua
>
a
0
M
N O
M O
M O
N nr
M et
N O
M O
M O
M O
M O
M
A v

P go 03 go cis Cd ca

E., a S ?* ?^ q
N S S v q

N r°,
,. &;
q
a
N
en
er
to
\0
t-
00
0\
O

o?
,,, Mqq
q
L
h G,
? b
O ?
•? e
E 01D
? o
a?
$ o
w ?
00 .?.
O O
O O
7 q
'C b
Oq Op
.C .q

3
7 3
I i
?--? N
? v
N
o g,
7
U
U '3
z
N N 00 OD 00 00 e
? ? o; a o? a o
N o
N r r
_X

v, 00 00 N
N N
N ON
V O
h V1
? '+
V1 N
M N
M
t

h h V1 h h h O
V N N en (n 0000 000 ? 00 h H

y Q
? A
C
C co
C V: V?
v O:
00 (?f V'? 00
00 O:
M V1
v
00 ?p
O ?0
C i
O.
0
a >1
V

{
000
N
000
N
b
v)
-
N
M
h
oo
v
O
r
O,
N
00
v
O.

r
8
[-
8
r- ^
a
r
o
Q
y
?
C
C R
C
C
C 8
?
C A
C $

N
C
C 8
_
N
c
C
C
y
T
t vN1
.C N..
U N

v
a
?
F a
?
? o
U ? U
U o is a Q
U

?
O

v

m

w
3

O
CC
H
uR

O

(

y
?,'p?
m

7
w
w
3

c

p?
y
u?

O

( 7
a
W
.fl
G
a
N

?
?1
m
3

c

?
y

O

E. 7
a
?p
b
m

N

7
C7
?'
3

C

?

O

F v
W
9
m
Z

N

?
m
m
3

C

?

_

?
F
N M v
r
Of
U
K
U
O O O• M N N N
?, ? O' T O O P l? e+) M
N N ? N N
X
_
N
? ? r
N ^
N N
v1 M
?D N
M N
M N
M N
M
L

h h vi vi V Q •O •O
U ? ? n a h h ? v
D

y
7 Q
?
8Q h
? ?/1
? O:
O? n
M h
of N
00
C ?v
C •
O h
M ?D
M N
1?
W .7

t
? N
? N
? ?
_ fr+1
a ? ?
N 8
r 8
r 8
`* V,
v r
o N
g

Q W
'9
?
?

C

C Q
v
?

G

G O
O?
h
N

C

C

C

G

C p
?Cj
?
T
0
M

W
U
? 0
?
- ?pp
C
W

Q > Q u

e

a

?
'o

0

Z
•o

m
a

V7

C

F

?

N

?

0
Z

.o
•'r

t?

?

F ti

Z

N

.o
fn

0
Z

•a
p?

(A

R
F

Q

?

N

?

p

q
JI

R.
F

V
u
E
a
F
Q
O ?
V!
2 ?
F x
I N
F - ?
84 II II
r
bR be
x
U
0

H
U
F?
H
o?
?Q
U
z

Q
b
v

N t? z z ?O z z z Z of z
?
O

v *k M M oo N et O ?O N ?+ O? O? o0
Q .--i
N O N r vi N ?-+ 06 t- M M 06 t. •4 •4
co 00 t- t- t` t- ?O ?o ?o %D in to kn %n
v

oo a a a a ° a °° a s

a 7c o o ?n - o? .-? M N o? ao Io %o ?n

b
N .? cn 00 6 N N 00 06 v m 00 0o N cV
co 00 tn kn

V) Q N a 09 a .. a N a a "'t a
z z z z kn z z z

?a

3
Q
0,
yy

00
00
`D

00
o
w
? ^" N M V) 00 N en t r-
00 .--? ear
H
AQ
a

0 3

N O SS 8 8 ,o

w
N
•? Ca -•? ? N N M M ? et V5 ?n ?o ?O ? t`
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
x
N M v in \O t` 0o
TABLE 5B
NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES
NC 150 WIDENING FROM CHERRYVH LE TO LINCOLNTON
(Bun D CASE)
Noise Contour Distances, Ft.
Case 57 dBA 67 dBA 72 dBA
1990 Baseline 457 83 30
2014 Build Case, Run #1 886 220 90
Notes.
1. Run #1 evaluated at location of maximum peak hourly volume.
Also corresponds to location of maximum grade (4.1 %) and
maximum increase above 1990 volume.
2. Distances measured from center of nearest lane.
TABLE 5C
Maximum Leq at 50', 100' and 200' (1)
Distance from Existing Road (feet) Maximum Leq (dBA)
50 77.8
100 72.2
200 68.0
U
d
z
3
?O?
F V
.607
F
U
0
U
Z

i ?

N O N z N Z N Z N Z N z N z N z
z

? a M 6. O? a N a O a D a 1n Q,
-. N p z z z z z h z z
z

.fl
a?
?.
a
a
a
a
O
a
09
¢
t':
a
z C? z 10 z C14 z 00 z N z z
?a
b
? ?r a o a ?o a o? a ?o a M a N a
N p z z z z z kr) z kn z
-? z

q 'r, a N a oo a ., a a N a a
° z z z h z n z z
as

...
g
°?°
M
t-

g 00
N M In W g 00 k

Q Q
a

%n
v .r N eh oo
,
y
A •K
w
in
Q .?
w
w N
w N
w M
w M
w
w et
w
M 1A
w ?p
w ?p
w [?
w n
LL
a
-- N M ? t1? D l? 00 G O ? N M e!'
a
b
O
.r
'CN
V
v
1
16

TABLE 6B
NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES
NC 150 WIDENING FROM CBERRYVILLE TO LINCOLNTON
(NO-BUII.D CASE)
Noise Contour Distances, Ft.
Case 57 dBA 67 dBA 72 dBA
2014 No-Build Case 665 143 53

TABLE 6C

Maximum Leq at 50', 100' and 200' (1)
Distance from Existing Road (feet) Maximum Leq (dBA)
50 72.3
100 68.9
200 65.2
Notes:
1. Distances measured from center of nearest lane.
?pqA?
Ea"oU
h?
U
z
a

N z z cMn z N z z N z z O?
My
`q
S
N
Q

W
?* b
a
-,
a
^,
a
N
a
M
Q
o
Q
?
a
Q
F
y N z pip z z z z z to z
CY
i
E"
? •? ? O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

,R a a M a N a
N U N
S? H z ?G z z M Z M Z M Z M Z
'
A b
~ . .-. V f ..i O? . r D N O W ?o h qe '-t

F
N poq -+
00 en
00 00
t- ?o
t? N
t- N
r 00
'o 00
'o ?
'o M
'D 00
to 00
'n cV
'n N
vn
a
?
d

H
•
O
O
'o
, a a a a a M a cl a
z z z z z tn z z

3
0
wy
U
~
N
M
w
0000
O
000 p
O
000 pp
O

00 g
%n 0
0 M t- 00 %n So

Q
a

79

..
O V

N

%n

8

$

$

S
t* cq 00
y r
W
u
'
Q

A4
w
w
w
w
w 1 r-
1.
w
ITO
M
w
w
w
w
w

?O
A
?z
w
A >
.y ?
? o
w
o
? H
c? a
K
A
TABLE 7B
NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES
NC 150
(BUILD CASE)
Noise Contour Distances, Ft.
Case 57 dBA 67 dBA 72 dBA
1991 Baseline, Alt D-1 640 137 50
2014 Alternate D-1 956 254 116
2014 Alternates D-2 & 3 674 148 61
TABLE 7C
Maximum Leq at 50', 100' and 200' (1)
Distance from Existing Road
(feet) Maximum Leq (dBA)
Alt D-1
50 78.5
100 72.9
200 68.6
Maximum Leq at 50', 100' and 200' (1)
Distance from Existing Road
(feet) Maximum Leq (dBA)
Alt D-2/3
50 73.1
100 69.2
200 65.3
Notes:
1. Distances measured from center of nearest lane.
2. No baseline noise contour given for Alternates D-2
and D-3 since they would be new roadways.
?z-
pq ??
Ea" p, ?V•M
z
..
er
..., ? o a o a o? a a? a o a O, a o a
N?? ? z ^+ z O z O z ^? z ^' z ^ z

N p z z z z z z h z
W
a
z r- tn

H

.-
z
z
z
'n
z
z M
'n a
z N a
z

as

4•' O y?
N

M

h

g

0

$

M
p

O

?

g
?p
00
? w r. N

L1 Q
a

p
G
N h O 8 8 $
v
y
Q w

A
..
w
w N
w N
w M
w M
w tf
w ef,
w V1
w ?A
w ?O
w ?O
w tw?
w
p4
?o t- 00 O? M
K
i
U
O
b
0
b
0
3
U
Q
y
a

0
N
'C M
A
N
A
N
U Cd
y
a
o
w
N C
0
o °w o
w .?
?z
o
?z
TABLE 8B
NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES
NC 150 PART D
(NO-BUILD CASE)
Noise Contour Distances, Ft.
Case 57 dBA 67 dBA 72 dBA
2014 No-Build, Alternate D-1 729 163 J 61
TABLE 8C
Maximum Leq at 50', 100' and 200'
Distance from Existing Road
(feet) Maximum Leq (dBA)
Alt D-1
50 73.0
100 69.6
200 65.9
Notes:
1. Distances measured from center of nearest lane.
2. No no-build noise contour given for Alternates D-2 and D-3 since they would be new roadways.
TABLE 9
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 150 FROM CHERRYVI LE TO U.S. 321
Receptor Information Nearest Roadway Ambient Predicted Noise Level
ID Number
Land Use Category
Name
Distance (Ft) Noise
Level dBA Noise Max.
Level (dBA) Increase
dBA
1 Business NC 150 90L 67 72 +5
2 Business NC 150 80R 67 72 +5
3 Residence NC 150 130R 66 71 +5
4 Residence NC 150 115R 66 71 +5
5 Residence NC 150 90R 67 72 +5
6 Residence NC 150 80R 67 72 +5
7 Residence NC 150 190L 63 68 +5
8 Residence NC 150 210L 63 68 +5
9 Residence NC 150 210L 63 68 +5
10 Residence NC 150 145L 64 71 +7
11 Residence NC 150 110R 64 71 +7
12 Residence NC 150 200R 63 68 +5
13 Residence NC 150 110L 66 71 +5
14 Residence NC 150 100R 66 71 +5
15 Residence NC 150 100R 66 71 +5
16 Residence NC 150 95L 67 72 +5
17 Residence NC 150 145L 64 71 +7
18 Residence NC 150 70L 67 75 +8
19 Residence NC 150 70R 67 75 +8
20 Residence NC 150 70R 67 75 +8
21 Residence NC 150 70R 67 75 +8
22 Residence NC 150 60R 67 75 +8
23 Residence NC 150 75L 67 75 +8
24 Residence NC 150 170L 63 71 +8
25 Residence NC 150 70L 67 75 +8
26 Business NC 150 90R 67 72 +7
A
TABLE 9 - Continued
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 150 FROM CHERRYVILLE TO U.S. 321
Receptor Information Nearest Roadway Ambient Predicted Noise Level
ID Number
Land Use Category
Name
Distance (Ft) Noise
Level dBA Noise Max.
Level (dBA) Increase
dBA
27 Residence NC 150 70L 67 75 +8
28 Residence NC 150 100L 66 71 +5
29 Residence NC 150 50R 67 75 +8
30 Residence NC 150 100L 64 71 +7
31 Residence NC 150 _ 210L 63 68 +5
32 Residence NC 150 60L 67 75 +8
33 Residence NC 150 40L 70 78 +8
34 Residence NC 150 200L 63 68 +5
35 Residence NC 150 180L 63 68 +5
36 Residence NC 150 75L 67 75 +8
37 Residence NC 150 60L 67 75 +8
38 Residence NC 150 118R 66 71 +5
39 Residence NC 150 102R 66 71 +5
40 Residence NC 150 100R 66 71 +5
41 Residence NC 150 102R 66 71 +5
42 Residence NC 150 10OR 66 71 +5
43 Residence NC 150 95R 67 72 +5
44 Residence NC 150 150R 64 71 +7
45 Residence NC 150 72L 67 75 +8
46 Residence NC 150 60L 67 75 +8
47 Residence NC 150 123L 66 71 +5
48 Residence NC 150 108R 66 71 +7
49 Residence NC 150 100R 66 71 +7
50 Residence NC 150 149R 64 71 +7
51 Residence NC 150 155R 64 71 +7
52 Residence NC 150 155R 64 71 +7
TABLE 9 - Continued
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 150 FROM CIERRYVILLE TO U.S. 321
Receptor Information Nearest Roadway Ambient Predicted Noise Level
ID Number
Land Use Category
Name
Distance (Ft) Noise
Level dBA Noise Max.
Level (dBA) Increase
dBA
53 Business NC 150 155R 64 71 +7
54 Business NC 150 100R 66 71 +5
55 Residence NC 150 160R 64 71 +7
56 Residence NC 150 150R 64 71 +7
57 Residence NC 150 145R 64 71 +7
58 Residence NC 150 202R 63 68 +5
59 Residence NC 150 168R 64 71 +7
60 Residence NC 150 148R 64 71 +7
61 Residence NC 150 140R 66 71 +5
62 Residence NC 150 136R 66 71 +5
63 Residence NC 150 130R 66 71 +5
64 Residence NC 150 100R 66 71 +5
65 Residence NC 150 150L 64 71 +7
66 Residence NC 150 108L 66 71 +5
67 Residence NC 150 92R 67 72 +5
68 Residence NC 150 88R 67 72 +7
69 Residence NC 150 103L 66 71 +5
70 Residence NC 150 110R 66 71 +5
71 Residence NC 150 165L 64 71 +7
72 Business NC 150 110R 64 71 +7
73 Business NC 150 145L 64 71 +7
74 Business NC 150 105R 66 71 +5
75 Residence NC 150 120L 66 71 +5
76 Residence NC 150 190L 63 68 +5
77 Residence NC 150 125L 66 71 +5
78 Business NC 150 180R 63 68 +5
3
TABLE 9 - Continued
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 150 FROM CIIERRYVILLE TO U.S. 321
Receptor Information Nearest Roadway Ambient Predicted Noise Level
ID Number
Land Use Category
Name
Distance (Ft) Noise
Level dBA Noise Max.
Level (dBA) Increase
dBA
79 Business NC 150 150R 64 71 +7
80 Residence NC 150 105R 66 71 +5
81 Business NC 150 135R 66 71 +5
82 Residence NC 150 135L 66 71 +5
83 Trailer NC 150 170R 63 71 +8
84 Residence NC 150 180L 63 68 +5
85 Residence NC 150 210L 63 68 +5
86 Residence NC 150 200R 63 68 +5
87 Residence NC 150 120L 66 71 +5
88 Residence NC 150 190L 63 71 +8
89 Residence NC 150 215R 63 68 +5
90 Residence NC 150 220R 63 68 +5
91 Residence NC 150 220R 63 68 +5
92 Residence NC 150 220R 63 68 +5
93 Residence NC 150 210L 63 68 +5
94 Trailer NC 150 1001, 66 71 +5
95 Residence NC 150 180L 63 68 +5
96 Residence NC 150 190L 63 68 +5
97 Residence NC 150 150R 64 71 +7
98 Residence NC 150 155R 64 71 +7
99 Residence NC 150 110L 66 71 +5
100 Residence NC 150 125L 66 71 +5
101 Residence NC 150 70R 67 75 +8
102 Business NC 150 90R 67 72 +5
103 Residence NC 150 110R 66 71 +5
104 Residence NC 150 140R 64 71 +7
TABLE 9 - Continued
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 150 FROM CHERRYVILLE TO U.S. 321
Receptor Information Nearest Roadway Ambient Predicted Noise Level
ID Number
Land Use Category
Name
Distance (Ft) Noise
Level dBA Noise Max.
Level (dBA) Increase
dBA
105 Residence NC 150 160R 64 71 +7
106 Residence NC 150 155R 64 71 +7
107 Residence NC 150 160R 64 71 +7
108 Residence NC 150 125L 66 71 +5
109 Trailer NC 150 10OR 66 71 +5
110 Residence NC 150 95R 67 72 +5
111 Residence NC 150 130L 66 71 +5
112 Trailer NC 150 120L 66 71 +5
113 Residence NC 150 130L 66 71 +5
114 Residence NC 150 100L 66 71 +5
115 Residence NC 150 105L 66 71 +5
116 Residence NC 150 95L 67 72 +5
117 Residence NC 150 90L 67 72 +5
118 Trailer NC 150 115L 66 71 +5
119 Trailer NC 150 130L 66 71 +5
120 Trailer NC 150 135L 66 71 +5
121 Residence NC 150 160L 64 71 +7
122 Residence NC 150 165L 64 71 +7
123 Residence NC 150 105L 66 71 +5
124 Trailer NC 150 145L 64 71 +7
125 Residence NC 150 120L 66 71 +5
126 Residence NC 150 120L 66 71 +5
127 Residence NC 150 150L 64 71 +7
128 Business NC 150 190L 63 68 +5
129 Residence NC 150 130R 66 71 +7
130 Residence NC 150 70R 67 75 +8
TABLE 9 - Continued
Laq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 150 FROM CHERRYVII.LE TO U.S. 321
Receptor Information Nearest Roadway Ambient Predicted Noise Level
ID Number
Land Use Category
Name
Distance (Ft) Noise
Level dBA Noise Max.
Level (dBA) Increase
dBA
131 Trailer NC 150 120R 66 71 +5
132 Trailer NC 150 150R 64 71 +7
133 Church NC 150 130R 66/+)q9 71/*0 +5
134 Residence NC 150 140L 66 71 +5
135 Residence NC 150 140R 66 71 +5
136 Residence NC 150 125R 66 71 +5
137 Residence NC 150 90R 67 72 +5
138 Residence NC 150 150R 64 71 +7
139 Shed NC 150 100R 66 71 +5
140 Business NC 150 120R 66 71 +5
141 Residence NC 150 200R 63 68 +5
142 Business NC 150 100R 66 71 +5
143 Shed NC 150 130L 66 71 +5
144 Residence NC 150 150L 64 71 +7
145 Trailer NC 150 .200L 63 68 +5
146 Residence NC 150 235L 63 68 +5
147 Residence NC 150 180L 63 68 +5
148 Residence NC 150 80R 67 72 +5
149 Trailer NC 150 105L 66 71 +5
150 Trailer NC 150 175L 64 71 +7
151 Residence NC 150 110L 66 71 +7
152 Apartment NC 150 80L 67 72 +5
153 Residence NC 150 120R 66 71 +5
154 Residence NC 150 100R 66 71 +5
155 Church NC 150 80L 67?4e 72/4' +5
156 Residence NC 150 110R 66 71 +5
157 Residence NC 150 115L 66 71 +5
* Approximate Interior Noise Levels presuming o fyplcal 25c15A reduc?ion thrw wolls.
6
TABLE 9 - Continued
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 150 FROM CBERRYV= TO U.S. 321
Receptor Information Nearest Roadway Ambient Predicted Noise Level
ID Number
Land Use Category
Name
Distance (Ft) Noise
Level dBA Noise Max.
Level (dBA) Increase
dBA
158 Residence NC 150 100R 66 71 +5
159 Residence NC 150 120L 66 71 +5
160 Business NC 150 165R 64 71 +7
161 Residence NC 150 130R 66 71 +5

7
APPENDIX 13'
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
r

f
¦
L?
J
`D

O

o
3
..r
N M
?'

?
z U
QQg?
z •
N
pp
N? ?0000
-+0
CC
?
?
? ?-l?n ?Or-+ CCCCCv
7
~
N ?
N O
Q
O

O
O N N
M ?.
'O
7
3 CO 0\0 N N C O 0 M- M

?'n?zv .-
°7---i ,NN 0
OCOOCCCW)
Z H
C
N
U O

?; o s

O O
3
O \ M
00 N O
O? M M M [? .--i O
Q II
a p QQ?
U
z p,..,0? ?DOOOO?Oy? ?(?
?,,,? a ?? --1 v? ?O •-+ N? O C O C C C C v? y? (?
Q?., ?m N O0.

o

a o II
'
y z

?? ?Q?
1 0?
U C3E
'
> U
Q o :z
z ...Q
Ca0O y
to z ?,
A

CL.
.C a J aC V
co z
°-' U
rte., Q+ U
a 10 cyC CU • y 't7 `? 7 C
• ? 6•, a? cO M a4 ? v y O o
4.r
H a 5 45

° ro ao a? on ao a? ° a? U
C 'v E
?
y
um v
U?¢
¢ oA
?0
> > •?ci

W)
z
?a
CL. L. Q'
-9
r
G G
? B.
IV
N
Ob
w0
01%.
V
ra '
W
O
W
20
a
coo
O
z
t

.0 N d
N 7 VNf O
G .O

N
? 6 m
? T ?

M
++
O O O P
N Mf
r. Ni = H O P
p
N 1 h

• V .
i
W
` I
' '!
r O n o Y'? S f O
N
' Y
1?
'
u O f' N • f
Y ?

•- _ w• o mM
v o o
O d d W 6 d D
0
• W Q J O O N
N i
{
.wl P.- O

Q
4
y ? J- 1
U . .
i • w
i O O y

a. a a = >> .or m --m
.w O I
? CD O O ? ? P

?

O GD N

d ?
O .p
.0 0
?
d ?= Z U •'? J A
P O .O
?I
i

y

?
• w c w a
O-
O?
w
.••.
.- Q: N
h h-
••+
O O
A m 1
P
GD ? - P
p
0 cr L ? U • M D O c
P P
.,
.?
d d
_
w ..J Wb %n
N ?
- m 10
'n 0 -CC
C y

0 Li y = tD N'i C to m W M
1N w •.y - J Y'f so ti
y O G
¢- Z P
W - r C p
(O ?t!
P
I O
n

4. In
4=0 J A O
V i
?c w
m
- N
W
•'? d ••
L. O
d . ai W O •.? p
r U V 0= U w U
y

J.
s V-
06 •.
i
y
c
e N
.- o .+ cn r
COL
[
? o w a,
,
I- O A W
=0 O O O w O
O

T
P
h
O
z?
F(4
96
r
s

M
n
19
a ?
A' o
°oQ
Z
O '
1 I.
Mj OLL
G S
U
Z
Oa
Z
8 O O
0
N
0
b p
Q S • N M
?S V a??v?i
Q

In-
c E_uo E
't E
8 V r?
U
ti c o
o?>
.n. Ca>,O
V
?Q?ncnA
C
a?
V

> O
a? "
? ? C O

as

W
V r r

Da?c.a
?

O
V) (n
Q

ca oooo•C
to to Z LV
D. O = W)
G 00
Q" ?'2

zzzO
a, a

b
0
a
lV
a
0
R
v_
?v
C

Q
a
C
O
C
Z C
8 E C?
b0.. oo r-
h V? - C O
_ x
E oN2Y
US in C-
o c c E E
o33¢¢a?
y
C)
M
•-• 00
.
8
C
C?
ca
3
0
a
S
G
'rv.h Li W
c o. c.
Qa a
a

h
C
O
ed
C
QCQ
G?
C
O
Ad
v
c ?
'? ea
a ?
C O
•? C
a
o ?
C? W C
O O
= as
W =
Q V
? y
7 0
y ? yC
V .?J
Oo3
r
fff111... 'd
p .-.? C N
Z
U
M y
a??a
? C
O 'c ? C
4? d
ClaC4ri?

R
N
O
zD
a?
?g
e
W
O
d O
w
11
S 1
? 1 N
1
1 O
S = 1
1
.. d - 1
O O W
W 1
C: K t
? = S 1 O
CL. / O
CP. ^ W 1
O (?P•r •-, W i
CL. LO
/? Q m = C=am. ?r- 1 Q
w u W r 1
m -. Cl! 1
O N .O .-• a It
?q] W CL. all 11 11 m CD 1 O
N7 y ._... m ^ O i
O M?•1 ?L^ - O_ _ ~ 1
P•M ~ V _ N Z
J i 0
N o v r n c n
O s _ _
= i o
ac I
nW. ¢ v v J i
E , N7 O O 1
p,n, 1? a C w w w w
az 1
w V N 1 °
I,y,l Q 11 11 ? 1
7L?'`` A ? o VJ > > _ i
a X31 N W 1
CD.
F`MI ? o
W Q i 1
2 W p °
M •-. I
o z G Q - _
J N -0 O V j
4cc
{{.yd w Ir "" z 1
M C 11 11 J 1
1
Lai b. • ? .
V a O
G
..
Q a
. M V ? w r w w
1
wW=.n 1
C N y 1
J 0 W W 1 -j -j
G.l V Q W Q O? 1
O Q Q d 1
0 LO
cn > \ W S d 1
= D ?Gy? I
•? H C O W 1
Z
1
it c
11 1 C
m r _
fJf
N
W
C'
W
O
0
Q
O
Q
O
J
CL.
W
V
Q
}
}
1
1
= 1 O O O N
V = ; M M N N
'
1
w w w w w w w
1

1 m m Cl! m

1 .

1

1
1

/-
s
> 1
1 .. N

t
1

w 1
O O O O

tt l
1

1

w
w 1
w
w w w w
1
1
1
1
1 O

r
1
? A
1
1 `
V
~
Q 1 In
O
O
CL.
z
Lij
g",
1
p
p
W
Q 1
' .... N M f
Q O
' V •eTi'e
I : Q C C. 6.

-r N M f L
O
AN
? a
.S
II
r

W
CD

Y Q
CL. O
O

1
S
s

O
O
A
N =

W

a- Ln
W 0.

~
m ?
O V? O Z =
CL.

¢
W CL.
W V f
C=m
N
O
O W O .+
1-1 0. Y

t W
N V
:1 M 11
-
1 m
1 Q
W% J W Q
~
O C
0-4
r'l
01 z YI
V
1 !?"?'1
°
W J 15 13
N
a
N
S
O O
F 1?1 o
T Fy
W W
11 11

N
O
- z

O m

0
-?
gm M
P'y
U o _ ?_
Z
O s m
J Z .O O
Q o
v
u u

_ a °
Q
U

[?
M r
Z
Y
J W W

W W 6 W 6

¢
o ? ` t
O Q
t W
= W ?
C
IP? O Z
_
N ?+ p J
11 11

O co
r
m
i
1 O
/
_ = 1 M
1 .•?1
1
1
1
1
1 1/'!
W = 1
W
S 1 O
CL.
1
1.
W 1
> 1 Q
r- 1
1
M to ; O
WO ; P
1
J 1
1
1

J 1
1 O
O

1
J 1
1
1
1
1 O
N 1
!• 1
/
1
= 1
1
1
W N 1 O

Q
Z 1 N
1 f-
1 J
1 O N
V i
3.- Q
1
ad I -j
o
J 1 O
?

1 4

i i i w =
1 O
1
1 F-
1 Q

d ;

(%! 1 W
W 1 Cai
G 1 W

as 1
1 r+ ?'
y 1 iL
1 C
J 1 •A
1 J
r
1 Q
z
V V i
w w

N
W
Z ?
A
o:
0
v
X4
i i •
O
V ?
W
1/'9 M n M
M M N N

Cl! m /a m

M IPA C; N

0 0 0 0

O
V
v
A
C
•A
V
r
N

A 0
>ppppr?tt Z e
.ti N M 1 ` •F.?
yi
Q c=
¢
4 O.
.
C4 9
C
y
N
?
?j

r
L

f
11
1

L = L 1 Irf
1
1
1 O
2 L 1
/??
W ? 1

1
1
^
1 1f!

? O ?
LLA

N 1
1
9 i ?
?
.y
F? _ s t
i -0
N
n ?

O
.r ^ W 1
7 Z L d t ED
m IL T
- 1 Q
? W ` L d 1
A Iii CI C9
?L - 1

A CCCVVV
.-
N
.O cc
Q I
I
1 tD 1 O
W
IN v M 11
? m ? O 1
i Q
~ J
F
.1 J W Q ?

o a ((.??

Jr ` `
0-0

_
o

N

_

~ t

1

O
R

v?
iWN
y
O
W

N N
J ....

'
1 CD.

p

t
j
ft\
/*
t
F1W?1 `
?1
O
S
W
Z
L L
V 6.i ac
.Z. 1
i ..
0 6L. t
t
n ri 0 1%
A C 6
. R J 1 6.i CL.
I
1'? 1 N
P
ilf

p O O
w w 1
w
1
w

w w I
1
w

w w w w
??11 Frl
1
O 1
W
It 11 N
T 1
;
11
m m m m

BE o- y LAJ
N
i
1
o
1
1
co W
r*? J 0.- - sc 1 O 1
f+
S
y W 6 Z 1 1? N W' 1 M Y'9 O N9
1
1 ti
nl
F
i
Am
ze .+
L.3 D J
In

6 T
LLI
O I+y
(* QJ .-. ?D .O-1 id T 1 J O !
ay V I W C.i O O O O
p It of D
IH
C
I
LAJ b- U) 0 t 0 1
r ? ~ >K
0
J _ J
(,? 1
1 1f1
1 =
Q 1
I
H Q Q w w
w w w tff w w w w w w
[
Z
rZ•.
C
in
N
I
T
1
1
Q J J Z 1 V j
C-3 d 00 cn
Q
1 O
Q W J 1 C r
G
0
Q W
Z 0- 1
i
O 1
i .y
L
U, > N t
D
W > Q 1 ?- 1 V P
L. O W 1 d 1 •+ IH
H O Z A
ti . p .
.. O 1 W 1 O
Z 35
11 11 •Z• 1 C w
W 1 N H f C"
L `
m r J. 1 ..w cr. OC C S C d G
•
cG
- O tD r 1
1 J

~
1
•
1 ,

7
m
1
Q •?+ N M r C a

Nl
9
y1
F

7
.
l

R
1
•

W
Q
CL.
O
O
W
P
H
MM
IWi
O
w m
?
p N
? W
N

Z r+
L
O J
D

_
["`
//??
?I
v.1 U
a
?M
•'
!1
O
Q
N
?
/
W
E- 4- Z
a
W
_
o

A W

131
C3
a

? P
A
o-
m CA
4

0 0 O
Q

¢3

Vc
W
Q

py
V
M
LAJ U
z a
U
w
V
O
m
O
N
W
r
11t
A
V
A
cc
9
m
.n
0
0.
A
G
IT
S
1109
V
z
O
^7
Cf1
W
m
6
Q
W
H
N

O
O
f
1
S
as

1A
W
?-
Z =
= d
A
11 11
aQ
cn U2
w ?
O O
it 11
cn cm
V
•O 00
11 11
a?
cJ.1
cn
W
W
Q
= O
O O
A P
11 11
? CG
N
W
m
Q
Q
Z
J
1 O
1
_ ` M
; A
1
?• 1 O
S = 1

1
I

1 Y9
W =
W ? 1
1
•O
CD 1
1
1
; O

'? 1 A

1
Q
T 1
1- 1
1
1
1

m CD-
W 1 P

J ?

S 1

J O
1
ac 1 A

J 1

? . 1
w
w
1
1 O

1
1

N 1
1
O
H K 1
O
_ ; 1f9 m
1 1-

p O
LAJ
U T 1 S
1
7t

?Z. 1

1 J
LAJ
O
J 1 _
1 ?

nt
a*
1
O
O
1 Y9
21
Q
.. « 40 m
1 Z
1 O
1
a
; O
O
1 J
H
? 1
1 O

w 1 CL
N 1
1 W
D
1
A W
Q
;
_ ae
1 C

J
; .
.1

1 J
•?
;
Q
= 1 111 M n M
O ;
C
S ` M M N N
1
t
1
1

m m Cl* m
1
1 A A A A
N t
= 1
1
1
N
W 1
1
M 1/'f O 111
T 1 A N
Z I.
1
0 ;

U 1 O Q. O O
1
Lt 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• w w
1 ? ?? r w
I

1 a+

1 G

1 V

IOC
1
I
++
O 1 in
G ; C O
v ; o Z3
W
d' 1
? A
C N Q M r

P.L

tn
1 •
•
t
Q
1 1
A N M
1
U
N

?
W
CA
IL
W d

O ?
V

I •A
?
0 m
W
0=0 -
CD.
N
Q N d r
N °
0 1
?+
1 .
+
:1

a
W
J
D
••

z s

Lai
d d'
0

N1

, J
G
LLA

!r ? O
F
_I

O
W d
V
A M
1
X W
3 cr
V c a
V
d
M

?
z s
P
CP
S
O
M1

Z
19
O
7
}

O
O
t
u
S 1.

1 N
1
,

1
,
1

t0 1

d CG
¢
= d ? 1
1
m 1
a CD

o u m m i o

= P.D 2 O 1

Q J
¢ 1
S 1

N N 1 O 1
_ _

w c
J C2 0_
Vd
j
!' •r M N
O O 1 ...
1 _ w _ _ w w w
1 . 1
I O I
N 1 1
11 11 Y 1 1 m co co m

6n o • 1 1 . y • I .-1 .1

1 ^ 1
O
W N 1 1
?? x 1 C.

Ln

en
1

1
Z 1 In W M In O In
1 H r 1 N
?
= (>C 1 O Z 1
V O

V T 1

1 O N
W
C
Q
Q 1
1
1

1 W 60.1 1 O O O O
1 D i
11 11 J

O 1 O 1
i
6 r x 1 O D 1
IP!
V 1 ¢ 1
w_ _ w H w w w __ ?. w

1

W W 7 Q 1
-j -j w Li
Q W Q 1 I
'co

Z. v 1 d Go
= D
4c!

P I= uj
h
N •••I J >rL ?'+ Z W P
Z 1 at 6•i I
I O O
11 11 a
r O = t 1-1 P
_
Q z

Lo J 1 ,•
-j C
Q= d L i
m .r N M
! ¢ i CL
O G
yy?
o.
N lF
•?,•
t
?
e
fem.

LTJ
r
APPENDIX C
SCOPING LETTER AND
COMMENTS RECEIVED
r
T

X
w
a
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
AUK x991 s RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM j/,D ti 01'r/CF 'L JAN 2 1992
`O
RALPH WiilTEVEAr) & ASSO^!ATES
TO: Chrys Baggett CCrsSuLTING ENGINEERS
State Clearinghouse CHARLOTTE, N. C.
w
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 92-0032 - EA Proposed Improvements to NC 150
From NC 279 to US 321 in Gaston and Lincoln Counties
DATE: August 14, 1991
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed improvement of NC 150. The
alternatives under consideration include the "no build"
alternative, the widening of existing facilities alternative
which includes evaluation of the Crouse bypass alternate and the
two new location alternates south of Lincolnton. Of course, this
department would encourage the widening of existing facilities
alternative.
The attached comments were made by our divisions which list
and describe information to be addressed. All of this
information is necessary for a thorough review of the
environmental document. If further information is needed during
the planning stages, please let me know.
MM: bb
Attachments,
N) Box 27687, R.Jcigh, North Caruhim -17611.7t.87 -Ii•lephonc 919 733-6376
Eld' North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM RECEIVED
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment AN 2
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources RALPH tv±?!T -017 1992
LHEAD & ASSOCIATES
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager Ccr,;;;LTING ENSINEEF4
Habitat Conservation Program xk:;? CHARLOTTE, N. Q
DATE: August 2, 1991
t?.
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for proposed improvements to NC 150 from NC 279 in
Cherryville to US 321 in Lmcolnton, Gaston and Lincoln Counties, T.I.P. No.
R-6f7, State Project No. 8.1830401.
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. L. J. Ward of the N.C.
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the proposed improvements to NC 150 from NC 279 in
Cherryville to US 321 in Lincolnton in Gaston and Lincoln Counties. The NCDOT
proposes to widen NC 150 from two to four lanes primarily along the existing highway
alignment. The proposed 12-mile long project consists of a. 600-foot wide study corridor
extend g from the intersection with NC 249In Cherryville through Crouse and continuing
to NC 27 in Lincolnton. Also proposed is a bypass around the town of Crouse and two new
location alternatives for a NC 150/US 321 interchange south of Lincolnton to the east of
the existing interchange. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
is concerned over potential adverse impacts to wildlife, fisheries and wetlands resources
within and adjacent to the construction corridor.
Biological field staff of the NCWRC have reviewed the scoping letter and are
familiar with fisheries and wildlife resources of the project area. We have the following
general comments:
1) Based upon our knowledge of habitat values in the project area, we are most
likely to concur with an alignment that follows the existing highway. Such a design
would be the least damaging to fish and wildlife habitat.
2) The NCWRC prefers that relocation and channelization of streams be avoided to
prevent fish habitat degradation. The project should be designed to avoid the
necessity, of these actions.
3) We prefer that spanning structures be used as crossings over streams rather than
steel pipe culverts or concrete box culverts. Culverts may result in blocking fish
movement and habitat degradation.
Memo (2) August 2, 1991
Our ability to evaluate project impacts and provide beneficial recommendations
when reviewing the project Environmental Assessment will be enhanced by inclusion of the
following.information:
1) Complete maps of road alignments and alternatives, showing areas to be cut and
filled, and location of erosion control measures:
2) Complete inventories for wildlife and fisheries resources within, adjacent to or
utilizing the study corridors. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories.
3) Accurate data on State and Federally listed rare, threatened, and endangered
species, including State and Federal species of special concern, within., adjacent to,
or utilizing study corridors.
4) Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project. Wetland
acreages would include all project related areas that may undergo hydrologic change
as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for project construction.
5) Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project, including potential borrow sites.
6) The need for channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
7) Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing and compensating for direct and indirect
impacts to habitat quantity and quality.
Project plans must contain detailed erosion control plans to protect streams and
wetlands from sedimentation. Erosion control measures need to be maintained throughout
the life of the project and protective ground cover established as soon as any phase of the
project is completed.
We request that the draft Environmental Assessment and all supporting documents
be provided to the NCWRC for review and comment. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide input in the early stages of this project. If we can provide further assistance, please
advise.
DLS/lp
cc:, Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
V
~I? C
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
312 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor August 9, 1991
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
r.
FROM: Alan Clark, Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 92-0032; EA Scope Request for Proposed
Improvements to NC 150 in Lincoln and Gaston Counties
A

4
This memo is in response to an NCDOT request for information
and comments on the proposed highway improvement. The responses
will be used by NCDOT to assist in preparation an environmental
assessment. According to the request, the existing 2-lane
highway is inadequate to handle existing and proposed traffic
flow. Alternatives including widening the existing road to four
lanes, constructing new roads or taking no action will be
addressed. The Division of Environmental Management's Water
Quality Section is concerned with potential impacts on water
quality and wetlands.
The prime concern from a water quality standpoint is
sedimentation from highway construction. Implementation and
conscientious maintenance of sediment control BMPs should help
minimize these impacts. However, onsite sediment control
measures are generally not better than trapping about 70 percent
of the sediment eroded at a site. The EA should discuss
sediment trapping capability of control measures and assess what
impacts, if any, will result from sediment that escapes the site.
The other area of concern is wetlands. Wetlands are
considered by NCDEM to be waters of the state. Filling or
alteration of wetlands under jurisdiction of the Corps of
Engineers will require a 401 Certification from this office.
NCDOT is urged to avoid wetlands impacts, if possible. However,
if there will be unavoidable impacts, DEM requests that the
Regional Offices
NP
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/1516208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946.6481 919/395-3900 919/761-2351
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 276260535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Melba McGee
August 9, 1991
Page 2
V
following information be contained within the EA. This
information will be useful in reviewing the project from the
standpoint of issuance of a 401 water quality certification.
1. A wetlands delineation of the project area (preferably
certified by the Corps of Engineers);
2. A description of the type(s) and acreage(s) of wetlands
that could be impacted within the project corridor(s). The
wetlands description should include an assessment of wetlands
values and a vegetation list for each type;
3. A mitigation plan for unavoidable wetlands losses.
We appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this
project. Any questions relating to the wetlands impacts should
be addressed to Mr. Ron Ferrell of this office.
92-0032.mem/SEPA4
s
9
,
C\ 441.1
State of N, rth Carolina
Departmen (of Environrrienealth, and Natural
DMsior,01-and Resources
James G. Martin, Governor `PROJECT REVIEW COmMNTS
W1111am W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Project Number: 9z -?32
County: ` 72A57-0,I/
Project Name: ?•.?• P12pl?D=KAPQ?EMl5?-S -re 14C ISO F';tpM N?+C1:ILI
Geodetic Survey TO 1-is 3._11 ? STATE lP*4=W CT' ?40.8.1 $304.01 / T? P Pro. 9- --Co )
1
This project will impact Z' geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey shouted 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].
Review r Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
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)
r
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer
Date
P.O. Box 27687 • R deigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
e r STArr o
r ? St
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
. Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Govemor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Garner Road
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
July 29, 1991
TO : Melba MaGes
Environmental Assessment Unit
?q
FROM: Don R. Robbins
Staff Forester
SUBJECT: DOT EA Scoping for Proposed Improvements to NC 150 from Cherryville
to Lincolnton in Gaston and Lincoln Counties, North Carolina
PROJECT #92-0032
DUE DATE 8-8-91
To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed
project, the combined Environmental Assessment/Corridor location report should
contain the following information concerning the proposed alternative routes
for the possible right-of-way purchases for the project:
1. The number of total woodland acres that would be taken out of timber
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. The acres breakdown of this woodland concerning present conditions
and/or timber types such as clear-cut areas, young growing timber,
and fully stocked stands of very productive timber within the new
right-of-way purchases for disturbed and undisturbed portions.
3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved within
the proposed right-of-way, so as to be able to determine the
productivity of these forest soils in the area.
4. The number of woodland acres that would affect any watersheds in the
area, if the woodland was removed.
P.O. Rox 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7087 Telephone [phone]
0
i
,0
It
An Egtul Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Stanford M. Adams
Director
Melba McGee
PROJECT #92-0032
Page 2

5. The impact both present and future to any greenways within the area
of the proposed project.
6. With woodland involved, it is hoped that the timber could be
merchandised and sold to lessen the need for piling and burning of
debris during right-of-way construction. If and when any debris
burning is needed, the contractor should be extremely careful to
ensure that the burning is confined to the right-of-way and not
allowed to get into the woods.
Provisions should be indicated in the EA that the contractor will
make all efforts to salvage any merchantable timber to permit
construction, once the contractor takes charge of the right-of-way.
7. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase. to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
the remaining standing trees outside of the right-of-way boundary
and construction limits. Trees outside of construction limits need
to be protected from construction activities such as--
a., Skinning of tree trunks from heavy equipment operations.
b. Exposure and injury to feeder roots from heavy equipment
operations.
C. Placing of fill dirt around the base of trees which would have
a smothering affect which could eventually cause tree mortality.
d. Accidentally spilling of petroleum products near the base of
trees which could cause mortality.
We would hope that a route could be chosen, that would have the least
impact to forest and related resources in that area.
DHR:la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
Howard Williams - D-12
File
r
y
rte,
t
Ouw
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 2, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: NC 150 from Cherryville to Lincolnton, Gaston and
Lincoln Counties, R-617, 8.1820401, M-
7668(1)/RS-4174(1), ER 93-9032
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1993, concerning the above project.
On June 8, 1993, Renee Gledhill-Earley of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation representatives to discuss the project's effect upon
historic properties in the area of potential effect. Based upon the aerial
photographs and preliminary plans presented at the meeting, we concur that the
project will have no effect upon the three National Register-eligible properties in
the area of potential effect--the Indian Creek Railroad Bridge, the Roberts Log
House; and the Kelly Link Farmstead. We also agree that the Benaja Black, Jr.
Farm Complex and the Crouse Historic District--properties which were also
evaluated in the historic structures survey report--are located outside the area of
potential effect.
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.
Sincerely,
/David Brook

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ytJ. Ward
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

A
Y
.4
11
d „+ 4A7t
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
August 8, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Proposed improvements to NC 150 from NC 279
in Cherryville to US 321 in Lincolnton, Gaston
and Lincoln Counties, R-617, CH 92-E-4220-0032,
8.1830401
4.6-0
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project, as well as your letter of July 15, 1991.
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:
CASTON COUNTY
Robert Log House. On a dirt lane, east of SR 1002, 0.35 mile north
of the junction with NC 150.
LINCOLN COUNTY
Lafayette Carpenter House. North side of SR 1171, 0.05 mile west
of the junction with SR 1177, Crouse. The house was placed on our
state study list on January 9, 1986, for eventual nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places.

r
Carpenter-Wooley House. Northeast corner of the junction of SR 1407
and SR 1177, Crouse. The house was placed on our state study list
on January 9, 1986, for eventual nomination to the National Register.
The following properties in Lincoln County have not been evaluated for
National Register eligibility:
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L. J. Ward
Page 2, August 8, 1991
Carpenter-Brown-Crouse House. East side of SR 1177, opposite the
junction with SR 1171, Crouse vicinity.
Crouse Elementary School. North side of SR 1171, 0.05 mile west of i
the junction with SR 1173, Crouse vicinity.
John Heafner House. Southwest corner of the junction of SR 1173
and SR 1171, Crouse vicinity.
Burke-Carpenter House. Northeast corner of intersection of SR 1407
and SR 1173, Crouse vicinity.
Mauney-Heafner House. North side of SR 1171, opposite the junction
with SR 1173, Crouse.
Eaker-Carpenter Log Houses. Down a private lane, 0.2 mile, east
side of SR 1173, 0.5 mile south of the junction with SR 1407, Crouse
vicinity.
William McLurd House. North side of SR 1407, 0.05 mile east of the
junction with SR 1177,(between Mullen-Nolen House and Carpenter-
Wooley House), Crouse vicinity.
Mullen-Nolen House. North side of SR 1407, 0.05 mile east of the
junction with SR 1177, Crouse vicinity.
(Nor?ner) Rhodes-Rhyne Mill Village. Junctions of SR 1222 and SR 1236
with SR 1235 and SR 1231, Lincolnton vicinity.
(Former) Rhodes-Rhyne Mill. North side of SR 1231, 0.1 mile west of
the junction with SR 1222, Lincolnton vicinity.
Huss Family House. West side of SR 1294, 0.1 mile north of the
junction with SR 1298, Lincolnton vicinity.
Lockman Family House. West side of SR 1321, 0.6 mile north of the
junction with SR 1001, Iron Station vicinity.
Marcus Hovis House. West side-of SR 1001 opposite the junction with
SR 1321, Boger City vicinity.
Matt Broom House. South side of SR 1427, 0.1 mile east of the
junction with SR 1238, Lincolnton vicinity.
(Former) Massapoag Mill Village. Intersections of SR 1238, Broome,
Massapoag, and Sigmon streets.
According to our site files, an archaeological survey has been conducted by Y
Baker & Hall for the proposed study area but a report has not been submitted
to our office for review. Please forward the report concerning the above
project so we may complete our review.
L. J. Ward
August 8, 1991, Page Three
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: `State Clearinghouse
B. Church
If
CHAWMAN. RALPH AUSTIN i
v?CE-CHAIRMAN: DAVID WARD CENTRALINA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
SECRETARY: PETER KEBER POST OFFICE BOX 35008 ONE CHARLOTTETOWN CENTER 1
TREASURER: ROBERT RANDALL CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28235 1300 BAXTER ST. 704/372-2416
I
TO: Gaston County Manager
Lincoln County Manager
ED
-4
NC Intergovernmental Review Process s
RE?E?? v
Review and Comment Form
?'hx5ie5 has received the attached information about a proposal which could affect
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 August 12, 1991
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no comments
regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier Number 92-0032
Commenter's Name C. Harry Huss Title Chairma:,-, Lincoln Cou-r_ty
Representing .incol_n CourAY
(Jurisdiction)
Address nt. 1, Bow S,B, Crouse, F. C. 28033
Phone [phone]
Date Au.;vst 8, 1991
Or, he'ialf of the li.ncoln County -card of Corvdssi:ners, I wait to convey the wishes
of the board that the proposed project pursue the connector aggroach to the New ,321.
By connecting to the New #321., t.his will tie in i-ri.th the connecting of the proposed
improvements to X73) which t?:ill connect with New #321 from the Bast. The long-range
interest ^f the county will }e bast cerved.

CASARRUS COUNTY concord harriaburg kannapolis mount pleasant GASTON COUNTY belmont Bessemer city cherryville cramenon dallas
gastonia high shoals lowell mcadenville mount holly rant spencer mountain stanley IREDELL COUNTY harmony mooresville statesville
troutman LINCOLN COUNTY lincolnion MECKLENBURG COUNTY charlotte comelius davidson huntersville matthews pineville
ROWAN COUNTY china grove Cleveland granite quarry landis rockwell salisbury spencer STANLY COUNTY albemarte locust
new london norwood oakboro richtield stantield UNION COUNTY indian trail marahville monroe stallings weddington wmgate
I

A
Y
RECEIVED
t JMi`a 2
• RALFH WHITEHEAD & ASSQ^IrTES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CHARLOTTE, N. C.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
December 13, 1991
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Deppartment of Transportation
P.O.-Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Improve NC 150 from NC 279 to US 321,
R-617, Gaston and Lincoln Counties,
CH 92-E-4220-0032, ER 92-7574
Dear Mr. Graf: MRS- 4174 6
Division of A
William S
Thank you for your letter of November 22, 1991, concerning the above
project.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places: 31 GS219-222, 31 LN112-141. In
general, the archaeological survey report 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 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.
Sincerely,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
109 East Jones Street a Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
oJN4Y CO
? M/I 141M
/f.
= . ; COUNTY OF LINCOLN, i\40RTH CAROLINA
113 WEST MAIN STREET, 3RD FLOOR CITIZENS CENTER, LINCOLNTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28092
c?a?`??
to
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER
[phone]
August 6, 1991
Mr. L. J. Ward. RE.. Manager ? --CEN C..u
Stale of Nort.h Carolina ? r
DeparLment. of "transportation ?'? `
P.O. Box 25201 RALPH WHiTEHEAD & ASSQ `''?S
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201 C0tjsuL71,NG ENGINEERS
CHAILOTTEI N. C.
Subj: State Project No. 8.1830401, TIP No. IZ-617
and Study Corridor Map
Dear Mr. Ward:
On behalf of the Lincoln Comity Board of Commissioners I wish to
inform the Depart.ment. that the Board strongly endorses the major
improvements to NC 150 between Cherryville. and Lincohiton. The
County has reviewed the letler of July 15. 1991, concerning the proposed
project. and alternative linkages to new Hwy. 321 or the existing 321 By-
Pass.
The Board favors an interchange with new 321 south of Lincolnton
on whichever alignment that would hest serve the public moreover, and
the Board would rely on DOT's expertise in milking that determination.
They new interchange and alignment would relieve the congested existing
321 13v-Pass an(] provide relief to the interchange of new 321 and "Boger
City Highway" (US 27/ 150 cast).
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. on the
proposed "IransporLaLion Improvcrnent. Pro'cct. We know that this project
in both important in its own right and offers the possibility of linking to
other road improvements :past c,f the City of Lincoh-Iton which would
serve Linculii County citizens from 't'riangle to Crouse.
Sincerely,
A. R. Sharp. Jr.
County Manager
AS/ rill

cc: Board ofCommissioners,
l?ilda Threatt - COG

RECEIVED
JJ.ic J i/.RALPH WHITEHEAD & ASSO' =.TES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CHARLOTTE, N. C.
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
[phone]
July 22, 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: N.C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
From: J. Russell Cap , Division of Emergency Management,
NFIP Section
Subject: Intergovernmental Review
-----------------------------------------------------------
Re: State # N.C. 92-E-4220-0032
N.C. DOT - Proposed Improvements to NC 150 from NC
279 in Cherryville to US 321 in
Lincolnton (Gaston and Lincoln Counties)
r
a
r
For information purposes, the Commission is advised that
on July 24, 1990, Governor Martin signed Executive Order
123, a Uniform Floodplain Management Policy, which must be
followed for development on any site.
An Glual Q-gxmuniry / ANinn tive Amon limph grr
.4: t s 4t' O
??.:..,. JUL 141992
D1V15it7N 0F ?i
?'i F'IU?;V?'AYS roQ
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources K
REBEP ,
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 9, 1992
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
150, Gaston and Lincoln Counties, R-617,
8.1820401, M-7668(1)/RS-4174(1), ER 92-
8404
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of May 26, 1992, concerning the above project. We
have reviewed the historic structures survey report by Richard L. Mattson and
offer our comments.
The following properties are on our state study list and considered worthy of
further study concerning their listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
Lafayette Carpenter House (No. 62). The house was placed on the study
list on January 9, 1986.
Carpenter-Wooley House (No. 56). The house was placed on the study list
on January 9, 1986.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we consider the Lafayette Carpenter House and the Carpenter-Wooley House,
as well as the following properties, eligible for listing in the National Register:
Indian Creek Railroad Bridge (No. 43). Criterion C--This iron truss bridge
embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type of railroad bridge and a
method of construction typical of late nineteenth and early twentieth
century.
Roberts Log House (No. 107). Criterion C--This log dwelling embodies the
distinctive characteristics of late eighteenth and early nineteenth century log
construction as well as common domestic forms and plans. (Please note,
we feel that there is not sufficient information at this time to conclude
eligibility under Criterion A.)

It

109 East ones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
July 9, 1992, Page 2
Crouse Historic District (Nos. 56, 57, 58, 62-67, 84-89). Criterion A--The
district clearly reflects the pattern of settlement occurring in the area during
?- the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Criterion C--The district
comprises a largely intact collection of late nineteenth and early twentieth
century domestic and civil architecture.
Benaja Black, Jr. Farm Complex (No. 160). Criterion A--The complex
represents the agricultural way of life that once characterized Gaston and
Lincoln counties. Criterion C--The house is a fine example of the Colonial
Revival style and the subsidiary farm buildings represent late nineteenth and
early twentieth century outbuilding types and construction techniques.
Kelly-Link Farmstead (No. 188). Criterion A--The property represents the
small farmsteads that arose during the early twentieth century. Criterion C--
The farmstead contains one of the finer surviving two-room, central hall
houses in the county along with a good representation of outbuildings.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register:
Rudisill House (No. 94). The house has undergone numerous character-
altering changes.
Shull House (No. 201). The house has lost its integrity of materials and
workmanship as well as its historically agrarian setting.
In general we feel that the historic property evaluations were well done; however,
we have a few concerns regarding the report:
Since the report documents the Federal Highway Administration's (FHwA)
determinations of eligibility, we believe that a more objective tone for the
report would be appropriate, rather than one written from the viewpoint of
Historic Preservation Services.
On page 2 of the report, the author states that the State Historic
Preservation Office was consulted regarding potentially eligible historic
properties. We would like to note that only informal consultation occurred
between the author and our office and only general themes, not specific
findings of eligibility, were discussed.
The report addresses Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act.
We feel that the historic structures survey report is not the appropriate
document in which to address Section 4(f). We will comment pursuant to
Sections 106 and 4(f) and possible effects upon National Register-eligible
properties at a later time.
In the future, we expect to review the architectural historian's survey
findings prior to reviewing a report such as this.
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.
Nicholas L. Graf
July 9, 1992, Page 3
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,
1A
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: LJ. Ward
B. Church
Richard L. Mattson

R
r
I
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
July 30, 1991
SOIL
CONSERVATION
SERVICE
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
CH B
Re: Environmental Assessment (EA) for Prop rovements
to NC 150 from NC 279 in Cherryville to US 321 in
Lincolnton in Gaston and Lincoln Counties, State
Project No. 8.1830401, TIP No. R-617
Dear Mr. Ward:
The proposed area on the Gaston County Soil Survey
• (issued 1989) and Lincoln County Soil Survey (completed but
not issued) shows Prime and State Important Farmland along
the proposed routes.
10 When parts of an area do meet the Farmland Preservation
Policy Act and federal money is used to fund the project, it
would require the completion of the Farmland Conversion
Impact Rating Form AD-1006. It is also my understanding
that whatever parts of the project are along existing
roadways built before 1984 that a AD-1006 form is not
required.
If there are any questions, please contact me at (704) 637-
2400.
A
Sincerely,
W. E. Woody
Soil Resource Specialist
cc: Tom Wetmore, Jr. w/o attachments
Horace Smith w/o attachments
530 WEST INNES STREET
SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
28144
If
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON .DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1991
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 ??•' ,''i ?': ``"0.'nD & R:L?7ES
July 23, 1991 ^
W REPLY REFER TO CiiAMLOTTE,
Planning Division
r
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager tO
Planning and Environmental Branch
Divison of Highways ! s
North Carolina Department r; C-
of Transportation
.Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed your letter of July 15, 1991, requesting
information for preparation of an "Environmental Assessment (EA)
for the Proposed Improvements to NC 150 from NC 279 in Cherryville
to US 321 in Lineolnton in Gaston and Lincoln Counties, State
Project No. 8.1830401, TIP No. R-617" and offer the following
comments.
Both Gaston and Lincoln Counties have Flood Insurance Studies
(FIS) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
and participate in the Flood Insurance Program. There are two
major streams and numerous tributaries included within the area
of the project. The two major streams, Indian Creek and South
Fork Catawba River, have regulatory floodways established as part
of the Lincoln County FIS. The design of the structures over the
streams should ensure that there will be no significant increase
in flood stages and no increase in the floodway surcharge.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be
required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with this project, including disposal of construction
debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should
first be avoided or minimized. We will than consider compensation
or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any work within
waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch
would appreciate the opportunity to review the plans for a
project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Steve Lund of our Regulatory Branch, Asheville, North
Carolina, at [phone].

-2-

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If
' we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
I
Lawren a W. unders
Chief, 1 ng Division

.
A
Y

July 30, 1991
5
P.O. Box 400, Lincolnton, NC 28093-0400
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
RcCDVcD
I am writing in response to your solicitation of feedback on the proposed
corridor map for the expansion of Highway 150. In reviewing the corridor, we
see very little impact on the corridor established from the beginning of the
project through three-fourths of the construction. However, at the end of the
project, the northern most leg would discharge an inordinate amount of traffic
into an already overly-congested Boger City area which would complicate and
impede the flow of student and bus traffic in and out of two schools located in
that immediate area. Either of the southern most terminations of the project
would provide ready access to 321 for those vehicles not desiring to remain in
the Lincolnton area and would expedite the dissemination of this heavy flow of
traffic away from the congested Boger City area.
While these points address the main concerns of the school system, it may be
worthy of note that the Victory Grove Church Road is already being segmented by
Highway 321 and a second segmentation will create an isolated portion of the
population between 321 and the new 150. Based on this, I would encourage you to
look at the most southern route in terms of determination of the project. Also
of note, the study corridor map seems to have the 321 highway inappropriately
located which complicates the review of the impact the 150 changes.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to share our thoughts and impressions
with you on this matter.
Since ly,
7 h
?C
Dr. in A. Eaddy
Superintendent
MAE:pdh
h
704 '`732-22b PN1111,
?J
,
fin
> Zp ?y W
k CC
7 Z

r
A

"Excellence, our standard; learning, our goal. "
'Pt, , F ryF TAKE??
United States Department of the Interior ??? ?i4
9
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court C- }
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
b 1Q91
A U : u
August 12, 1991 Ri;L2 1'?i1;-EHL??J
y 1 E?? ::=crS
ri^?iJby? CONSULTING
CHARLOTTE, N. C.
4! ?.. t;.
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager r
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Environmental assessment for the proposed improvements to
NC 150 from NC 279 in Cherryville to US 321 in Lincolnton in
Lincoln and Gaston Counties, North Carolina, TIP No. R-611,
State Project 8.1830401
This responds to your letter of July 15, 1991 (received July 25, 1991),
requesting our comments on the subject project. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned
about the potential impacts the proposed action may have on listed
endangered or threatened species and on stream and wetland ecosystems
within the project impact area. Preference should be given to
alternative alignments, stream-crossing structures, and construction
techniques that avoid or minimize encroachment and impacts to these
resources. Mitigation/compensation, on a habitat value basis, will be
required for all unavoidable stream (including riparian habitat) and
wetland losses associated with the proposed action. To the extent
possible, mitigation should occur on site or on the stream or watershed
impacted. To lessen impacts, the Service recommends bridging streams
where possible. If bridging is not feasible and box culverts are used,
we recommend that the North Carolina Department of Transportation explore
the possibility of creating a stone substrate on the inside floor of the
culverts adequate to create small pools and eddies to provide fish
resting areas and facilitate fish movement. This substrate also would
provide attachment areas for aquatic insects and other,organisms and
would help tb offset the loss of stream-bottom habitat eliminated by the
culverts. The substrate could be placed to create a low-flow channel
through the center of the culvert.
The enclosed page identifies federally protected endangered (E) and
threatened (T) species known from Lincoln and Gaston Counties that may
occur in the area of influence of this proposed action. The legal
responsibilities of a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal
representative.under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended,
are on file with the Federal Highway Administration. If you would like a
copy.of this material or if you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Allen Ratzlaff at 704/665-1195. Please note that this is a new phone
number as we have relocated our office. Our new address is
330 Ridgefield Court, Asheville, North Carolina 28806. The enclosed page
also contains a list of candidate species which are currently under
status review by the Service that may occur in the project impact area.
Candidate species are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened.
We are including these species in our response to give you advance
notification.
The Service's review of the environmental assessment would be greatly
facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of all
available alternatives, including the no-action
alternative.
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife
resources within existing and required additional
rights-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, that may be affected directly or
indirectly by the proposed improvements.
(3) Acreage and description of branches, creeks,
streams, rivers, or wetlands that will be filled
because of proposed highway improvements.
Wetlands affected by the proposed project should
be mapped in accordance with the Federal Manual
for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands.
(4) Linear feet of any water courses that will be
relocated because of the proposed improvements.
(5) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that
will be eliminated because of proposed highway
improvements.
(6) Techniques that will be employed for designing
and constructing any relocated stream channels or
for creating replacement wetlands.
(7) bescription of all expected secondary and
,cumulative environmental impacts associated with
this proposed work.
(8) Mitigation measures that will be employed to
avoid, eliminate, reduce, or compensate for
habitat value losses associated with any of the
proposed improvements.
In the spirit of the Federal Highway Administration's April 20, 1990,
Environmental Policy Statement (...environmental consideration to be
given equal weight with engineering, social, and economic factors in
project decision making...) and their commitment to satisfy Federal law
relating to environmental issues, we look forward to working with you to
develop a plan to prevent or lessen further impacts to wetland areas or,
as a last resort, to identify appropriate mitigation/compensation areas.
We would be pleased to meet with you and your staff to discuss our
concerns. Please advise us of any action taken by your office in this
matter. We have assigned log number 4-2-91-075 to this project. Please
refer to this number in all future correspondence directed to us
concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
b
Enclosure
cc.
Mr. Randall C. Wilson, Nongame Section Manager, Division of Wildlife
Management, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-91-075
LINCOLN COUNTY
LISTED SPECIES
W
PLANTS
Michaux's sumac - Rhus michauxii* (E)
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf - Hexastvlis naniflora (T)
CANDIDATE SPECIES
PLANTS
Nestronia - Nestronia umbellula
*Indicates no specimen from Lincoln County in at least 20 years.
GASTON COUNTY
LISTED SPECIES
None
CANDIDATE SPECIES
PLANTS y.
Nestronia - Nestronia umbellula

A

July 31, 1991 P.O. Box 340
?, !,_ a• - • * Lincolnton, NC 28093-0340
704 735-7464
0
,
Ct'ARLG ?TE, N. C• ri
O ? y
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E., Manager j
Department of Transportation i z n
Post Office Box 25201 C? ? G
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201 4 ,;
Dear Mr. Ward:
Vermont
American Vermont American Tool Company
Subject: Environmental Assessment (EA) for Proposed Improvements to NC 150
from 279 in Cherryville to US 321 (four-lane) in Lincolnton in Gaston and Lincoln
Counties, State Project No. 81830401, T I P No. R-617
In 1960, Vermont American was located in Lincolnton with approximately 30
employees the first year. One of the promises from the community and the state
was better and four-lane highways. Over the years, Vermont American has grown
and now employs approximately 500 in Lincoln County.
New Highway 321 is underway; hopefully, we can look forward to its completion
soon. The new proposed 150 project will be a welcomed and needed improvement.
Vermont American is one of five (5) industries located in the Indian Creek
Industrial Park, noted on your map as Lincoln Airport. (This airport was closed in
1973; the new Lincoln Airport is off 73 East.)
Riverview Road (1236) currently connects directly to 150 By Pass. The truck traffic
is heavy, as well as the local and employee traffic. Also, there are several future
industrial sites located in the same industrial park.
To sum up this project, it is vital to the economic future and transportation needs of
Lincoln County.
Mr. L.J. Ward
July 31, 1991
Page 2
Contact with Vermont American in Lincoln County should be made to me or the
following:
Shane Jones, Vice President-Administration
Box 340
Lincolnton, NC 28092
Glenn McIlmail, Vice President-Distribution
Box 340
Lincolnton, NC 28092
Sincerely,
Hollis C. Henderson
Corporate Director of Special Projects
m
cc: Shane Jones
Glenn McIlmail
Leona Dellinger
Harry Huss, Chairman County Commission
1-1
0

11
IM-F Riverview Road, P.O. Box 898
.11 Lincolnton, NC 28093
(704) 735-700
[phone] Fax Manufacturers of Private Labe! OTC & Rx Products
D NASKA PHAIZ.' 1CAL CO., INC.
•, ? ; ;At,LgU:j t 8, 1991
SUP
41
' on
Dear Mr. Ward:
RECEIVED
AUG 2 0 1991
lgH %gHITEHEAO A°°,,??ntES
SC MTFF" NP,C.
Subject: Environmental Assessment (EA) for Proposed
Improvements to NC 150 from 279 in Cherryville to US 321
(four-lane) in Lincolnton in Gaston and Lincoln Counties,
State Project No. 81830401, T I P No. R-617
NASKA Pharmacal is a Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Company
with 130 employees. We are a primary manufacturer of
Prescription and OTC Pharmaceuticals.
Construction on New Highway 321 is underway; and we look
forward to its completion. The new proposed 150 project
will be a welcomed and needed improvement. NASKA is one of
five (5) industries located in the Indian Creek Industrial
Park, noted on your map as Lincoln Airport.
Riverview Road (1236) currently connects directly to-150 By
Pass. The truck traffic, as well as the local and employee
traffic is quite heavy. Also, there are several future
industrial sites located in the same industrial park.
In conclusion, this project is vital to the economic future
and transportation needs of Lincoln County.
Contact with NASKA should be with myself or my Facilities
Manager:

F
i?
.J. Ward, P.E., ?n
Mr. L .J. r
Department of Transpo fit}.
Post office Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Michael Bill
NASKA Pharmacal
P. O. Box 898
Riverview Road
Lincolnton, NC
Co., Inc.
28093
Yours truly,
A. Cabral
President
NASKA Pharmacal Co., Inc.
cc: Hollis Henderson
AC/kgc
'- KAWAI AMERICA MFG., INC.
.x ?
DIVISION OF KAWAI MUSICAL INST.
August 14, 1991
Mr. L.J. Ward
P.E. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
LJ ?? ? r
ti
'RECEIti 7
AUG 2 0 199.;
WHITEHEAD :
FNSULTING E:? ;
C?IAitLOTTE, t•:. ,,.
We received a copy of your letter and area maps on the State Project
Number 8.1830401, TIP Number R-617. Kawai is very happy to learn-
about the proposed improvements to NC 150 from NC 279 in Cherryville
to US 321 in Lincolnton.
This widening of 150 and interchange tie in with US 321 south of
Lincolnton will help both-Kawai employees, in-bound and out-bound
freight handling.
While we are yet a small company in Lincolnton our growth projection
will tie-in well with your construction time tables.
Please keep us informed about the progress of this project.
Best Regards,
Dick Eckburg
Plant Manager
cc: Mr. Jerry W. Cochrane
Mr. Hollis Henderson

PHONE [phone] • FAX 704-7:5-8860 0 1000 KAWAI ROAD 0 LINCOLNTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28092
A
PPENDIX D
PUBLIC MEETING INFORMATION

f

NC150 IMPROVEMENTS
GASTON/LINCOLN COUNTIES

CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL MEETING
(T.I.P. R-617)

i11

Ralph Whitehead & Associates
Consulting Engineers
616 Colonnade Drive, PO Box 35624
Charlotte, NC 28235 [phone]

NC 150 IMPROVEMENTS
GASTON & LINCOLN COUNTIES
NC DOT State Project 8.1820401 (TIP No. R-617)
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL MEETING
October 27, 1992
General Information
PROJECT DESCRIPTION & LIMITS
The proposed project consists of Roadway Widening of NC150 beginning near
NC279 in Cherryville and proceeding to US 321 in Lincolnton, as shown on the
attached map.
The roadway development model will include urban and rural characteristics.
As a result of this combination, the following list describes the anticipated
typical roadway sections.
Segment Limits
° NC279 to Bud Black Rd.
Bud Black Rd. to Crouse Rd.
Crouse Rd. to E. of Crouse
° E. of Crouse to NC150/Cherryville
Highway Intersection
° NC150/Cherryville Hwy. Intersection
NC150/Cherryville Hwy. Intersection
to existing US321
Existing US321 to new US321
TIP Schedule
Anticipated Roadway
5-Lane Roadway
4-Lane Divided
4-Lane Divided
Alignment
Utilize Existing
Utilize Existing
New (Bypass)
4-Lane Divided Utilize Existing
Improve Intersect. New
4-lane Divided Utilize Existing
4-lane divided New
The 1992-1999 TIP has Right-of-Way acquisition scheduled to begin during the
middle of Fiscal Year 1993 with Construction scheduled to begin at the
beginning of Fiscal Year 1995.
QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
For your convenience, we have attached a comment sheet to express your
views.If there are further items of concern please contact the following by
phone, mail or fax:
NC DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
Planning & Environmental Div.
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone]
FAX [phone]
RALPH WHITEHEAD & ASSOCIATES
616 Colonnade Drive
P.O. Box 35624
Charlotte, North Carolina 28235-5624
[phone]
FAX [phone]

k
R
L. J. Ward, P.E., Mgr. J. Edward Jenkins, P.E.
r
NC 150 IMPROVEMENTS
GASTON & LINCOLN COUNTIES
NC DOT State Project 8.1820401 (TIP No. R-617)

CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL MEETING
October 27, 1990
Participant Comment Sheet
Name:
Address:
Phone:
• Comments:
4
We appreciate your input
STUDY AREA LOCATION MAP
SCALE
1 0 1 2 MILES
NC 150 WIDENING
CHERRYVILLE TO LINCOLNTON
3

w
k,
GASTON & LINCOLN COUNTIES
I

NC150 IMPROVEMENTS
GASTON/LINCOLN COUNTIES
A
A
PUBLIC AWARENESS MEETING
6 r

Ralph Whitehead & Associates
Consulting Engineers
616 Colonnade Drive. PO Box 35624
Choriatte. NC 26235 (704) 372-1x63

NC 150 IMPROVEMENTS
GASTON & LINCOLN COUNTIES
NC DOT State Project 8.1830401 (TIP No. R-617)
PUBLIC AWARENESS MEETING
October 30, 1990
General Information
PROJECT DESCRIPTION & LIMITS
The proposed project consists of Roadway Widening of NC 150 beginning near
NC 279 in Cherryville and proceeding to US 321 in Lincolnton as shown on the
attached map.
The roadway development model will include urban and rural characteristics.
As a result of this combination, the following list describes the anticipated
typical roadway sections.
Segment Limits
NC 279 to Bud Black Rd.
° Bud Black Rd. to Crouse Rd.
° Crouse Rd. to 2,0001S. Indian Ck.
°. 2,000' S. Indian Creek to
Cherryville Hwy. Wye
Cherryville Hwy. Wye Intersection
Cherryville Hwy. Wye to US 321
Anticipated Roadway
5-Lane Roadway
4-Lane Divided
4-Lane Divided Bypass
4-Lane Divided
Intersection
Improvement
4-Lane Divided
Alignment
Utilize Existing
Utilize Existing
New
Utilize Existing
New
Utilize Existing
a
r
A
QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
For your convenience, we have attached a comment sheet to express your views,.
If there are further items of concern please contact the following by phone,
mail or fax:
W RALPH WHITEHEAD i ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers
616 Colonnade Drive
Post Office Box 35624
Charlotte, North Carolina 28235-5624
704 372-1885
FAX [phone]
4
M. John Janik, P.E., R.L.S.
Y
f
STUDY AREA LOCATION MAP
C'
•?
'1
11114
1 1701
.

llt f,? ' •, -2
1002 •? 1t•o j 1 /A
v UNCOLNTO
L ?`•? LL 'J
3 1114 1? !. ??
R POP. 4.679
?
11 Lui c dQfi 2
?

142

,{
)
342. rS
' « t PAS
'? ?

r fAs • f
t 1 a: ? 04 ?S
+ Jai.--OW el 1171
?? t? ?• .0
112 11Y o

= 11lt
C+ler4 ?? '
1137 1 .. 130 `•
J•
1170 410
1161' ?
x O
1111 ?p 1002 130

'`-KI
'
END PROJECT
LINCOLN
COUNTY
1037 11 . --- '' % 1 !!2! o ..i_ ?' '• `? Jl13? !IL . GASTON COUNTY i
13.1 ±!]! ? I • • T Z
BEGIN PROJECT
,, mss. e
A 1 1 '
JvA; ? t;. 177 ?O? 1111
K. L472
O a
solo
• f 1/ •?. 1 7 ^! Ia?s -? 1147 O
?.!•?'?' lug 1• ?: St. Mario
POP.
• MOUM,I
779
1
A .4
a 1 ?' ?• . 7 Lid 1'a+ •. ? • i 144111 y s? ?? If'1
fi. .._. i l? 474 0 1473 lap •
SCALE
1 0 1 2 MISS
NC 150 WIDENING
CHERRYVILLE TO LINCOLNTON
GASTON & LINCOLN COUNTIES

PUBLIC AWARENESS PRESENTATION
NC DOT State Project 8.1830401 (TIP No. R-617)
Preliminary Planning Session
Hello,
On behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation we are
pleased to invite you to a public presentation of the proposed Roadway
Widening of NC 150 beginning near NC 279 in Cherryville and proceeding to
US 321 in Lincolnton as shown on the attached map.
Your presence and personal input in this project will be appreciated.
We have made a sincere effort to contact all of the local residents and
businesses along the roadway. If you have neighbors or local property
owners who you feel should be notified, please contact them as well.
The meeting will be held at the Citizens Center, Main Auditorium, 115 West
Main Street, Lincolnton (adjacent to the County Courthouse), and will begin
at 5:00 P.M. on Tuesday, October 30, 1990.
If you have any questions or comments please feel comfortable in expressing
these at the meeting. This meeting is the first of a series to gather local
information and desires.
r

NEWSLETTER
Volume 2. February 1993
NC150 IMPROVEMENTS
GASTON/LINCOLN COUNTIES (T.I.P. R-617)
M
It

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project R-617 starts in Cherryville at
NC 279 and follows the existing roadway
alignment until crossing into Lincoln
County. The alignment then bypasses the
community of Crouse. From the east side
of Crouse, the roadway follows the
existing alignment to the US 321 inter-
change in Lincolnton. For the portion
beginning at the US 321 interchange,
three alternatives were developed. One
alternative follows the existing roadway
north to NC 27, and two alternatives
turn eastward on new location to a pro-
posed interchange with the US 321 Bypass
(currently under construction).
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The purpose of the project is to provide
a multi-lane facility between NC 279 and
the US 321 Bypass that will improve
traffic flow and safety. Accomplishing
this goal required the analysis of sev-
eral areas of concern. Factors involved
in the selection of the recommended
alternative included: impacts to natu-
ral resources, cultural resources,
socio-economic impacts, land uses, traf-
fic flow, air quality and noise levels.
These factors and others were carefully
examined and evaluated prior to select-
ing a recommended alternative.
The recommended alternative for the R-
617 project is to widen existing NC 150
from NC 279 to Bud Black Road to a five-
lane curb and gutter facility. The
project would continue eastwardly to
US 321 with a four-lane divided facility
(including a northern bypass of Crouse
on new location). From the US 321/
NC 150 interchange, the proposed four-
lane divided facility would move to new
location for approximately 1.4 miles
then interchanges with the US 321 Bypass
(currently under construction).
WHAT IS A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL
WORKSHOP?
An informational workshop is a public
meeting where you can come and go at any
time during the hours scheduled for the
meeting. This allows you the opportu-
nity to attend the meeting at YOUR con-
venience. Representatives from the
North Carolina Department of Transporta-
tion and Ralph Whitehead & Associates
will be available for one-on-one discus-
sions about the project design and to
answer your questions. There will be
maps showing the study areas and the
current location for the improvements.
The workshop is scheduled to be held
from 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm on February 24,
1993, at the Cherryville Community
Center.
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
T.I.P. R-617
SCALE
1 0 1 2 MILES
NC 150 WIDENING
CHERRYVILLE TO LINCOLNTON
.y

n
0
4
GASTON & LINCOLN COUNTIES

It&

A
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Questions, comments and requests for
--additional information about this study
should be directed to:
J. Edward Jenkins, P.E.
Ralph Whitehead & Associates
616 Colonnade Drive
P. O. Box 35624
Charlotte, NC 28235-5624
Phone: [phone]
- OR -
L. J. Ward, P.E., Mgr.
Planning & Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone]
PROJECT SCHEDULE
*Citizens Informational Workshop
February 24, 1993
*Environmental Assessment
Available for Review
April 1993
*Public Hearing
May 1993
*Begin Right-of-Way Acquisition
Fiscal Year 1993
*Begin Construction
Fiscal Year 1995
ANNOUNCING THE
NC 150 IMPROVEMENTS
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
Wed., February 24, 1993
4:00 - 7:00 pm
Cherryville Community Center
106 S. Jacob Street
Cherryville, NC
F
NC 150 Improvements
Citizens Information Workshop
Wednesday, February 24, 1993
Cherryville Community Center
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS

-Is
All suggestions, questions or comments may be submitted in writing by
completing this form and leaving it at this public meeting, or mailing it to:
J. Edward Jenkins
Ralph Whitehead. Associates
P. 0. Box 35624
Charlotte, NC 28235
PLEASE PRINT:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY/TOWN: STATE ZIP
I am currently on the mailing list
Please add my name(s) to the mailing list
I/We wish to comment or inquire about the following aspects of this project:

(Use Other Side for Additional Comments)
t
A
APPENDIX. E
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
s
Table 1
t

I

SOILS SUMMARY
Map
Code Soil Series % Slope General Characteristics
Non-hydric soils
2B Pacolet-Madison- 2-8%
Urban land complex
23B2 Gaston sandy 2-8%
Well-drained soil series consisting of natural Pacolet
and Madison soils combined with urban land
complex. Consists of areas where the original soil has
been altered to the extent that a soil series is not
recognizable.
Moderately well-drained, eroded, clay loam and
located on side slopes of uplands. Permeability is
moderate, and the available water capacity is high.
32B2 Pacolet sandy 2-8% Moderately well-drained, eroded, clay loam and
located on broad side slopes bordering upland
drainageways. Infiltration is moderately slow, and
runoff is rapid. Pacolet soils are strongly acid.
32D2 Pacolet sandy 8-15% Moderately well-drained, eroded clay loam and
located along slopes of uplands. Subject to increased
runoff and erosion.
34B Pacolet sandy loam 2-8% Well drained and located on broad ridges and slightly
concave areas around the heads of intermittent
streams. Organic matter content is low, permeability
is moderate, and the available water capacity is low.
34D Pacolet sandy loam 8-15% Well drained and located on ridges and narrow side
slopes of uplands. The subsoil is very strongly acid to
moderately acid.
48B Georgeville loam 2-8% Well drained and located on broad, gently sloping
interstream divides of uplands. Natural fertility and
organic matter content is low, permeability is
moderate, and the available water capacity is
medium.
48D Georgeville loam 8-15% Well drained and located on long side slopes in the
aplands. Organic matter content and water capacity
is medium.
Table 1 (cont.)
SOILS SUMMARY
Map
Code Soil Series % Slope General Characteristics
Non-hvdric soils
48E Georgeville loam 15-25%
49B2 Georgeville clay 2-8%
loam
Hvdric soils
80 Worsham fine sandy 0-2%
loam
Well drained and located on narrow side slopes
bordering upland drainageways. Infiltration is fair to
good, and surface runoff is rapid.
Moderately well drained, eroded, and located on
smooth interstream divides in the uplands.
Poorly drained and located at the head of
drainageways, on foot slopes, and in slight
depressions in the uplands. Natural fertility and
organic matter content are low, permeability and
surface runoff is slow, and available water capacity is
medium.

r
fi

x
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
II
Ir

A
fll f"
ey CS
equ Rzeceiveda M
PART41 (To be.completed by SCS) Date R
g ?quyt.t
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or, local important farmland? Yes No
0f db the FPPA does not apply -do not complete additronal partsof this form). O Acres Irrigated :

14 Average Farm Size
Major Crops Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: -a to 3 t?2. ?I 3. iv Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres- I "'!? l ~:`? ?o$•Z
--Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
GcaS ". Name Of Local ^Site,Assessment System
O,x.. as::6«.... w( Date Lend Evaluation Returned By SCS
qa u R L 1s,u tJ
PART III (To be com
leted b
F
d
l A
) Alternative Site Rating
p
y
e
era
gency Site A Site B Site C Site 0
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
PART W (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland g
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland $.
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 40.01
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 7 S (o
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To-Be Converted (Scale of O to 100 Points)
31•
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use 1 S
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use p ?$
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed O
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government ?p O
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area ?-
6. Distance To Urban Support Services ...
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland S O
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services S
10. On-Farm Investments o to
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 2$' p
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 3 tj
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Ass sment (From Part V1 above or a local
site assessment
160
35
TOTAL POINTS (Total ofabove 2lines) 260

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
reason ror beiection:
(See Insvuctions on reverse side)
Form AD-1006 (10.83)
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of.Wd Evalua ion R t
J L.! Datg Regy?st Received By SCS _' %./
PARTJI (To ompleted by S C-4) q 1 I It. l az u1 fE?C
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local 'Important farmland?.. Yes No
(It no,- the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). ? Acres Irrigated:
e IJ ? - Average Farm Size
Zg.
major :Crop sl .
G e?r?r? Farmebfe Land In Govt..Jurisdiction
Acres:-%%Z ;5'8 2 Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: l Sq u $3. S
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System
)V6 A1,C Date Land Eval ion Returned By SCS

PART I I I
T Alternative Site Rating
(
o be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly , y (o
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site 01 Z &816
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland . rjTJ• 't}.2.
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 4.'s 7-0-S
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted O . p 0.04
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value . ?p
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
`4•? 4
(p
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use t3 l$
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use PD
.3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed Zp O O
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government ZG 0 O
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area - -
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average v ,$ 57
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland O
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments 2,0 10 O
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services zsr- 0 O
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use p
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 46 SI
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 64.4 41-8
Total Site Assessment (From Pan V1 above or a local
site assessment! 160 4G 37
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260 ( to.4 100.$ 771

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
Reason For Selection:
r?

R
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
l

APPENDIX F
RELOCATION REPORT
R E L_ O C A T 1 O N R a R OR T North Carolina Department of Transportation
E.I.S. X CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1830401 COUNTY: Gaston-Lincoln Alternate A of 2 Alternate .
I.D. NO.* R-617 F.A. PROJECT: RS-4174(1)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Cherryville to US 321 Bypass

T
t
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of Minor-
Displacee Owners Tenants Total Ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 LP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 13 2 15 0 10 3 2 0 0
Businesses 1 0 1 0 VALLE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale. For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M *6 0-150 0 0-20M 15 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QLEST IONS 20-40M 5 150-250 2 20-40M 30 150-250 5
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 1 250-400 0 40-70M 100 250-400 15 F
x 1. Will special relocation
i
b 70-100 1 400-600 0 70-100 100
1 400-600 10

x serv
ces
e necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
affe
ted b
dis
la
t
100 LP
0
600 LIP 0

-- --- -
100 LP

-
150
600 LP
0

x

' c
y
p
cemen
3. Will business services still
be available afte
j
t
TOTAL
13 --
2 -
3%
30
x r pro
ec
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of * Five of the six represented are mobile homes.
l
i
i
i
emp
oyeesi m
nor
t
es) etc.
x S. Will relocation cause a 3. Will not be disrupted due to project.
h
H
i
ous
ng s
ortage
x 6. Source for available hous- 4. Fruit Stand, 1)200 SF) 2 employees.
i
(li
) i
N
i
i
ns
st o m
nor
es involved.
t
x 7. Will additional housing
b
d
d h
6
H
i
programs
e nee
e ous
.
ng is represented for bot
Gaston and Lincoln
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing Information was supplied by Caldwell Bankers.
b
id
d 735
467
e cons
ere -
2
x 9. Are there large, disabledi
ld
l
f
ili 8
A
i
h S
d
t
L
e
er
y, etc.
am
es .
s necessary
n accor
aw.
ance wit
ta
e
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN

10. Will public housing be
needed for project
11. Is public housing avail-
bl
14. Business sites are represented for both Gaston
and Lincoln. Information was supplied by
Coldwell Bankers. 735-4672.
a
e
12. Is it felt there will be ad- .
equate DSS housing available
d
i
l
i
i
d
ur
ng re
ocat
on per
o
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial

means
X 14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
__.......... __...... -..--____......... tDate
Approve Date?
Form 1 .4 Revised S/90 ' Original & 1 Copy= State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
R E L_ O C A T 1 0 N R E P O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
_ E.I.S. X CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT= 8.1830401 COLNTY: Gaston-Lincoln Alternate M& of 2 Alternate
I.D. NO.= R-617 F.A. PROJECT= RS-4174(1)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Cherryville to LS 321 Bypass
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
TType of
Oisplacee
Owners
Tenants
Total Minar-
sties
0-1511
15-25M
25-35M
35-SOM
50 LP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0
Families 23 5 28 5 8 15 5 0 0
Businesses 6 0 6 0 VALLE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 ? 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 ? 0 0-20M 1 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 15 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL GLEST IONS 20-40M 6 150-250 1 20-40M 30 150-250 5
YES NO - EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 16 250-400 4 40-70M 100 250-400 15
x 1. Will special relocation
b
i 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 100 400-600 10

x serv
ces
e necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
affected by displacement
100 LP
0
600 LP
0
100 LP
150
600 LP
0
x 3. Will business services still
il
bl
f
b TOTAL 23 5 395 30
e ava
a
e a
ter project
x 4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of
t
i
iti
l
c.
emp
oyees, m
nor
es, e
x 5. Will relocation cause a 3. Will not be disrupted due to project.
h
u
h
i
t
o
s
ng s
or
age
x 6. Source for available hous- 4. a) Steve's Seafood Restaurant, 3,500 SF,
i
(li
t) 10 em
lo
ees

x ns
s
7. Will additional housing
b
d
d p
y
.
b) Ross Discount Furniture, 1,500 SF, 4 employees,
et & Car Care, 2Y000 SF,
c) Carolina Car
programs
e nee
e p
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing
d
b
id 3 employees.
e/Car Sales, 3;000 SF, 5 employees
d) Jones Gara
ere
e cons .
g
x 9. Are there large) disabled,
f
ld
l
t
ili
s e) Craft Shop, 800 SFi 1 employee.
f) Auction House, 2,000 SF, 2 employees
am
e
er
y) e
c.
e .
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN No minorities involved
.
10. Will public housing be
d f
oj
t
d is represented for both Gaston and Lincoln
Housin
6
or pr
nee
e
ec
11. Is public housing avail- g
.
Counties. Information was supplied by Coldwell
bl 735-4672
Bankers
a
e .
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DSS housing available 8. As necessary in accordance with State Law.
eriod
du
in
lo
atio
g re
c
n p
r
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
14. Business sites are represented for both Gaston
and Lincoln Counties. Information was supplied
x means
14. Are suitable business sites by Coldwell Bankers. 735-4672.
u
e)
t
il
bl
(li
rc
s
so
ava
a
e
i5. Number months estimated to
14J _
complete RELOCATION
L
_ . . . . . ......... ........ . ... ................ .......
r

sed ri Date Approved Date
*e
For .4 Revi5/?D Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
R a L- O C A T I O N R E P O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _CORRIDOR _DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 8.1830401 CLWY: Gaston-Lincoln Alternate of 5 Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-0617 F.A. PROJECT: RS-4174(1)
t

I
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Cherryville to LE 321 Bypass
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
ype of
' Minor-
Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M
50 LP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 7 12 19 6 15 3 1 0 0
Businesses 1 2 3 0 VALLE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 3 S 0-150 2 0-20M 7 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL CLEST IONS 20-40M 2 150-250 10
1 20-40M 28 150-250 7
YES N( EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 2 250-400 0 40-70M 157 250-400 32
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 152 400-600 11
services be necessary
X 2. Will schools or churches be
ff 100 LP 0 600 LP 0 100-LP 155 600 LF 5
a
ected by displacement
X 3. Will business services still
b TOTAL 7 12 499 55 4
e available after project
x 4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. Will not be disrupted due to project.
employees, minoritiesi etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a
h 4. (a) Farm Bureau, 1,800 SF) 10 employees.
ousing shortage
x 6. Source for available hour-
i
(li
) (b) Bells Auto Sales; 1j500 SF, 5 employees.
ng
st
Ix 7. Will additional housing (c) Piedmont Mobile Homef 2,000 SF, 6 employees.
programs be needed
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing
b 6. Becky Ross and Associates, Mauney Real Estate,
e considered Keller Group, multiple listing and newspaper.
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
ld
l Housing is represented for both Gaston and Lincoln
e
er
y, etc. families Counties.
ANSWER T
HESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be
d 8. As necessary in accordance with State Law.
nee
ed for project
11. Is public housing avail-
bl 14. Business sites are represented for both Gaston
a
e and Lincoln Counties. Information was supplied by
12. Is it felt there will be ad- Becky Ross and Associates, Mauney Real Estate,
equate DDS housing available
i
d
l Keller Group, multiple listing and newspaper.
ur
ng re
ocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial

means
x 14. Are suitable business sites
l
avai
able (list source)
11 1 15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
61A 9/9 1-
R location Agent Date Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
R E L O C A T 1 0 N
_( E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR
PROJWs 8.1830401
I.O. ND.s R-0617
R a p OR T North Carolina Department of Transportat?
_ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTAhif'
COLNTYs Gaston-Lincoln Alternate 11L of 5 Alternate
F.A. PROJECTS RS-4174(1)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, Cherryville to US 321 Bypass
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee
Owners
Tenants
Total Minor-
sties
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-500
50 UP
Individuals 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Families 17 0 17 1 4. 8 3 2 0
Businesses 4 3 7 0 VALLE OF DWEIIING 066 DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Nom-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 3 $ 0-150 0 0-201 7 $ 0-150 0
AN9" ALL C EST IONS 20-40M 8 150-250 0 20-40M 28 150-250 7
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M `5 250-400 0 40-70M 157 250-400 32
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 2 400-600 0 70-100 152 400-600 11

X services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP
0
600 UP
0
100 UP
155
600 UP
5

x affected by displacement
3. Will business services still
TOTAL
18
0
499
55
e -
X r project
be available aft
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of
3. Will not be disrupted due to project.
i
ities
etc
l
e
o
r
,
.
s, m
n
emp
aye
X 5. Will relocation cause a 4. (a) Farm Bureagy 1)800 SF, 10 employees.'
h
u
sho
ta
e
i
r
g
o
s
ng
X 6. Source for available hous- (b) Housers Used Cars, 2,500 SF, 5 employees.
t)
i
(li
X s
ng
7. Will additional housing (c) Briggs Enterprises, Inc.i 2x000 SF,
ded
r
a
b 4 employees
e nee
p
ms
ogr .
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing

I ed
be
o
side (d) Jim's Auto Repairs 1,000 SF) 3 employees.
r
n
c
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families (e) Southland Gas Station, 800 SF, 2 employees.
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN

10. Will public housing be (f) R&R Mobile Home Supply, 1,000 SF, 4 employees
eded fo
oject
r pr
ne
11. Is public housing avail- (g) Tune Up Shop, 800 SF, 2 employees.
abl
e
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
6. Becky Ross and Associates, Mauney Real Estates
equate DOS housing available
iod
ation
e
el
d
i Keller Group, multiple listing and newspaper.
Housing is represented for both Gaston and Lincoln
p
ur
ng r
oc
r
13. Will there be a problem of Counties.
housing within financial
s
ea As necessary in accordance with State Law.
8
m
n .
x 14. Are suitable business sites
ilable (list source)
14. Business sites are represented for both Gaston
ava
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION and Lincoln Counties. Information supplied by
Becky Ros and Associates, Mauney Real Estate,
Keller o multiple listing an newspaper.
Ilk
C,

G•?1...sL?. (?? 9 /9 Z 7 ?- pZ-
Reloc tion Agent Date Approved Date
Form 15.4 evised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
R eI- O C A T I O N R E P O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT) 8.1830401 OOIJMI Gaston-Lincoln Alternate of Alternate
I.O. NO., R-0617 F.A. PROJECTS RS-4174(1)
l
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: _ Cherryvilie to US 321 Bypass

I

1
ESTIMATED OISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Typeof
Owners
Tenants
Total
hies
Q-15M
15-25M
25-35M
3S-5ai
50 LP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fami l ies 15 2 17 3 6 8 1 2 0
Businesses 3 2 5 0 VALLE OF DWELLING 06S DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M -1 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 7 $ 0-i50 0
ANSWER ALL CLEST IONS 20-40M 7 150-250 2 20-40M 28 150-250 7
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL. "'YES"' ANSWERS 40-70M -4 250-400 0 40-70M 157 250-400 32
X 1. Will special relocation
i 70-100 3 400-600 0 70-100 152 400-600 11

X serv
ces be necessary
2. WII1 schools or churches be
ff
d
100 LP
0
600 LP
0
100 LP
155
600 LP
5

X a
ecte
by displacement.
3. Will business services still
b
i
TOTAL
15
2
499
55

X e ava
lable after project
4. Will any business be dis-
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
types estimated number of
l 3. Will not be disrupted due to project.
emp
oyees minorities etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a 4. (a) Catawba Truck Rentals 2,000 SF
h
h
i
ous
ng s
ortage 6 employees.
X 6. Source for available hous-
i
(li
)
ng
st (b) Mini Warehouse Rentals, 1x500 SF)
X 7. Will additional housing 2 employees.
s
program
be needed
x B. Should Last Resort Housing
b
i (c) Gates Real Estate, 800 SF, 2 employees.
e cons
dered
X 9. Are there large, disabled) (d) C&M Land Companys 800 SFs 2 employees.
ld
l
e
er
y) etc. families
A49A R THESE ALSO
FOR DESIGN (e) Machine Shop) 1x500 SFs 5 employees.
10. Will public housing be
d
d f
nee
e
or project 6. Becky Ross and Associatess Mauney Real Estates
11. Is public housing avail-
bl Keller Groups mukltlple listing and newspaper.
a
e Housing Is represented for both Gaston and Lincoln
12. Is it felt there will be ad- Counties.
equate DDS housing available
i
d
r
l
ur
ng
e
ocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial 8. As necessary in accordance with State law.

14. Business sites are represented for both Gaston and
e Li
l
C
ti
m
ans nco
n
oun
es. Information supplied by Becky
x 14: Are suitable business sites Ross and Associates, Mauney Real Estate, Keller
il
bl
(li
)
ava
a
e
st source
15. Number months estimated to Group, multiple listing and newspaper.
complete RELOCATION
i
J
c.?%Q?? 4119 /y'L CAS ? /-?Z ?Z&?
Re ocation Agent Date Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy) State Relocation Agent
/? K 2 Copy% Area Relocation File
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 150
FROM CHERRYVILLE TO LINCOLNTON
Project 8.183040T R-617 Gaston and
Lincoln Counties
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will
conduct the above workshop on February 24, 1993 between the hours
of 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. in the Cherryville Community Center, 106
South Jacob Street, Cherryville, N.C.
The purpose of the workshop is to provide the public an
opportunity to review the current project maps and to discuss the
project with representatives of NCDOT and Ralph Whitehead &
Associates. A means for input into the planning process will also
be available.
The proposed project begins at NC 279 in Cherryville, follows
existing NC 150 to a bypass of Crouse, follows existing NC 150
from east of Crouse to US 321, also considers three alternatives
from US 321. One alternative follows existing NC 150 to NC 27.
The other two are on new location to the US 321 Bypass (under
construction).
Anyone desiring additional information on the Informational
Workshop may contact Mr. Jay Bissett, Planning & Environmental
Branch, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611. Telephone (919)
733-7842.
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids,
and services for any qualified disabled person interested in
attending the public hearing. To request the above you may call
Mr. Bissett at the above number no later than seven days prior to
the date of the hearing.
U
FEB - 51993