R-519

STAIZ
?J 'dam ~
y
0 k
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 Nosh Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor December 30, 1992 A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dornem .
Monica Swihart """/
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: FONSI South D eKalb Street Extension
Cleveland County
State Project DOT No. 8.1800501, TIP #R-519
EHNR # 92-0503, DEM WO # 7647
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 FONSI prepared for
this project which will impact 0.81 acres of wetlands.
1. Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this
project.
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.
nc209.fon
cc: Eric Galamb
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 9 19/946-648 1 919x95-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, Noah Carolina 27625-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
9Lq l
? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Number. County: Date: Date Response Due (firm dead in"
n13-n?. C(-P-Je(G 1 a- -rz 1? ??? gz,
?? 4 9a - 0 -IS;_0S
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
?Asheville ?All RIO Areas ?Soil and Water ?Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ?Air ? Coastal management ? Water Planning
? Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville ? Groundwater Wiidlife C3 Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh El Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
?
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
QCoastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
? Wilmington ?Othec
.
?,?
JEniron Management
?WinstonSalem ,
:' `.>? ?'.'...;c cs>?re,?
3
DEC. r 1991
Manager Sign-Off/Region: 'Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
'OT 10 N
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient Information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(les) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
It-
d Rio
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor December 30, 1992 A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dornem
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: FONSI South D Kalb Street Extension
Cleveland County
State Project DOT No. 8.1800501, TIP #R-519
EHNR # 92-0503, DEM WO # 7647
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 FONSI prepared for
this project which will impact 0.81 acres of wetlands.
1. Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this
project.
.i
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.
nc209.fon
cc: Eric Galamb
1_*.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 7 04/663 -1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919x95-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Preventlon Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, Noah Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
/,n Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural F:zources
Division of Planning and Assessment El Project located in 7th floor library
Project Review Form
Project Number. County: Date: Date Response Due (firm dead ine):
(CJ L ?2 la z
-6 5c? C' (-.ile
4 go- - o s?3
This project is being reviewed as Indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ?AII R/O Areas ?Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville ?Air ?Coastal Management ?Water Planning
? Water El Water Resources El Environmental Health
Mooresville
?Groundwater
Wildlife ? ?Solid Waste Management
Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? land Resources ? David Foster
ClCoastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ?Other(specify)
Wilmington
?Othcu
:w?,
y Os i
Environmentaanagement
El Winston-Salem r?
.
?
?. ?,3 . •
`sL? ??c?
J
y

DEC' ts9?
?Air--"? ?1tt? i-.
Manager Sign Off/Region: ,
'Date:
In-House Reviewer/Agency:
J:?tvT ?? 1 Y
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager. In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? No objection to project as proposed ? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
No Comment ? Applicant has been contacted
? insufficient information to complete review ? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Approve ? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked) ? Consistency Statement not needed
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for ? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
strengthening (comments attached) NEPA and SEPA
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive ? Other (specify and attach comments)
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
RETURN TO:
Shelby
South Dekalb Street Extension
from NC 150 to South Dekalb Street
Cleveland County
Federal Aid Project M-9053(1)
State Project 8.1800501
R-519

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
r /I
ate L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
/0? Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
11117-
Date Nich s L. Graf, P. E.
FA a vision Administrator, FHWA
Shelby
South Dekalb Street Extension
from NC 150 to South Dekalb Street
Cleveland County
Federal Aid Project M-9053(1)
State Project 8.1800501
R-519
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Mark L. Reep
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone
Urban Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
H. 42ranklin Vick, P. E.; Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
. SEA
P, ,N••K..L.I.N ...• 1,00
v
?? y
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION ....................... 1
II. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ................................... 1
III. NEED FOR ACTION ............................................. 1
IV. CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..................... 1
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............... 2
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ................. 4
VII. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT..... 5
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .................. 6
Maps and Illustrations
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Recommended Alternative
Figure 3 Proposed NC 150 - NC 18 Intersection
Appendix
A. Agency Comments
B. Newspaper Articles Concerning the Public Hearing
C. Protected Species Survey Results
D. Archaeological Survey Results and SHPO Correspondence
Shelby
South Dekalb Street Extension
from NC 150 to South Dekalb Street
Cleveland County
Federal Aid Project M-9053(1)
State Project 8.1800501
R-519
I. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to extend South Dekalb Street in Shelby. The
recommended alternative calls for constructing a 64-foot curb and gutter
section from the intersection of NC 150 and NC 18, south of Shelby, to
SR 1106 and a 52-foot curb and gutter section from SR 1106 to existing
Dekalb Street (See Figure 1 for project location). The proposed extension
is approximately 1.9 miles in length and has a total estimated cost of
$3,375,000.
The project is included in the 1992-1998 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Right of way has already been acquired for the project.
Construction is-scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1993 and to be completed
in fiscal year 1994. The estimated cost included in the TIP is
$2,770,000. This estimate includes $2,700,000 for construction and
$70,000 spent in previous years.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
A Nationwide Permit for Above Headwaters Fill in Wetlands (33 CFR
330.5 (a)(26)) will be required for project construction.
III. NEED FOR ACTION
The proposed South Dekalb Street extension will serve as an
additional route linking the central business district (CBD) of Shelby
with outlying areas of Cleveland County south of Shelby. Currently NC 150
and NC 18 share the same roadway through the CBD to the south side of
town, and the present facility is not sufficient to handle the traffic
demands of the area. The proposed roadway will help relieve some of the
traffic congestion on the existing facility, improve traffic safety, and
decrease travel times for the motoring public.
IV. CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The environmental assessment (EA) was circulated among the following
federal, state, and local agencies and officials:
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
z
U. S. Geological Survey
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Human Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, &
Isothermal Planning & Economic Development
Cleveland County Commissioners
City of Shelby
Natural Resources
Commission
Written comments were received from the agencies denoted with an asterisk
(*). Copies of the letters received are included in Appendix A.
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Comment:
"The streams that are being crossed do not have mapped flood plains
or regulatory floodways. The drainage structures on these streams should
still be designed so as not to cause a significant increase in the
upstream flood elevations."
Response:
The project crosses permanent and intermittent streams with
relatively small drainage areas. There is no established flood plain or
regulatory floodway in the project area. Since the flood elevations are
unknown, the proposed cross drains have been designed so that no
significant adverse flooding of upstream properties will result from the
project.
Comment:
Wetland determinations made prior August 17, 1991 should be reviewed
using the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual".
Response: ,
The findings presented in the EA have been reviewed by NCDOT staff
(refer to Section IV.D.l.b of the EA). For this project, a redelineation
of potential wetland impacts is not justified for the relatively small
cumulative impacts. Based on the topography and the natural plant
communities in the project area, impacts will not substantially change as
a result of redelineating wetlands using the 1987 methodology.
3
B. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment:
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned about potential
impacts to the federally protected dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis
naniflora). "Before the Service can agree that the Federal Highway
Administration's responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act have been satisfied for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf, it is
necessary that you provide us information to support a determination that
the dwarf-flowered heartleaf does not occur within the impact area of the
project. The environmental assessment states that a survey will be
conducted for this species prior to construction (see page 13). After we
receive a copy of the survey results ..., we will be able to make a
determination as to whether your obligations under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act have been satisfied. Further, until the results of
this survey are known, it is premature to consider a 'Finding of No
Significant Impact'."
Response:
On June 13-14, 1992, a survey was conducted to assess impacts to the
dwarf-flowered heartleaf (refer to Appendix C for survey results). All
forested stands in the study area were evaluated for suitable habitat.
Only two stands were determined to be suitable for supporting the
dwarf-flowered heartleaf. No plants were found in either of these
locations; therefore, no impacts to the dwarf-flowered heartleaf will
occur from the proposed construction.
Comment:
"The fact that you present documented impacts to stream and wetland
ecosystems within the project impact area, with no mention of any attempts
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such impacts, is disturbing.... We ...
emphasize that preference should be given to alternative alignments,
stream-crossing structures, and construction techniques that avoid and/or
minimize encroachment and impacts to these resources. Should impacts then
be deemed unavoidable, mitigation will be required."
Response:
The project right of way was purchased for the recommended
alternative in the early 1970's. The alignment was developed avoiding
wetlands, where possible, and minimizing impacts to unavoidable wetland
areas. Potential impacts have been minimized with the proposed undivided
typical section and nearly perpendicular stream crossings. The detailed
wetland findings in Section VII.D further address attempts to avoid and
minimize wetland impacts.
The majority of the wetland areas will remain intact and undisturbed
by the proposal. The wetland areas are small fringes associated with
headwater streams and offer limited specialized habitat value. The
cumulative impacts comprise 0.81 acre. Because of the small degree of
potential wetland losses and impacts, the quality and function of the
wetlands should remain essentially unchanged. No mitigation is proposed.
4
C. N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
Comment:
"This project was cleared by us in 1979. However, in the interval
additional information suggests that there is a high probability for
significant archaeological resources to be located within the project
boundaries. We recommend a comprehensive archaeological survey be
conducted to identify archaeological resources eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. The survey should be conducted
prior to any ground disturbing activities."
Response:
An intensive field survey was conducted to record and locate
archaeological resources within the area of impact (refer to Appendix D
for archaeological report). Three previously unrecorded sites were found
along with two isolated finds of cultural material. These sites, however,
are not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,
and no further archaeological investigation is recommended. The State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurs with this recommendation
since the project will not involve significant archaeological resources
(refer to Appendix D for SHPO correspondence).
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING
Following the completion of the EA, a public hearing was held on
March 3, 1992 in the auditorium of Shelby High School. Approximately 30
persons attended the meeting, including 12 representatives from the NCDOT
and the Mayor of Shelby. Four comments were offered by the public, and
much of the concern focused on individual properties and on future traffic
near the high school.
During the hearing, one substantial comment was voiced requiring
further explanation:
Comment:
If we had an overpass over Dixon Boulevard, I think it would be
much safer for all concerned, and it certainly would move the traffic up
and down from our school area much quicker, and much safer. We'd
appreciate your consideration of that."
Response:
Providing ?n interchange at US 74 (Dixon Boulevard) is beyond the
scope of this project. The interchange, however, has been included in the
1992-1998 TIP for right of way protection under Project U-2567.
5
VII. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Right of Way and Easements
Additional right of way and construction easements will be required
at the intersection of NC 150 and NC 18. Approximately 0.2 acre of right
of way is needed at the intersection to improve sight distance and contain
the proposed turn lanes. Proposed easements at this intersection vary in
width from 10 feet to 30 feet (refer to Figure 3 for proposed right of way
and easement locations). The proposed right of way and easements consist
of disturbed land which does not contain sensitive biological,
socioeconomic, architectural, or archaeological features.
B. Train Traffic
When the EA was completed, definitive train traffic data for the
Southern Railroad in the project area was not available. An average value
of one crossing per day was reported in the EA (refer to Section I.C.9).
According to the Division 12 Traffic Engineer, current train traffic in
the project area is two trains per day.
The exposure index criteria for an urban area indicates that an index
of 30,000 warrants a grade separation. However, the relatively level
terrain would make a separation expensive and require the acquisition of
additional right of way. Using the revised figure of two trains per day,
the exposure index is 43,400. Although this value is higher than the
30,000 index criteria for a separation, the resulting high right of way
and construction costs are beyond the scope of the project.
Northwest of the project, the railroad crossing at NC 150 - 18 is at
grade and equipped with cantilevered flashing lights and gates. This same
type of warning control is proposed for the railroad crossing along the
project (as discussed in the EA).
C. Cost Estimates
The estimated right of way cost presented in the EA was $135,000
(refer to Section I.C.11 in the EA). The revised cost is estimated at
$75,000. The total project cost, including the revised right of way
estimate, is $3,375,000.
D. Wetland Findings
Executive Order 11990 requires appropriate documentation to show that
there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction and that
the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to
wetlands.
All practicable steps have been taken to both avoid wetlands, where
possible, and to minimize the impacts to unavoidable wetlands. The
location of the project is controlled with a fixed northern endpoint. The
proposed alignment was selected as the least environmentally damaging
alternative. Right of way for this alignment was purchased in the early
1970's. The proposed alignment crosses unavoidable wetlands and parallels
6
existing disturbed areas. The wetland impacts were summarized in
Section IV.D.1.b of the EA. Shifting the alignment to the east or west
would not lessen but could increase wetland impacts. An alignment shift
would encroach on undisturbed wooded areas and inhabited developments. In
addition, a shift in the alignment would require the use of valuable
upland habitat and would result in business or residential relocations.
Potential wetland impacts have been minimized with the proposed
undivided typical section and nearly perpendicular stream crossings. High
points within wetlands have been utilized, where possible, to further
reduce potential impacts. Stringent erosion control measures along with
Best Management Practices will be followed to minimize sedimentation and
erosion in these areas during construction.
The majority of the wetland areas will remain intact and undisturbed
by the proposal. These wetlands are small fringes associated with
headwater streams and offer limited specialized habitat value. No unique
or unusual wetland or upland areas are located within the project area.
The potential impacts of the project are anticipated to be minimal from
both an individual and cumulative perspective. No mitigation is proposed.
Based upon the above considerations, it is determined that there is
no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands and
that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize
harm to wetlands which may result from such use.
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and comments received from federal,
state, and local agencies, the Division of Highways has concluded the
proposed action will have no significant adverse impact upon the quality
of the environment. The following is the basis for this conclusion:
A. The project is not controversial on environmental grounds.
B. There are no significant impacts on natural, ecological, cultural, or
scenic resources of national, state, or local significance.
C. The project will not involve relocating homes, businesses, churches,
or non-profit organizations.
D. No significant detrimental impacts on air or water quality or on
ambient noise levels of adjoining areas are expected.
E. The project is consistent with local plans and will not divide or
disrupt local communities.
In view of the above, it has been determined that a Finding of No
Significant Impact is applicable to this project.
11.4
_ ` 1 5 J t rV
ma?
?YZy ltl?? .?•
,? 1] 7 /.. Sch. u°WIZ 1441 1!!41
EIm t?
1706 7L
Dover IB
'f'SQe 1 -ti .0 ti fAU
1861 .25• Iv
5 SHELBY
26 I POP. 15,310
o
TTd IB t
A eU .
q 74W 9A ?14
1.47 \ 1AU *19 flus . \ / 74 BUS
F 1.77 18 7,f 130
/J 7A
c ° t
1\ ? 0 I/ fA
776 ISO 150
20 /\ 1 - 71oA TG70
R-519 " ?? =gym
-------- --314 _0----
?-- ._ -PROJECT - 776 ------------
LIMITS 226
t`An syp. I 2104
7A
1 t
e/ 01 w119 71
/ - Mitt' r ?? c •
/ 1237 n1 s I iiu \

/
1
• 49
,
/
12? 11 e ° 0
°
?
h 4 1770
- 75
c
?
1
1
' 3 t
1
.
.e sloe ?
i 'J
L
776
1 J 7518
73
e
7537_
7 `
-
°
1
3
17
_
3
`O 7371
r v?
v
\ / 9•
\/

/ //'••\?\
/
J
C e

1747 70
7551 all° l 1 „?
4 a ayeh. c
$heef .Og
O ) 7 .7508 B•L75
3
11.
°b •7J ,..
15 7
:
Q
- y
?/
i
; 1111 OE 1308 73t7 I7v] °•? '70 OO o 10 .
• V

'" ?
1 ,
)
?
e °
o O 1107
7307 l /
1117 70
®
I -.,
/ l
`

\ 12 lames l
Sch ore 1? V 2553
.

W
'
®
2
1781
"z
\

\

1737 JJ 1? /`

n 7
J e

? / ^90 07 a 7339
oe
P
?2•e'
'
l
1712 7!
150

® 1731

m
0 -
/% \ /
\?-? ?1' I 1 . o
70 1751
771 e /

7 - 1787
o
1741
2317

?\? / 731A ? 75
11
5 ' Oy
0
7^e
I 111

11? ® !

(?? '177t Y Ellis Chapel Cll.

? '?a 00
/ O
/ 1787 m B
-
SO O
Jj ?•
I1
.0) i
o?
1137. V 1131
Q
\
` 1715
_ \ ^
1516c 137
I - 60 5
ISO ` 1117

Q1]71
,
I
3
C=
Chrislion Tobemacle 5

Ch. 17s

\ .,
--- 12,7
/ to 24
\\ ? ? ? ? ? 1177
/ N lilt
51,
IS ` '
2530 , lSe
oa 1 ?^
177 °q eoi
155.
1110
0 \/ 1 \
777, ;
2374
1113 s
? ? 1111
o .17
16 Tae 1105
J
I /
7377
II29
I8 ?c'
t ?9
7.7F
77/v °
a
1787 276v
bus. 130 FAU
fA(7 s S t
?i, 299
1050 FAV
30
?I
n
c?
1932
?? 7117
7113 „71 oc 2p90
7ov7
Ch.
7107
.7_
?O
?i
noe
as .
SHELBY
NC 150, NC 150 TO
SOUTH DEKALB STREET
CLEVELAND COUNTY
R-519
0 mile 1/2 FIGURE 1 I
t 1 1 1
/ // I
.278
.10
RSON
NGS
731 72
y IS
1•
}q6 1710
r R¦. ¦ sy?R per. e u i?-.°__
1 { Mj'?y k\? X61` '!• \ Rh.. _ '
• a Rl ? A ? .' i a ?CS+'p`IP'(?14 ?- ?`.??'uti ?1 ?-. P ? w? r? ?' ' F' `? ? '
i ! 1 ? t ??:t* ? \ r "A,• «y`..w` .,•';, ( au? S-, `,x ?t'ut- 1• ,?, cy , k ,, ? ? •'?.
r i ; 1T1 ro .a`.`+'t, i,, _ - ,sq•: t ?R? `< ?4,- d -. ?:v1+, ?._•r -
.
,
•11 ,yu 4^.
a
a r !. <.: O Z rYi t ^Y- ,1 `:?4 .? 1i r• ' _ ¦ ?ss •, -'+H4?•ti ` "•.,".. -
ly? - dt r itj O y
n G7
27
t ° T td } ?t: f /r 1C)/?/ • x+1?1.y^. V r A ?1 c
VQ
4W Ilk
J'r tOt5tlO i ..,, t, ? ?•. rs,. +r71F? ?- ?•? ? 7? ?.,?`?[a'? 'F-+'? ????
,, . #•• .? k ` \ 'k fir''..'" 4` ' ' - I :,
it I
A, ??,. ! • ;?_'? + ,? Fyn[ a' *+r.", ` ,I .y4
,
a'? i+ t
vr[?
7v . ?f. N . ? , u - " • .i' \ - ? ? ? t• 110.x, ? ,. - ': y??1??,? , \ t.. ?? ^` ; !,.,
&
I.y,. .*"? 1 ?g , Y a?,. '•. ? a Y.. ?_ ??' ?,;r ,`? S ??S taad ?.r,. a i,1?1 , •
?+"? ? o- I '?,? ,.? `.,??' -; ??.t ,? i "!,, -:,?'?.,j X. i?`IM._.+1A •,...? ' k ?rt?'t?., ? .,' ??>?riil- .??'r ??" ? ?_, ,yW .?;,?? ?'H,,i
-,. '" . r,: t«'.` ,,9?'?!,?,???{1??" 11'r iil .. ?:.` d ??`,iy? _a +,.?a, ? t 4•?h? '1'??' ??t .??ri".j;:.' ',
}r?4 '? y'?r^?W i?9L `( ? '.'4 "{?. ,. r 1??? .i '? a?•'f.-.? ,3h '? e . bs. x r???j1 ;1E d1 W ?'?,'
(,p i, 7M?`. t "1? y `.m y
M qF. 4 Y 1 { T i
IF-
i
E
, ,. `? 1111'17x"' ^ s'? •? r r?'?jj
Ilk
??r „i •,?, ,t' ? ,? a ?1y, .t ?ra' , a ?'? 1, '??} t-?? ,'?' ;? , ? ? f1,?';?'?'"da r ,,? Z +M'?+`i
?++• ??'Y`?•,iT Q 1: ?a ?f""?i`1? ? a ''?.? '"?, 1 ^ • . E*Ar.}, ? ?;r :w!•: IR
r,r;,? `^ L,, f^kt , ea - y.¦d • x _
th
L „ y x?it»?,iT'- r { +,.. r7 L °ri tY a e'` w C,°u'J MI ( , t it
fz 11' rn _;;'„ 3 ?.r. = • s 'tR, r f ">i`;. k. ,ni, " f "r , 1 v. . '{n r? r, ,'?,'?'? ...".,o. 3 „',., .,X . y.
3 U
tt
?a t •, ?, 4. -1 '` j r -: r'7y ?R,iR_`.?7•?1 -1-I C; - t,' ? ,?<\ r'•R . S ? 71?"4-r
?dJ?."',. ? ?? .?, 1r? Y? ?• :; ? •+fy' ,t ci, avt •? •T"t' ''+'?1yt..d:' >< ? 'n .s ,..
•%Yy'' ' '?? ?? +At+N +a ?r a 'fi'r. ? ?? ? ?? ? ` ?+` '?' 4' -;,; ,? '1 r a'y ,,?,'•
M1 1
ri ? 3
+L ;
., ...? ? Y r' ` •, .. J• : ? ?•/ 'M.M1 ~' \. 9 art d ?f
,?- '•• ?. .+C 1q ? I '?' pi`.,.t+'}?__?r ?.?+ ? ? ? ? ,9 ?Ra?..A,. k . i .c f '}.:
? w w+ ?': ?? a f, '?. ''1'? rr?,?f•?i'?A''' ?' ,a 1'. ?* X + ?( r ?;`??q s? i
? ? A I 9 .* ,,- ? ?, d ? ?i'+• ? t? ? t¢'' Ate:. h * ? 1 >FrW 4 •` ? ,a,?.. '?, ? - r A? ? `'? '?
IK' yI 4 1jL i ?9 . ° t). r .r
i ,
t
^.: ' '?,`?` 71u. 1 •'?? 'r t'. , t?1 A , ? • t, r'N ? a .. ?`` q•, ? . 1 . ?? _
?.
dl A ?
;-1,a..i ?t.,.,t-a ?„t,r. '? i? ? ,t _ ? 'til- 's Yf:- .??s,-,,'?. r. r'-}?? ?? 1, L? i'l M?' .?,? ? ' } ' ?y?p _
v ? t, }pe,?a ?•? 4??1??"'jy •i{ ? 1 ?1 Tt ?.,:+?'„'? +? ?"? '\'I?t _Y?` '?. _ J-{ mvF} f r,
a
•? , ?` `Y!} wN Iwo alt 1 `9 _ !'ra w N r - r
41
,.)Mti? A A,.'" `,ltt a '.'' . ; M1l ? 1^.. •+-'•' ...?
Ili ? l a , 1?: ? ?T ?` ? ,* 1 iik. ? ? s . ? ,. . ? ? - S ?• _?}
,, i °:g_ .35, _ ? ?' vv,? „4 r 1., a ?? Y jl,: R,
Ole
114
? e.:?} ?} Y Rt' Ira Y ? 1 ',: ? {• . Y - ??
, r
Vot'
• V+
t s ° ?? . A 1 '.I!,' ,r. _ `?,Tk'\ ' SNr ` ' \ .1jwf ?? _ 'k a a ,? ??{ ' S
( . MS`S g^ J «
70
y E\ ,+IA? v ?f' ,^t i
J + M111L + ![S ?
• Al'
>. I `?{y:•. ?I' a ..;,T .', ?Ld•?' ?` »6 iii {c ,a.?r??w.tl
•IA w, f J _ r
? a ? J? ,all
?y?,r *• ,."' r-_ 1+ T il? If ?. `A ?L a,• y '. t 7j.4 tt? s:.• .-s
ANN
ro i ? ,' + ?
? 'a Sir ;4 ?x F'"?,`,A ? '?- _ ?:"`: ¢ s'^7, f?
??1 ? d , I,I I ??1 'dlA L\ ? Y? ? - M e - 1 -4` r . k Y } t ` ?. -5Y p ?a ` ' 1 ::;ilo'?. 3 . ? • t..? ? f `*Y'_t ^ ^1•w 6?+p1,; '?i ??1?• y , ??? + •? ? { ?} tM
' '£$' ? ? ,??s??`r? ,?l -P • ? ,?;Y ' •1 ,? •*' r > • T ` • j ;' L???t:7, .?. Ilk'"?Y•6
k t , ea ,4- 7 I 1
7? . r E. ji +•. • a .,': 'a °$ A ?. I' i;' A'11?,r. ow * t 'hii`KI,'`I., 1^ . e ,
41
It
• 0 ,. -,.? _ ? , J ?W'•. ?L. ?( ?'! '7?`dx , • . A v ,,' '? t ?' 7 Oat ? ,? '6! , 'I' yy?? ? ? q''3b A ? ? .?1?1
'• '!!.4'.1111", Y T
' ?Cf 1 ? ? #., A • t x i fiyye ? „? y, ? 1,. a ? a ? ? .N` cr I , r' a4 d?7"?" ? ?, }' ?. F ? ?' ?
j - ,Y vw
r j ? ? ' .`,d Ct ? ; a 4 x.?, .. +"i .'?'? \??`• ?'? ?,1 , ?,'Y-t,M " q?. {.-i(,;.'. ? j.,'
1,`.i ? bt yr

1
Li. 4.
r '
c :
w?yt?"??•.5. :1ts;.?>. '--- ?_ _..si.?___? ..._.kc:.:° .e.' • ..e:?fir?' \., s,i.;? _ ,.i_A ''+
?!f_t I?d'.AI!7 `C( r i f` vt? :..v
- ?• ',? 'w.'.'E, ?• - ? ? t. .1; a t. y?",,.,.?' ? ?wk"-v+'? .? :??
74,
*P w r
woo" woo
Oro*
? l??1 ? •i ? 1 €riG .f •' ° r'r /'D,?t? o, -`''tu, ?, ° ?4 ?? ?2 :1lt d< ?i,q ,. ?Z,i? I?y
G .Y
J' n p
l _ X u
,h l' ?M ?./? ,?.'1 ?`` A ,? ...?. _ ,r ?? ????..•g?:,? ,? "S y??4, ?+ t' atj ?wd mwm'?' O1 g
° u Zg iG
?- t ` w? ?rYf ?• i .r ` { vl{ r q!R.$?y U R O U
?r" o Z ? ? n u{
?i/fMIM;: ,,f•???1 11;1 a ???, `•sY

11 ir
,a
yAMEM? ??t? •? '?l. ? G d CL p
1-'11, ?v
VOW
00*0
vow-
0 AN,
¢ U) .f`?".
ozl
x ".? " ?J• ?4`N ?C1 `t ,a n C) 4hk` r` r!? ??" Y mr ws
q'i
I x? r ?If
?Iw `-t yltb ?? 1 ,,r tR ° Y rx4•X a ?` .2. ;` «;?
.r`'r"•r't
(+ T40!? 5 fr ,,,?k 'rid. •A'
?:` ?! ??'1?1??? ?«• - > rout} ,,?r ? ?• ? ..:? aS'.?aii' } :`,?' ?.
' r
O?k
f M '. !f' F1? 1?, ? )AfsLMMIS p .3 ?. ?4? •? y? ? y{
' J;,- '?&, \ >ye ?•??,n,', ?jr ?Ir? y t. R• a• s ']I ,1 +' `. a7'••. ?..ikS, R `4r
JA
1 i'w,4, 9R . ?,?6 r • 7 Y?,:' by
NJ,
.
P, low
40
'1 ?` ?uA ? .is 3Ijjj`??? „s x ?+! "*?•I`x` iyc ?, It k i r?:?4?
4 ,?1i r R ,y.. t E ,M ` "+ r <?,? y? i6 ;'A y q<'??
I-T
,."? t r? -? 5. - iYW ?' '? s •``^I ?? : 1 e-',?'
Olga-
•
'? ? , K r, ? •?. ?' ??;'(.'?t ? 1 ?\.\ ?^ '.i, ? ;,rte `° if••'? ?1'?;,?,'v-.p , ??y?'?y??! i-.
r '
X11 ? `; ` ?`? ? • ? ' ?'? '? `' , '?`, v ;. Y±? . ?` .? ?' ?' '?r . ON ? ?I'?•?+ a,?? ?,?• '^ ? 5
tom,, ?/' ?' ?` ?? ? ? . F- ""??? _+? ? ?. '.n. ? r b?" ?' r?y?. ' ?' y, '^",7? •? f ? ?1k ??`.
{ ?' ,' ' ;e?E't r+ x'^iil ?®'. "i': ' ' •?1,w:ll? •l' !'.` ;, - il^ k-s+ mk?• a..t g ;`q';• •'?
t Ir
1. "? ; R' .1 tM k ;.
14
IV,
yy t1 11 I S
?' ?\yl s
0 V44
f k *' s. •. .4 O
nK s_?;M 1' , , eyfi •ln,. a ,,,p'y .. 'k.. . , +_?
41.
- v...: "'r r " ,r ?• ? ?Mij?} ? y? ` ?t '?! . ?'? a ? ?? ?rr '?; ice! g£ ? C
i! , 'rM ' L - 4 \,?*.. `' i *•,34 ? R7 1`1 4 :..',s '-?. \'?-`4 e '?,. - 4? "s X `. ?•. " ? 40,
' +? t _ - a•.w ??..- •_ .....ar. --•? ..•r? . -..usu- 41?L?i1'L va 41
it ??' !?• ., .Y - R.?.
•1?. r j.. ?~ \ - / y .l ` + ?. rid'
low,
i .' ??I :±4_ art 1 ? 1•? _•-??.i. 2:..... , rGl•,y?., ??r ?. ... -A?., . t ' ,t k. ,.•1{"u?d9 ??4:? l°.: 'r e t ,.
It
W >-
\\ •\ f.?? ??\ '11'1 d;z 1C ??y O 1•?I
00 7
LLJ
3 Won
N Z
00
47
W Z Z o
Lo -j
W
W
i C\ (
?
LLJ
et
t- ? J W
Ott S
y?fi t62 01
z
1 ? ?? 3.61".9G`4 ??• '? I 1 I \ Q
N i\G = ?r r, I:QR © ??O b 136, Cam,' ,?-? \VQw
of _ ?I I 11'.? W
--Lof o° N Q , I =_I r 111 v
r---- -I `.I LLl ?I "?/ J '??i(i I :I?o •~ I 1 1/ ~ ' -? 6'.
_.. ___ -sue e '_ ' - " - s • '? ? ? I ? Q??° ?Ij- ??
,....•...... ¦.4,'.?..¦.¦. •?iu.t . r ..-+/ , ` {, o o - LL III ?n ,
\. 3'B`n ? 1 t51. pa?iR? Y3?• ^ I y' ? ?/?
•- _ O•? I ?l? - - r ?-C_ 6 -J?er?_ 3NONd3331 ONf10U7tl3,74'1 ice: )I
s b L Z 6 Z$ ?w.?•iN? I_ _- _ -
_ ?a•!-?-M a -'•?.??
••3¦.:•.? ?r ??qt-U 9 -i x. J of
-77
73
f f < .a LJ_ J.l .r,r`?
c?,_ is ? l? ? I' ?- `? 3 /•` v '
?l?"' Iii 'b ?? i .. _I `; /\? •
jy is f I ; 1 .
lT ?--?.' ld se ZG: 91 '
i., I ? Z S¦
ova.
4. 4?
8
C' to I• a+ y
s ¦ I? - 01J GO U]
..
N ? ^, Z ?\ z Ix co
'zip ?y I • s; \?_ i F V) ul
- -?- =- I -• ••• fQn VQI
U.? i J-.K 1 `/ ? W W
• i .S :Z •l
a a
03
APPENDIX A
AGENCY COMMENTS

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO February 20, 1992
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:
e+"
On-
We have reviewed the "Environmental Assessment for Federal Aid
Project, Shelby, South Dekalb Street Extension from NC 150 to South
Dekalb Street, Cleveland County, Federal Aid Project M-9053(1),
State Project No. 8.1800501, T.I.P. #R-519" and offer the following
comments.
The streams that are being crossed do not have mapped flood
plains or regulatory floodways. The drainage structures on these
streams should still be designed so as not to cause a significant
increase in the upstream flood elevations.
On August 17, 1991, the 1992 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act became law and invalidated jurisdictional
determinations made pursuant to the January 1989 "Federal Manual
for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands." Pursuant
to guidance from the Chief of Engineers, Directorate of Civil Works,
wetland delineations made subsequent to August 17, 1991, must be
made utilizing the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual" and those made prior to August 17, 1991, must be reviewed.
Since this action has not been finalized, the areas could be
redelineated using the 1987 manual.
A 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
-2-
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. Steve Lund, Regulatory Branch, Asheville, North Carolina,
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.
S'n rely,
Lawrence Saun ers
Chief, Planning Division
NT Op l
United States Department of the Interior
O - 9
N O
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
?'4HCH 3 ?5 330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
February 5, 1992
FE6 10 1992
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
D i v i s i o n Gf Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
0
TAKES o
PRIDE IN ??
AMERICA
5C=;= C3
0 0
Subject: Environmental assessment for proposed extension of South Dekalb
Street Extension to NC 150, Cleveland County, North Carolina,
Federal Aid Project M-9053(1), State Project 8.1800501,
T.I.P. #R-519
This responds to your letter of January 16, 1992 (received January 27,
1992), requesting our comments on the subject assessment. 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 is particularly concerned about:
(1) the potential impacts the proposed action may have on the federally
threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) and (2) the
documented impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems within the project
impact area, with no mention of any attempts to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate such impacts.
Before the Service can agree that the Federal Highway Administration's
responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) have
been satisfied for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf, it is necessary that you
provide us information to support a determination that the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf does not occur within the impact area of the project. The
environmental assessment states that a survey will be conducted for this
species prior to construction (see page 13). After we receive a copy of
the survey results (including documentation about the methodology used for
the survey work and the expertise of those conducting the survey), we will
be able to make a determination as to whether your obligations under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied. Further,
until the results of this survey are known, it is premature to consider a
"Finding of No Significant Impact."
The fact that you present documented impacts to stream and wetland
ecosystems within the project impact area, with no mention of any attempts
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such impacts, is disturbing. Although the
total amount of wetland loss is less than 1 acre by your determination,
your obligations under Executive Order 11990 (no net loss), the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, or the Federal Highway Administration's
Environmental Policy Statement of April 20, 1990 (...environmental
consideration to be given equal weight with engineering, social, and
economic factors in project decision making...), still apply. We again
emphasize that preference should be given to alternative alignments,
stream-crossing structures, and construction techniques that avoid and/or
minimize encroachment and impacts to these resources. Should impacts then
be deemed unavoidable, mitigation will be required. Therefore, until
alternatives to impacts or mitigation are developed, it is premature to
consider a "Finding of No Significant Impact."
We look forward to working with you to develop a plan to prevent or lessen
further impacts to important resource areas and preventing impacts to
threatened and endangered species. We would be pleased to meet with you or
your staff to discuss our concerns. Please advise us of any action taken
by your office in this matter. We appreciate the opportunity to provide
these comments and request that you continue to keep us informed on the
progress of this project. In any future correspondence concerning this
project, please reference our log number 4-2-92-029.
Si rely,
i
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
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
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Box 26806,
Raleigh, NC 27611
. SWEo
?.
- ML
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
March 18, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch o ??AR 24 1992
Division of Highways r
Department of-Transportation.
yi DlVi`,? i OF cQ?
a, ... . ?
FROM: David Brook f6Y
Deputy State is oric Preservation fficer 'CSEAR?a
SUBJECT: South Dekalb Street Extension, NC 150 to
South Dekalb Street, R-519, Cleveland
County, CH 92-E-4220-0503
We have received information concerning the above project from
the State Clearinghouse.
This project was cleared by us in 1979. However, in the interval
additional information suggests that there is a high probability
for significant archaeological resources to be located within the
project boundaries. We recommend a comprehensive archaeological
survey be conducted to identify archaeological resources eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The
survey should be conducted prior to any ground disturbing
activities.
The Environmental Assessment adequately addresses our concerns
regarding historic structures.
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: B. Church
T. Padgett
State CleW n loonus9Hones treet 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
APPENDIX B
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES CONCERNING THE PUBLIC HEARING
Public hearing
scheduled tonight
for DeKalb projeCt DeKalb
By Craig Allen
Star Staff Writer
tiz From page 1B
The N.C. Division of Highways
will hold a public hearing at Shelby
High School tonight to discuss
changes to the planned DeKalb
Street extension.
The revised plan calls for a four-
lane connector, with a fifth lane to
be used as a turning lane. The orig-
inal plan called for a two-lane
connector.
When the extension is com-
pleted, DeKalb Street will become
N.C. 150, linking N.C. 150 and De-
Kalb Street at the intersection of
N.C.. 150 and N.C. 18, south of
Shelby. When the extension is com-
pleted, N.C. 150 will be rerouted
from Lafayette Street to DeKalb
Street.
Construction for the DeKalb
Street extension, a $2.8 million
project, will begin this fall. State
highwav officials should award the
project to a low-bid construction
company in October, said Ray
The N.C. Division of Highways
will hold a public hearing
tonight at Shelby High
School's Malcolm Brown
auditorium to discuss
changes In the planned
extension of DeKalb Street.
The revised plan calls for four
lances, instead of two. The
public hearing will begin at
7:30.
Spangler, N.C. division engineer.
Spangler said the state normally
does not hold public hearings after
acquiring the needed land for road
projects. The state acquired land
for the extension project several
years ago, when the original plan
was approved.
But, because the project has
changed and because it has been
several years since the original pro-
<z See DEKALB page 10B
ject was approved, state highway
officials felt the hearing was neces-
sary. Tonight's meeting is a
"chance to show people what's
coming," Spangler said.
The DeKalb Street extension was
approved in the early 1980s. But,
complaints about how the exten-
sion would effect the intersection of
South DeKalb Street and Dixon
Boulevard forced the state to shelve
the plan, Spangler said.
Opponents wanted an inter-
change at the intersection, to carry
traffic from one road over the other
road using a bridge, Spangler said.
The interchange would include en-
trance and exit ramps. But, the
state decided to proceed with the
extension project without building
an interchange at the intersection.
Tonight's public hearing will be-
gin at 7:30 in Shelby High's Mal-
colm Brown auditorium.
The Shelby Star, March 3, 1992
Section B, pp. 1, 10.
DeK alb
By Craig Allen
Star Staff Writer
Expect the dirt to start flying this
summer.
During a Tuesday night public
hearing, held to discuss the exten-
sion of DeKalb Street in Shelby, of-
ficials from the N.C. Division of
Highways said construction on the
project may begin in June.
"We plan to let the bids in April,"
said Bill Garrett, of the N.C. Divi-
sion of Highways. "You can expect
const_ruetion to begin about 45
days after that. Dirt could start
moving by mid-June."
Earlier reports said construction
would begin this fall, after bids
were awarded in October. But, ac-
cording to Garrett, the state will
award the $3.3 million project to a
low-bid construction company in
April.
The DeKalb Street extension will
be a four-lane road, running south-
west from DeKalb Street to the in-
tersection of N.C. 150 and N.C. 18.
The extension will be a four-lane
road. A fifth lane, to be used as a
turning lane, will be added from
near South Morgan Street to the in-
tersection of N.C. 18 and N.C. 150.
When the extension is com-
pleted. N.C. 150 will be rerouted
from Lafayette Street to DeKalb
Street.
Garrett said the state normally
does not hold, public hearings after
acquiring the needed land for road
projects. The state acquired land
for the extension project in the
early 1970s, he said.
But, because of changes in the
project and because several years
have passed since the project was
approved, state highway officials
felt the hearing was necessary.
When the extension project was
shelved several vears ago, many
area residents wanted state offi-
cials to consider building an over-
pass at the intersection of Dixon
Boulevard and DeKalb Street.
Shelby Mayor George Clay asked
Garrett Tuesday night if the state
DeKalb
,r From page 1 B
planned to build an overpass at the
intersection of DeKalb Street and
U.S. 74 (Dixon Boulevard), near
Shelby High School.
"If we had an overpass over Di-
xon Boulevard, I think it would be
much safer," Clay said. "Is there
even any possibility of that over-
pass at Dixon Boulevard being con-
sidered with this project?"
No, came Garrett's reply. But, an
overpass at DeKalb Street and Di-
xon Boulevard is not impossible. It
must be considered as a separate
project, though.
No one voiced opposition to the
extension project, although some
area residents had questions about
right-of-way acquisition. Marshall
Ledbetter, of South DeKalb Street,
told Garrett that state highway
workers came to his home last fall
and placed stakes approximately
six feet behind the previous right-
of-way markers.
Garrett said state officials have
acquired all the land they need to
complete the project, except for a
small parcel at the intersection of
N.C. 18 and N.C. 150, which will be
needed to facilitate left-turn lanes.
The Shelby Star, March 4, 1992
Section B, pp. 1, 6.
tr See DEKALB page 613
APPENDIX C
PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY RESULTS
A „a STATE
o
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
May 29, 1992
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
Linwood Stone, Unit Head
Urban Planning Unit
Susan Corda, Biologist
Environmental Unit
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
) C1 C'_
SUBJECT: FHWA Protected species consultation for the
proposed extension of South Dekalb Street to
NC 150, Cleveland County, TIPtt R-519, State
Project # 8.1800501.
ATTENTION: Mark Reep, Project Engineer
REFERENCES: 1) Environmental Assessment dated 1/3/92.
2) Letter from Brian P. Cole of the US Fish
and Wildlife service dated 2/5/92.
The NCDOT proposes to extend South Deklab Street in
Shelby. The recommended alternative calls for constructing a
5-lane, 64' curb and gutter section from the NC 150/NC 18
intersection to SR 1106 and a 4-lane 52' curb and gutter
section from SR 1106 to South Dekalb Street. Approximately
1.4 miles, all of the project south of SR 1106, is on new
location. Total project length is 1.9 miles.
The referenced letter from the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) indicates that potential impacts to the
dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) be addressed
with respect to the subject project. The referenced
Environmental Assessment addresses the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf and states that several acres of suitable habitat
(mixed hardwood forest stands) are located in the study area,
but no surveys were conducted for the species.
A site visit was made on June 13-14, 1992 to assess
impacts to dwarf-flowered heartleaf. All forested stands in
the study corridor were visited and evaluated for suitable
habitat. Most hardwood forested stands are unsuitable for
the plant based on dense ground covers of other species such
as poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and Japanese
honeysuckle (Tonicera Japonica). Two forested stands were
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
surveyed to determine the presence or absence of the dwarf-
flowered heartleaf; one forested stand is located at the NC
150/NC 18 intersection and the other forested stand is
centrally located between SR 1242 and SR 1112. No plants in
the Hexastylis genus were found at either location. No
impacts to dwarf-flowered heartleaf will occur from proposed
construction.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Janet Shipley, Environmental Biologist
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
APPENDIX D
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
AND
SHPO CORRESPONDENCE
A R C HA E O L OG I C A L S TUD Y
S O UTH D E KA L B S T R E E T E XT E N S I O N
S H E 1-:B Y, C L EVE L A ND C O U 1'%T -r IV'
S T AT E P RO J'E C T S_ 1 S O O S O 1
T.I_P_ NO_ R-519
THOMAS J. PADGETT
ARCHAEOLOGIST
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
MAY, 1992
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This report details the findings of an archaeological
survey of the South Dekalb Street Extension Project in
Shelby, North Carolina (TIP No. R-519, Clearinghouse No. 92-
E-4220-0503). The survey was conducted to locate and
evaluate archaeological resources in the project impact area
in accordance with FHWA procedures for compliance with
historic preservation legislation. A brief reconnaissance
inspection of the entire project was followed by pedestrian
survey of all areas with potential for significant
archaeological sites. Subsurface testing (shovel tests) was
conducted in areas where ground surface visibility was
insufficient to assess site potential.
The northern one-fifth of the 1.9 mile long project
follows an established roadway where the land has been
affected by residential or commercial development. The
remaining part of the project (1.5 miles) is on new location.
Of this, approximately one mile was covered by pedestrian
survey. Previous land disturbing activites, particularly
artificial land terracing, were noted to be prevalent
throughout the project area. During the intensive survey,
three previously unrecorded archaeological sites were-found
(31CL16, 31CL17, 31SL18**). In addition, two isolated finds
of cultural material were noted. None of these sites appears
to be eligible for the National Register.
Since the project as currently planned will have no
effects on any archaeological sites that are on or are
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places, no further archaeological work is recommended.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ..............................i
INTRODUCTION .....................................1
PHYSICAL SETTING .................................3
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND .........4
SURVEY METHODS ...................................6
RESULTS ..........................................7
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................10
REFERENCES ......................................11
ARTIFACT LIST ....................................13
ii
ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY
SOUTH DERALB STREET EXTENSION
SHELBY, CLEVELAND COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. R-519
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is
proposing to widen and extend South Dekalb Street in Shelby,
North Carolina (Figure 1). The proposal is to construct a 64
foot wide curb and gutter roadway from the NC 18 - NC 150
intersection at SR 1242 south of Shelby to SR 1106, then
reduce the roadway width to 52 feet (curb and gutter) from SR
1106 to the existing Dekalb Street. The present Dekalb
Street will be widened to conform with the 52 foot wide
section where necessary.
This project was first planned as a state funded project
in the 1970's. The right of way was purchased and was
largely cleared for construction between 1972 and 1974. An
Environmental Assessment was prepared in 1979 and was
approved for federal assistance in 1980. However, the
project was then placed on hold and no further planning was
undertaken until the project was included in the 1991 - 1997
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).
Since the project had been inactive for a number of
years, NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration have
initiated a reevaluation of the project and issued a revised
Environmental Assessment (EA) in 1991.to inform the public
and review agencies of the reactivation of the project. The
EA was circulated for review in anticipation of issuing a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The EA was reviewed by the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) in accordance with the Federal Highway
Administration's procedures for compliance with the National
Historic Preservation Act and the Federal-Aid Highways Acts
(Department of Transportation Act as amended). The SHPO had
reviewed the project in 1979 and recommended that no
archaeological survey was necessary since the project had
little potential to affect significant archaeological
resources. In reviewing the revised EA, however, the SHPO
reconsidered that advice and requested that an archaeological
study be conducted in order to evaluate the project's
probable impact upon archaeological resources, if any, and to
determine if additional measures will be necessary to
mitigate the effects of the project upon any significant
archaeological sites.
The project area was surveyed on May 4 and 5, 1992, by
senior staff archaeologist Thomas Padgett. The scope of the
investigations was consistent with the guidelines issued by
1
L\
s SHELBY
b?. is.71o '?F
R-519
PROJECT -- ------ ;a =J= i1
LIMITS
<,o I.
21
1t
LUL
LLIJ
01
LW \ ,: 1z \
U" T
.? .o% LLM
Q?04
mLa SHELBY
' NC 150, NC 150 TO
SOUTH DEKALB STREET
CLEVELAND COUNTY
i R-519
zsoN t
mile 1/2
FIGURE 1
i - '
Figure One. Project Location Map.
2
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Treatment of
Archaeological Properties), the Department of Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic
Preservation projects (48 FR 44739), and the Federal Highway
Administration's Guidance on the Consideration of Historic
and Archaeological Resources in the Highway Project
Development Process (HPP -04, Jan. 25, 1989). The results of
the archaeological study indicate that the project will have
no impacts upon any archaeological sites that are eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
PROJECT SETTING
Shelby is located in south central North Carolina, in
the western part of the Piedmont. The local topography is
dominated by the Kings Mountain - Crowder's Mountain
monadnock, a granitic outcrop that towers over smaller
rolling hills. This erosional remnant is located just south-
east of the project area. Hickory Creek, a tributary of the
First Broad River, flows along the eastern periphery of the
project. Several small unnamed streams cut across the right
of way and feed into Hickory Creek. Four of these drainages
have been dammed to provide small farm ponds.
The soils are highly eroded clays of the Felsic
Crystalline System (Daniels et al 1985). These soils have
red to yellow-red B horizons formed from granite and granite
gneiss bedrock. No published or draft detailed soil mapping
is presently available for Cleveland County. In similar
areas in the same soil system Cecil and Appling soils are
typically found on the flatter upland surfaces; Pacolet soils
are found on the slopes. The area has been widely cultivated
in the past, and terracing of hilltops and slopes has been
extensive, in an apparent attempt to stem erosion.
The area is primarily farmland and woodlots in the
southern portion of the project. The northern section runs
through an established residential neighborhood of modest
single family homes.
The area of potential effect for this project conforms
to the land acquired as right of way in the 1970's (Figure 2)
and a small portion of additional right of way at the
southern terminus of the project to be obtained in 1992. In
general, the right of way is 150 feet wide in the new
location sections, and narrows to 60 feet along the existing
roadway. The right of way expands at intersections and areas
of anticipated slope cuts in order to accommodate those
design features. Of the section to be constructed on new
location, approximately 26% was in cultivation, 50% wooded or
partially wooded, and 15% in pasture or overgrown fields.
3
7-4
,t 3 `Y 40
• 1
? I•? c :? ?.t.
A
lly?' t
W4`? r ? 4N . { • {\ d,
W
I tk
% At
\t. ^? 5 T ?" ? ?•" ?,? ? _ "? ?'? 4 , h ""t ? .4 .. its 1 •>3< +s' i 8 rrr
?17.
y +IM _ *' t? ?". ?V \ _ . y R ??„-:B -..t ('i a'r'Y ••ICF.r i?????'?MI '\4? '_4 Ii?.
`•"!? ? r ? . 1-? ,Yl, ` .1 '? , f. Vt ? ?? A. Y, ; ,` r 1 t `- ?! ? ' ?, - w' ?"i .`` »a r'.6..
J •?r- ,?? ??'S : r 1 ,? ? r •i,' ?` i4'< 't• ?? y ?"???? ? --? \ y?' t.+Ty .. ?e?ht _. ? tY, ?Ak??'"'° c•--•fi --a ? Ws y ,*? ?'4 ? k nM -
? Y '' ? t ?•? ' S'. It =3 . ~1 4 t r?"?+x ?. ,. ?, tiai?. ?,+..."I' ?e
?'? ?Nt?•??? g• ??.. ,r " '` `?",? ?',i? * f.! "? 7! ? --- 'tf` ? ?? ?1-v fir, • • ? ..?u ?t? ? ?I.
,? ul??'y???? '•? , ti 'iI? -? ? ?. •+.., i . .;y r rt ? '?t,r- ?''?e '1q, dal n •',.?.?,'y?i'' ?.?'
" - y R? r9 4) yi i^tr ,I '? t ,r +,x a9t >,j r to ? ,r?-.
. et
0 i ? ?,? ? r•?- y? 4' 1' 1 ?? , t a ?Im?. ?? ? ? 1 ? ?+y' 1"
tl?K
h4lx ?. 3f ??? 4qf? _ 'I '" y _ y,} t .• ...++^ s,? :` r x?. ..'? - _' i.: ?.(r?..t ?°,?-.+? ',?^'s
i'u', ••. f"' i..: EC"r1l?`y.l?,'?,-\ .. !. '1!a, ?$"i/?rl? - ?'V ?'-' 'N 1 _ wL - g'Jw
It A
v
s . ,
`ray
n'r
L
{{ yy 4 . 0 ?. +.pry ?y?Qjj?
{? ? .. N? •,' ??'J ? - ^ Y? ', a t ..?) ; ? ? < - ? ?? lli4 1.:,.?,•?p 1 } e/I 1`.? ?l1 •- ?ryy?^',L+: r _y! '!^..? .M?} ^" '>rI'
? l 1?.: 7•. ?f V'y'?'. ? ? ?.- ?? T^ ??? :. f? ! •r^ ^- 1N' e€I?yM ?"• i:':. ?•• ?7p, wl..? <?,
wCP.
{ ! M1' : 'ry. A ?. !; / /tlli - .: 1 T .yam °Y"1 < :
led
F' ?sl4q'?'` "? - ;''° r? •- t? J Z')_?7" v?P i _ -.?y, 'yVJ?.7! ?;`':?,?y +? ?','.,? ,t
Rt• 4 1Hy:. ;?? '. !ii A .: \ e 6 purY" fr:' M',•1 3 o- „r.
t e
le,
IA {{ i . r'
(!! .?'?F 1? q' +?'. J?,,{rY; .'?Iyy."..??Yy,d.'a ,a• 'I +
ulk
?i ???t' ?"? ..r• -+- ?e I "t-:, ? ' - ?ii11• ? '?? ? Iw. ? ?-ly & r ?: y,,; 1 ?
?•t•a?7,,'4?i.?k• a? : t' n4,? 4w? j 7Y??w?Y? ?1 0' 1 ?t>K Y
i?r'pl :.l t 'y 1 •i r?,r'I «..,?' ' l 'irJ
,,+
IT '714
T y i?it.v (C w t' tn.;; y 44
-
!" ?a
",t., ? -_.,.?/Y+? • ? ? ,yA ?. ?rR , t ':M.: f ybd ?'fs'. -P.-' ? ?? n
10
AN,
t
po Amt..
011
s? ?r ,yy? 1. ?•' ? ._. r ` `!1lsii, ? h ? j ,.311 r••
I?J
(l ib eq? It * rt` r w F*e 11 d ?" :a kl
lye
7 /.r
? tl{ j'7,._,- f ?pl.,+ ." a t, r ?? I . 'ti` ?? .. ,1.° t ?'?A R ?1 ?.. ' ?;?? •I ' ?,?i, ?5 ?? ? ? ? p
*410
dt
t or
14
YJIyar1 F _ ?. . m a at 1 J +v ItA ,?P+{
v.°? P
1? ` , ? t? r t'-'a', .?;?t '? ?xq a s,' •" rya 1 If?"? ?
•frlp' l' ? ?" '•'? .1 "1 i,•?- J ??" ,! ?; ? ? f (?Jr 1 ? .? I ? ? IF` V
• h
`• ` F;+ dpi ??,
+ f] ; " ?'' ?• * L Y}'?' `°, t 'fit ? + ,?? ? 1?? '? ,' f ?? 1
1 4 1•,. t` I :ly \ .rr^'a`)'h?,? ti`A 71' , ,.1 , , {'?'? ?h !?... - ?.i a ?II?'•Tr ,`fit
y ?? a ^ w? 1 . r 1•-4 t ? 4 4 .. "Y ? T .n
4? .1' rf .. ?. • - T.,, .'\t'• 1. '? ? '?\_ -,Y k':?. ?I? ?,?4'- i f•? ] ::,11p' ?.1?
+}? Y:1 \ ?? ;?? ? f. ,. -? .I)••J.' a ?: It n'?y Y '?•?_'??~1ir. ...a..?... +`? ? MZS"" aP ,??
INZ
j'
Na ? r a ..? t ' },
,
"tk.
r y i , E'
!?• i`p, p ?'? • R{? - ? M ? }?S{? ` '? ''?:.: r? a ii w?.?{r-` ,,}, A.?,, ? u '?tla, 1 ? 'o• ,
#.. s \ ` "? •r w l ?• ? lrt ?"?,*. r '1'. ?? ? ` ? ? t•(\.? \ ??1' ??' .WNa?? '?: it 4, - 1 ??r
A •?` ,C 1 , ' Z". V ??+? a < a - ? t Y??y, s:. tit n? 'j' ?•
\ \?? / S /? ..1 ?. •?s:•.`. t?« ' ?, ?.Y .. `?V 1 1'i i•?, w +?,` :.,,,? 'd '•:lwa ? .?' y?' A• R C:. a ? ?, ?'R
i - L%m •tr4- °. __ _ ? .. .._. - _. ? L. ,r n..-.. r311?•!I.._. 1 +a?1,t'rF#4, i?:4? r - ,b.J •t.? kf?'.?t?:4?` .. t ?sy._:..
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Human occupation of the Piedmont Region began by at
least 12,000 B.C., during the Paleo-Indian Period. There is
evidence from surface finds that Paleo-Indian groups wandered
throughout the region (Perkinson 1971, 1973; Ward 1983), but
few sites showing more intensive occupation during this
period have been recorded. The lower levels of the Hardaway
site in Stanly County (Coe 1964) are generally accepted as
remains of a Paleo-Indian occupation, represented by the
distinctive Hardaway Blade, Hardaway-Dalton projectile point,
and other lithic artifacts (Oliver 1985: 197-200). Other
Piedmont sites with Hardaway artifacts are known, but the
Hardaway type site (31 St 4) remains the best representative
of the Paleo-Indian Period in the region.
The Archaic Period (8000 - 500 B.C.) marks a long
cultural development characterized by larger populations,
increasingly sedentary occupations, and the first use of
cultivated plants (although the subsistence economy was still
based upon hunting and collecting of wild foodstuffs). Many
investigators have postulated that, at least by Late Archaic
times, a system of seasonal exploitation of different
ecological zones or ecotones was in use by the Piedmont
inhabitants. Ward (1981) points out that this seasonal model
has likely been overemphasized, and that different models
varying from sedentary village life to seasonal migration
patterns could be equally applicable to the Piedmont at
different times and places during the long span of time we
call the Archaic.
The successive Woodland Period (500 B.C. - A.D. 1700)
is marked by the introduction of ceramics. Most of the stone
tool technology remained similar to that of the Late Archaic,
but new lithic artifact types (particularly projectile point
forms) appeared. Villages and towns were established along
floodplains of the main stream courses, where horticulture
(and later maize agriculture) could be practised. Hunting
and collecting was still relied upon to provide a major
portion of the subsistence base. Evidence of fishing and
mussel shell collecting has been found at some sites (cf.
Woodall 1984), and this may have been common throughout the
Piedmont, but probably was not as important a part of the
subsistence pattern here as it was in other regions.
In the middle of the Sixteenth Century, Europeans first
entered the Piedmont Region. Both the De.Soto expedition
(1540) and the expeditions of Juan Pardo (1567-68) are now
thought to have penetrated into the western Piedmont and
mountains of North Carolina, encountering the late Woodland
native societies located there (Hudson 1984, Depratter 1985).
From the accounts of these expeditions it appears that the
Indian villages were organized into territorial groups
commanded by a chief or, in the case of larger groups, a
4
hierarchy of chiefs subservient to a "chief of chiefs"
(Depratter 1983, Hudson 1986). These early Spanish
excursions into the region disrupted the native political
balance and introduced European diseases which devastated the
Indian populations. A summary of the current archaeological
and ethnohistorical evidence bearing on the protohistoric
period in the Catawba Valley region has been recently
published by Janet Levy, Alan May, and David Moore (1990).
For a hundred years following the Spanish intrusion the
region was virtually free of European contact. After the
English established colonies on the eastern seaboard, the
Native Americans of the interior again came into contact with
this foreign culture as English traders penetrated the
Piedmont and mountain regions. In 1670 John Lederer made an
excursion through parts of the Piedmont. He was followed in
1701 by John Lawson, who recorded his visits to a number of
Indian villages along the old Trading Path (Lawson 1967). By
the middle of the Eighteenth Century, when European colonists
started moving into the area in larger numbers, most of the
Native American population had been decimated by warfare and
disease.
By the middle of the 1700's a wave of new immigrants
(English, Scotch-Irish, and German) had settled in the
western Piedmont and the trans-Catawba region. The Catawba
Indians were still living in the area and the Cherokee Indian
towns were located to the west on the other side of the Blue
Ridge. Several conflicts arose with the new settlers,
including an Indian raid on settlements in the Broad River
valley in 1754. Lee (1968: 65) attributes this raid to
Indians (possibly Shawnee) sympathetic to the French in the
French and Indian War. The Catawba were "friendly Indians"
who allied themselves with the English.
The area that is now Cleveland County was part of Anson
County in 1750. As more people moved into the region after
the conclusion of the French and Indian War (1760),
additional counties were formed: Mecklenburg in 1762, Tryon
in 1768, and Rutherford in 1778. Cleveland County was not
formed until 1843, when parts of Rutherford and Lincoln
Counties were split off to form Cleveland (Corbitt 1950).
Several engagements of the Revolutionary War occurred in
the general vicinity. In June, 1780, a Tory band was
defeated in the Battle of Ramsour's Mill in Lincoln County.
The battle of Kings Mountain, fought just across the South
Carolina line on October 7, 1780, was a major victory over
Cornwallis' British troops.
Throughout the Nineteenth Century, small farmsteds were
typical in the region, with the main industrial output
provided by water-driven mills that produced wheat and corn
meal, lumber, and textiles. The discovery of iron ore
5
deposits in Lincoln and Gaston Counties in the late 1700's,
and the later discovery of gold in the region lead to a
flurry of prospecting activity that lasted into the late
1800's. The King's Mountain mine in southeast Cleveland
County yielded gold from 1834 to 1895 (Carpenter 1990: 25).
The region was relatively untouched by the War Between
the States, but shared in the economic devastation that
resulted. In the late 1800's, railroad construction finally
reached Shelby, with the completion of the Carolina Central
Railroad.
SURVEY METHODS
The archaeological survey was designed to evaluate the
archaeological resources along the entire length of the
project, using a combination of survey techniques consistent
with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Interior (48
FR 44716). Areas with potential for prehistoric and historic
site locations were covered by pedestrian survey. Ground
surface visibility varied from 100% in plowed or cleared
fields to less than 10% in forested areas. Shovel tests were
used in areas of low ground surface visibility.
Shovel tests were not screened because of the heavy clay
soil, but soil was trowel-sifted to check for artifacts.
Areas with very low probability for archaeological site
locations, such as lands disturbed by modern development
(commercial, residential, industrial), steep slopes (above
10% grade), wetlands, and narrow stream floodplains were
excluded from coverage.
An archaeological site is defined as a locus of past
human behavior, the physical evidence of which is still
present and is in such a condition that it is of interest to
archaeologists in the pursuit of knowledge about that past
human behavior. For the purposes of this study, the minimum
threshold for a prehistoric site is a total of at least three
artifacts found in reasonably close proximity as to suggest a
definite spatial relationship owing to original deposition,
or the presence of non-artifact cultural material of
sufficient quantity and found in such circumstances to
testify to its cultural origin. An historic archaeological
site is defined in the same way, except with the added
conditions that it relate to literate (historic) cultures,
that it is not a presently standing structure, and that it
is old enough to be considered for eligiblity to the National
Register of Historic Places.
Site locations were recorded on U.S.G.S. topographic
maps (7.5 min. series). Site dimensions and other locational
information, such as distance to the nearest water source,
was derived from field estimates and/or measurements taken
from the topographic maps and aerial photography. This
6
information was recorded on the North Carolina Archaeological
Site File Forms maintained by the Office of State Archaeology
in the Division of Archives and History. Artifact
collections from each site were cataloged into the OSA
artifact catalog system and will be turned over to that
office for final curation and storage.
SURVEY RESULTS
Three previously unrecorded archaeological sites were
found in the survey, and two isolated finds of cultural
material were recorded, but not given site designations. Two
of the sites recorded are prehistoric and one is an historic
period site. All of the cultural material found at the
prehistoric sites consisted of lithic artifacts or debris
from stone tool making. No artifacts were collected from the
historic period site (31CL18**). The area covered in the
survey is shown on Figure 3.
Site 31CL16. This site is located on a broad ridge that
divides two small unnamed drainages that flow together then
feed into Hickory Creek. Most of the site is outside the
project right of way, but some cultural material extends into
the project area. Much of the site area, which shows up as
woods in Figure 2, has recently been timbered. This cutting
has disturbed the site, but also resulted in the recovery of
most of the artifacts.
Nineteen chipped stone artifacts, primarily quartz waste
flakes, were collected at the site, which may have originally
covered about two acres. The dimensions of the site are
approximate; the amount of disturbance makes it impossible to
accurately determine the boundaries. In addition to the
previously mentioned timbering activities, a trail following
the right of way cuts through the site, two old trails run
perpendicular to that, a powerline crosses the site, and all
areas of the site have been highly eroded.
Erosion is evident throughout the project area, and
three shovel tests placed in the wooded or pastured parts of
site 31CL16 revealed that no "A" horizon soils are present
(except for a 5 cm thick humus layer present in one test
unit). The soil is red clay to yellow-red clay. No
artifacts were found in any of the shovel tests.
Three of the artifacts recovered were bifacially worked
quartz tools: two projectile point tip fragments, and one
ovate tool (possible knife or scrapper). Although none of
these tools can be classified into known typologies, they are
typical of Archaic Period artifacts. The ridge top location
of the site and the lack of Woodland Period diagnostics also
lends support to an Archaic designation for the site.
7
__ >?, .. - ? _ - ''? •\ ??'-'?..il v `?-^ ? Jr Highill?'rl P"?P'
_1Z I iiRadio•Tower o-L ?? \ I N w. Mr.-II+ ' _ s, r f f 7; i •
/(WXIK WO\S), ' I/1 R/ s I ' 'I• ffH a i,f
-? 1 / - sit I I ¦'? I r jai eive 01 ks _ 71'? I Cit
I ire all
-??lIt?
Sia I ;? ?? III .II i?t I II,C?.m?
`?, ?I? !f 7 I ' I ooset bo I ?I Armory ?' I \
?' b 1
I= ?._. •?-_
LI .1,(- i r+.a ee it Sr
1( ?' Jr i_ -? I C ?I' 9 B
Westviewl•
426 ?I 8°d
Orin x
3an
1118 (.Z6
plaste
• / ,' ?! ?, ? :/ ? ? (Iw-... it / ? `; '--/ r
%
iLte Sire t t >?// IJ
\ •?" ?\?? surveyed area a'r' r -I
Junes Love ?J i • - •prive-iri ,`??
Theater
/.IV v Trailer
,
=??. -•,(../ .•?1; '? 1?? ? .O ark \ Z •-? `??' ' ??? ? \, ` ? I
?0 % i
oar _h 71
7,1
sLan!
Chii
Tabernacle
.n.. / '_? `?- fi' r, .% ?. '•,•i .-..:..C1i• = '••'?G7c',\cG: a `?-
Her .10
i 1y? Park d: _ ?? i= /1 I?^?'\
?'F = = s A". I
JEL4CK58URG NORTH!
i A&UIt NF •'"? 32'30" ?c
SCALE 1:24 000
2 0 1 MILE
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0000 7000 FEET
1 - 5 0 1 KILOMETER C.
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET CUACRANGLE LOCATION
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
Figure Three. Area Covered in Archaeological Survey.
8
The small quantity of cultural material at the site and
the obvious lack of integrity of the deposits are factors
indicating the lack of significance of the site. The site is
typical of small, eroded, upland remnant lithic sites which
have very little potential to contribute any new and useful
information other than that recorded here. Therefore, the
site should not be considered eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.
Site 31CL17. This is another eroded upland lithic site
located on the ridge and slope southwest of 31CL16. In this
case, only two prehistoric artifacts were found, and both of
those appeared to be secondarily deposited, having washed
downslope from the ridgetop. The ridgetop itself was in
cultivation, but surface visibility was still over 75% so no
shovel tests were excavated. The field has been terraced.
The artifacts consist of one bifacially flaked tool fragment
and one large flake, both of quartz. Also found in the same
general area was one piece of a historic period ceramic plate
(whiteware). Soils were the same as those at 31CL16.
Since there was only a small quantity of cultural
material at the site (and that was probably secondarily
deposited) and the amount of disturbance due to terracing and
cultivation was so marked, the site's significance is minute.
Additional investigation at the site may have resulted in a
larger artifact count, but it is doubtful the conclusions
would be different. Given the degree of land alteration,
additional investigation is not warranted. Like 31CL16
above, the site is typical of small, eroded, upland remnant
lithic sites which have very little potential to contribute
any new and useful information other than that recorded here.
Therefore, the site should not be considered eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places.
Site 31CL18. Located near the southern end of the
project, in a small wooded lot in a pasture, is an apparent
historic period site that was designated 31CL18. A standing
barn is located about 100 feet to the southeast. The barn is
part of a small farm with a modern house situated to the
south outside the right of way. A structure of some sort
stood at the site, as evidenced by some large rocks that may
have served as foundation stones, and by domestic plantings.
However, no signs of a chimney pile, bricks, or any domestic
artifacts indicating a house structure were noted.
Therefore, the site probably represents an outbuilding
associated with the present farm. Two shovel tests were
excavated, revealing a deflated soil profile. Red clay was
encountered directly beneath the sod. No archaeological
deposits were found.
Although the site may represent
over 50 years old, no other criteria
National Register of Historic Places
a structure that was
for inclusion on the
is present. The lack of
9
archaeological deposits and minimal presence of structural
features indicates the site is not significant.
Isolated Finds. Two isolated finds of cultural material
were also encountered in the survey. Both of these consisted
of undiagnostic lithic debitage. The first was a quartz
flake found in a plowed field on the west side of the
proposed intersection with SR 1105. Other quartz material
was present on the surface, but could not be distinguished
from natural "float" in the soil. The field has been
terraced and the land has also been altered by several gravel
driveways, a house, swimming pool, and trailer. There was
undoubtedly a prehistoric site in the vicinity, but there
does not appear to be enough of it left to define as a site.
The second isolated find was also in a terraced and
deeply plowed field, this one located northeast of SR 1112.
One small rhyolite flake was found. As in the previous case,
surface visibility was excellent, but no other definite
artifacts were found. No site designation was issued.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Dekalb Street Extension project will not affect any
significant sites or properties eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. Although the project
crosses several landforms that normally would have a high
potential for prehistoric site locations, the landforms have
been so altered in the recent and not so recent past that
little remains of those sites. Since the late 1700's the
landscape has been cultivated. This resulted in massive
topsoil loss in the mid-to-late 1800's through destructive
agricultural processes (see Trimble 1974). Although not
documented in the immediate project area, prospecting for
gold and other minerals also may have contributed to the land
alteration. In the mid-twentith Century the Soil
Conservation Service actively promoted terracing of hills and
ridge slopes to slow erosion. This action is effective in
slowing erosion, but is itself a very destructive form of
land alteration.
Since the project as currently planned will have no
effects on any archaeological sites that are on or are
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places, no further archaeological work is recommended.
Since there are no visible remains or features that would be
appropriate for public display and interpretation, none of
the prehistoric sites covered in this study would warrant
preservation in place as a public exhibit. Therefore,
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (Federal
-Aid Highway Act as amended) will not apply to these sites.
10
REFERENCES
Carpenter, P. Albert, III
1990 Gold Resources of North Carolina. Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Information Circular 21 (reprint). Raleigh.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina
Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, N.S., Vol. 54 (5).
Corbitt, David L.
1950 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties,
1663-1943. Division of Archives and History.
Raleigh.
Cumming, William P
1966 North Carolina In Maps. Division of Archives
and History, North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources.
Daniel, I. Randolph
1989 The Hardaway-Dalton Type. Archaeological
Society of North Carolina Newsletter 92. Chapel
Hill.
Daniels, R.B., H. J. Kieiss, S. W. Buol, H. J. Byrd, and J.
A. Phillips
1984 Soil Systems in North Carolina. North Carolina
Agricultural Research Service Bulletin 467.
North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
DePratter, Chester
1983 Late Prehistoric and early Historic Chiefdoms
in the Southeastern United States. PhD.
Dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, University
of Georgia.
DePratter, Chester, Charles Hudson, and Marvin Smith
1985 Juan Pardo's Explorations in the Interior
Southeast, 1566-1568. The Florida Historical
Quarterly 62: 125-158.
Hudson, Charles
1986 Some Thoughts on the Early Social History of
the Cherokees. The Conference on Cherokee
Prehistory. Assembled by David Moore. Warren
Wilson College, Swannanoa, North Carolina.
Hudson, Charles, Marvin Smith, and Chester DePratter
1984 The Hernando Desoto Expedition: From Apalachee
to Chiaha. Southeastern Archaeology 3: 65-77.
11
Lawson, John
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina. Edited by Hugh
Lefler. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Lefler, Hugh T. and Albert R. Newsome
1963 North Carolina: The History of a Southern
State. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Levy, Janet E., J. Alan May, and David G. Moore
1990 From Ysa to Joara: Cultural Diversity in the
Catawba Valley from the Fourteenth to the
Sixteenth Century. In Columbian Consequences,
Volume II, Archaeological an Historical
Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East.
David H. Thomas, ed., Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C.
Oliver, Billy L.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the
Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern
Archaeology edited by Roy Dickens, Jr. and H.
Trawick Ward. University of Alabama Press.
Perkinson, Phil
1971 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points -Survey
Report Number One. Southern Indian Studies
Vol. 23, 3-40.
1973 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points -Survey
Report Number Two. Southern Indian Studies
Vol. 25.
Powell, William S.
1968 The North Carolina Gazeteer. University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Trimble, Stanley
1974 Man-induced Soil Erosion on the Southern
Piedmont 1700-1970. Soil Conservation Society
of America, Awkeny, Iowa.
Ward, Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina
Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The Prehistory
of North Carolina, M. Mathis and J. Crow eds.,
North Carolina Division of Archives and
History.
12
Woodall, J. Ned
1984 The Donnaha Site: 1973, 1975 Excavations.
North Carolina Archaeological Council
Publication No. 22.
1990 Recent Excavations on the Siouan Western
Frontier, North Carolina. Paper presented at
the 47th Annual Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Mobile, Alabama, November 7-10.
13
ARTIFACT LIST
31CL16 Accession Number 92122
1
1
1
a
2
3
9
2
Projectile point fragment (tip), serrated, quartz
Projectile point fragment (tip), broad blade, quartz
Bifacially flaked tool, ovate shaped knife or
scrapper, quartz
Core fragments, quartz
Shatter fragments, quartz
Flakes or flake fragments, quartz
Flakes, rhyolite
19 Total Artifacts
31CL17 Accession Number 92123
1 Biface fragment, quartz
1 Flake, quartz
1 Historic ceramic (stoneware) sherd, whiteware
3 Total Artifacts

14
s ?STATE North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
June 15, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological study, Dekalb Street Extension,
Shelby, Cleveland County, R-519, State Project
No. 8.1800501, Federal Aid Project No.M-9053(1),
CH 92-E-4220-0503, ER 92-8387
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of May 20, 1992, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Thomas Padgett concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey three sites (31CL16, 17, and 18**) were located
vVithin the project area. Mr. Padgett has recommended that no further
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We
concur with this recommendation since this project will not involve significant
archaeological resources.
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.
Si rely,
i
Davi Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
cc:J. Ward
T. Padgett
v
Preservation Officer
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
-.A'
10
A
J '

Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Division of Planning and Assessmont
Project Rovlaw Form
Project Number. County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This; project is being reviewed as Indicated below:
Rigicnal Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review

Ashoville ?All R/O Areas ?Soil and Water ?Marine Fisheries
? Fay-,tteville Air
Water ?Coastal Management Water Planning
?

? I„
III Water Resources Environmental Health
OCr3sV
e roundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ?Radiation Protection
? Vras hington ? Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster

?VJil
i ?Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
rn
ngton ?Others Environmental Management
Winton-Salem
199'2
f,1e;n
gj Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
l
Response (check all applicable) I
RE cgional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient Information to complete review
? Al;.prove
? Fcrmit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes Incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
? N?EPA and SEPA
EYO- ther (specify and attach comments)
ntiurtrJ TO:
Melba McGee
110 r
.n?>
4 z
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
\Villiam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
February 10, 1992
To: Melba McGee
From: Boyd DaVane
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
Subject: Revised Environmental Assessment - Shelby, South DeLakb
Street Extension. Cleveland County
EHNR # 92-01EHNR # 92-0503, DEM WQ # 4546
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
DEIS prepared for this project.
1. NCDOT should require that the contractor not impact
additional wetland areas due to the disposal of excavated
spoil material, as a source of borrow material or other
construction related activities.
2. A 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this.
project if it requires an individual 404 Permit or impacts
greater than one-third of an acre of wetlands under a NW26
permit.
3. Endorsement of the DEIS by DEM does not preclude the
denial of the 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.
Shelbyea.ltr/JRD-d-4
JRD/Wetlands REGIONAL OFFICES
cc: Eric Galamb
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington
703/2516208 919/486.1541 704/663-1699 919/5714700 919/9466481 919/395-3900
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626,0535 Telephone [phone]
Winston-Salem
919/896-7007
? I
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assossmont
Project Review Form
F'rrjcct Number. County: Date:
arid (?D,
31 L- ot (
q, Y(e
? Project located in 7th floor library
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
fegional OfficelPhone Regional Office Area In-House Review
??Ashaville ?All RIO Areas ?Soil and Water ?Marine Fisheries
?.? Fayatteville WAlr
W
t ?Coastal Management Water Planning
?

?
] Mooresville a
er Water Resources Environmental Health
. roundwater Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
?_] Raleigh land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ?Radiation Protection
Washington ? Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster

Wilmington ? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation El Other (specify)
?Others Environmental Management

.? Winston-Salem ,
.lt•-
1992
Nlanall Sign-Off/Region: Date:] ^ In-House Reviewer/Agency:

1
Flu,licnal Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
Cl No objection to project as proposed
tlo Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
Ci i\pprove
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been chocked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
aattached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
P -Other (specify and attach comments)
Fesponse (check all applicable) I
nL iuR14 TO:
Melba McGee
er?o?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
lames G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
February 10, 1992
To: Melba McGee
From: Boyd DeVane
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
Subject: Revised Environmental Assessment - Shelby, South DeLakb
Street Extension. Cleveland County
EHNR # 92-01EHNR # 92-0503, DEM WQ # 4546
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
DEIS prepared for this project.
1. NCDOT should require that the contractor not impact
additional wetland areas due to the disposal of excavated
spoil material, as a source of borrow material or other
construction related activities.
2. A 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this
project if it requires an individual 404 Permit or impacts
greater than one-third of an acre of wetlands under a NW26
permit.
3. Endorsement of the DEIS by DEM does not preclude the
denial of the 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.
Shelbyea.ltr/JRD-d-4
JRD/Wetlands
cc: Eric Galamb
Atiheville Fayetteville Mooresville
701(251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699
P.O. Box 29535, Raleil
REGIONAL OFFICES
Raleigh Washington Wilmington
919/5714700 9191946-6481 919/395.3900
Pollution Prevention Pays
;h, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
Winston-Salem
919/896-7007
a

Shelby
South Dekalb Street Extension
from NC 150 to South Dekalb Street
Cleveland County
Federal Aid Project M-9053(1)
State Project 8.1800501
T. I. P. # R-519
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Environmental Assessment
(Revised)
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
e L. J. Ward, P. E., Ma ger
Tanning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
??3 9 z
Date Nichol L. G a , P. E.
F°2 Division Administrator, FHWA
Shelby
South Dekalb Street Extension
from NC 150 to South Dekalb Street
Cleveland County
Federal Aid Project M-9053(1)
State Project 8.1800501
T. I. P. 4 R-519
Environmental Assessment
(Revised)
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
William T. oodwin Jr.
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone
Urban Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
If. anklin Vick, P. E., As istant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
?N CARD
s? s
SEAL
• c ;
1754 '
?Gl IN
?' ••......••• C? .?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY i
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Historic Resume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
C. Summary of the Proposed Improvements . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Length of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
' 2. Project Termini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
6. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control . . . . . 2
7. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
8. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
9. Railroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
10. Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
11. Cost Estimate . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 3
12. Geodetic Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. Need For the Proposed Improvements 4
B. Transportation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . 4
D. Benefits to State, Region, and Community . . . . . . . 4
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Recommended Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B. Reduced Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
C. Public Transportation Alternative . . . . . . . . . . 6
D. "No-Build" Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
IV. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. Social and Economic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Neighborhood Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Public Facilities and Services Impacts . . . . . . 6
4. Relocation Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Land Use Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Status of Planning . . 7
2. Existing Land Use 7
3. Existing Zoni ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
4. Future Land Use . . 7
5. Project Compatibility With Local Plans 8
6. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
0. Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Plant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
a. Uplands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
b. Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Federally Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . 12
E. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . 13
F. Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 15
.
G. Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
V. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . 17
APPENDIX A
Figures
APPENDIX B
Comments
Shelby
South Dekalb Street Extension
from NC 150 to South Dekalb Street
Cleveland County
Federal Aid Project M-9053(1)
State Project 8.1800501
T. I. P. # R-519
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to extend South Dekalb Street in Shelby. The
recommended alternative calls for constructing a 64-foot curb and gutter
section from the intersection of NC 150 and NC 18, south of Shelby, to
SR 1106 and a 52-foot curb and gutter section from SR 1106 to existing
Dekalb Street (See Figure 1 for project location map). The proposed
extension is approximately 1.9 miles in length and has a total estimated
cost of $3,435,000.
The proposed project is included in the 1991-1997 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right-of-way has already been acquired for the
project. Construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1993 and to be
completed in fiscal year 1994. The estimated cost included in the TIP is
$2,770,000.'This estimate includes $2,700,000 for construction and $70,000
spent in previous years.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will have a positive economic impact on the area
by providing access to property to be developed along the proposed
extension. The new facility will also improve traffic safety and reduce
congestion in the Shelby central business district. No residences or
businesses will need to be relocated by the proposed project. Wetland
losses are anticipated to be less than one acre for the entire project.
Any erosion and siltation caused by the project will be short term and
minimized by stringent erosion control measures. Thirty-eight residences
and two businesses will experience an exterior traffic noise level
increase of 10 dBA or more. The projected increase in noise levels and
associated noise impacts are typical of those expected from a proposed
facility on new location. [see section IV. E.] There should be no
significant impact on any plant or animal life in the area, and no
historic or archaeological sites are involved.
3. Alternatives Considered
Because the right of way necessary for this project has been acquired
and cleared, no additional alternate alignments were considered.
Alternative cross sections were considered including a two lane shoulder
section, a four lane curb and gutter section, and a five lane curb and
gutter section. Originally, the two lane section was to be built on right
of way sufficient to contain 4 or 5 lanes in the future. A five lane curb
and gutter section is needed to accommodate the traffic increases.
The "do-nothing" alternative was considered and rejected because the
proposed project will help relieve some of the traffic congestion in
Shelby's central business district.
4. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were
consulted regarding this project :
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
State Clearinghouse
N. C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
N. C. Dept. of Human Resources
N. C. Dept. of Public Instruction
N. C. Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
Isothermal Planning and Economic Development Commission
Cleveland County Commissioners
City of Shelby
5. Action Required by Other Agencies
All stream crossings will occur above headwaters, and the project
will remove less than one acre of wetlands. The construction will be
permitted under the Nationwide Permit for Above Headwaters Fill in
Wetlands (33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26)). Best management practices will be
employed throughout project.construction.
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
L. J. Ward, P. E.
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to extend South Dekalb Street in Shelby. The
recommended alternative calls for constructing a 64-foot curb and gutter
section from the intersection of NC 150 and NC 18, south of Shelby, to
SR 1106 and a 52-foot curb and gutter section from SR 1106 to existing
Dekalb Street in Shelby (See Figure 1 for project location map). All of
the project south of SR 1106 will be built on new location. The proposed
extension is approximately 1.9 miles in length and has an estimated cost
of $3,435,000.
The proposed project is included in the 1991-1997 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right-of-way has already been acquired for the
project. Construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1993 and to be
completed in fiscal year 1994. The estimated cost included in the TIP is
$2,770,000. This estimate includes $2,700,000 for construction and $70,000
spent in previous years.
B. Historic Resume
Between 1972 and 1974 all right of way for this project was purchased
and cleared for construction. In 1979 an Environmental Assessment (EA) was
prepared by NCDOT. This EA was signed and approved by the FHWA on March 5,
1980. A FONSI or other follow-up document was never produced-for this EA.
A public hearing was not held following the approval of the EA and project
work was halted.
Due to the time lapse since the approval of the original EA, policy
changes, traffic increases and possible environmental changes along the
project corridor, NCOOT in consultation with the FHWA has decided to
reevaluate the project impacts and present their findings in a revised
environmental assessment. This will permit NCDOT to inform the public of
the project reactivation with a hearing and recirculate the document to
the review agencies for their comments prior to preparation of the FONSI,
if appropriate.
C. Summary of the Proposed Improvements
1. Length of Project
The proposed project is to be 1.9 miles in length.
2. Project Termini
The project will begin at the intersection of NC 150 and NC 18.
Proceeding northeast on new location, the project will join existing
South Dekalb Street north of SR 1106. The project will end along
existing South Dekalb Street approximately 0.25 miles north of the
Southern Railroad.
2
3. Right-of-Way
Right of way for the project was purchased in the early 1970's.
Construction and drainage easements will be required at several
locations along the project.
4. Cross Section
A five lane, 64 foot curb and gutter section will be built from
the intersection of NC 150 and NC 18 south of Shelby to SR 1106. A
four lane, 52 foot curb and gutter section will be built from the
railroad tracks just north of SR 1106 to the end of the project at
existing Dekalb Street in Shelby. The portion of the project from
SR 1106 to the Southern Railroad tracks will be the transition area
for the change in cross section.
5. Design Speed
50 mph minimum
6. Intersectina Roads and Tvpe of Control
The signal at. the NC 18 - NC 150 intersection will be revised to
accommodate the additional traffic generated by this project. SR 1242
will be relocated to the south to intersect NC 18 at an acceptable
distance from the proposed project. SR 1242 and all other state roads
which intersect the project will be stop sign controlled. All
intersections will be at grade.
At the intersection of NC 18 and NC 150, exclusive left turn
lanes will be provided at all four approaches and exclusive right
turn lanes will be provided at all approaches except the eastbound
approach.
7. Access Control
No control of access is proposed.
8. Structures
No major drainage or highway structures will be involved in the
proposed project.
9. Railroads
A single track of the Southern Railroad is to be crossed
at-grade by the project. This intersection will be equipped with
cantilevered flashing lights and gates. The railroad has train
traffic of one train per day at this point. The exposure index was
calculated to be 21,700 which is less than 30,000 which is the value
used for consideration of a grade separation in an urban area such as
this.
3
10. Traffic Volumes
The estimated traffic volumes for the, proposed facility are as
follows:
1995 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) = 7500 - 13000 vehicles
per day (vpd)
ADT.
2015 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) = 12700 - 21700 vpd
Truck Tractor Semi-Trailer (TTST) = 3% of ADT
Dual Tired Vehicles (Dual) = 3% of ADT
The Design Hourly Volume (DHV) is estimated to be 10% of the
11. Cost Estimate
The estimated costs of the proposed improvements are as follows:
Construction $ 3,300,000
Right-of-Way & Utilities $ 135,000
Total Cost of Project $ 3,435,000
The construction cost includes 10% for engineering and
contingencies. The Right-of-way cost is for temporary and permanent
construction and drainage easements and includes acquisition costs.
12. Geodetic Markers
No geodetic markers will be disturbed by the proposed project.
4
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. Need For the Proposed Improvements
The proposed South Dekalb Street extension will serve as an
additional route linking the central business district (CBD) of Shelby
with outlying areas of Cleveland County south of Shelby. Currently NC 150
and NC 18 share the same roadway through the CBD to the south side of
town. The present facility is not sufficient to handle the traffic
demands of the area. The proposed roadway will help relieve some of the
traffic congestion on the existing facility, improve traffic safety and
decrease travel times for the motoring public.
B. Transportation Plan
Dekalb Street is designated as a major thoroughfare on the Shelby
Thoroughfare Plan adopted in 1979. Construction of the subject portion of
Dekalb Street will complete a portion of that plan.
Dekalb Street is classified as
Statewide Functional Classification
Federal-Aid System.
an Other Principal Arterial in the
System. Dekalb Street is not on the
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
Traffic forecasts for the proposed facility indicate that a five lane
roadway will operate at level of service B when the project is opened to
traffic in 1995. That level of service will likely degenerate to level of
service D by the year 2015.
The four lane section at the north end of the project will have a
level of service of C in 1995 and a level of service of E by 2015. A five
lane section can not be provided in this area due to the proximity of
existing residences which would greatly increase the costs for the
proposed project should they have to be acquired to provide the needed
right of way.
All intersections except the NC 18/NC 150 intersection will be stop
sign controlled. All of these intersections will be operating at a level
of service B or C in 1995.
The signal at the NC 150/NC 18 intersection will be upgraded to
accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed project.
This signal will operate at level of service C in 1995. As traffic
increases, the level of service will degenerate to level of service E by
2015.
D. Benefits to State, Region, and Community
The proposed facility will eliminate some of the traffic congestion
in Shelby's central business district. By improving access and safety for
the area, saving in operating costs, reducing travel times, and improving
general ease of travel in the area, the project will benefit all
5
concerned. The no control of access facility will also provide an
opportunity for economic development in accordance with local land use
plans. The additional jobs created would be a benefit to the area.
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative extends Dekalb Street, on new location,
from existing Dekalb Street, south of NC 74, to NC 18 at NC 150 south of
Shelby. From existing Dekalb Street to the railroad tracks just north of
SR 1106, the proposed cross section is a four lane, 52 foot curb and
gutter section. The cross section will transition from four to five lanes
between the railroad and SR 1106. For the remaining portion of the project
from SR 1106 to NC 18, the proposed cross section is a five lane, 64 foot
curb and gutter section (See Figures 4a and 4b for sketch of typical cross
sections).
No other alignment alternatives have been evaluated as a part of this
revised documentation because the necessary right of way for the project
was acquired between 1972 and 1974 prior to completion of the original
environmental assessment (See Section IB for historical resume).
According to an April 6, 1978 memo from the NCDOT Right of Jay Branch,
right of way for the proposed project was acquired in accordance with
federal procedures. The original EA indicates that a two-lane roadway was
proposed as an initial improvement with sufficient. right of way being
acquired to contain an ultimate four-lane roadway. The original study
further states that since the right of way was already acquired and
cleared, no additional location alternatives were considered. The
document however, does say that earlier studies of the project considered
an alignment east of the recommended alignment but was rejected because it
was not feasible. No discussion is provided to explain why the
alternative alignment was not considered feasible.
The subject recommendation will help relieve congestion in the CBD
and provide access to adjacent property. The five lane roadway will
provide for safe and efficient operation of traffic in a corridor
designated by local plans for development.
B. Reduced Facility
In addition to the recommended improvements, consideration was given
to building a two lane shoulder section at the present, and upgrading it
to a 4 or 5 lane section in the future. Current traffic projections and
area development potential are such that a two lane section could not
accommodate the 1995 traffic at an acceptable level of service. For this
reason the two lane alternative was rejected. An alternative with a four
lane section south of the railroad would fail to provide a turn lane for
potential area development and result in a substantial reduction in the
level of service provided by the new facility.
6
C. Public Transportation Alternative
The traffic demands and the population of the Shelby area do not
readily lend themselves to conventional public transportation
alternatives. Any public transportation services provided in this area
during the planning period will need to use a well developed and
maintained highway system.
D. "No-Build" Alternative
The "No-Build" alternative would have a negative impact on the level
of traffic service in the Shelby area. Traffic moving through Shelby's
central business district would have to continue using streets already
operating at or near capacity. The "No-Build" alternative would also
restrict the further development of land in the subject corridor in
accordance-with the local land use plans.
IV. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social and Economic Environment
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Cleveland County is located in the southwestern part of the
state and is bounded by Rutherford, Burke, Lincoln and Gaston
Counties. Shelby is the county seat. Based on the 1990 U. S. Census,
Cleveland County had a population of 84,714 and Shelby had a
population of 14,669.
While the northern portion of the project passes through an
established neighborhood, the community cohesion of the neighborhood
will not be greatly affected by the proposed action. A four lane
section is proposed for this area to reduce the relocation impacts as
well as to reduce other possible impacts to the community.
2. Economic Factors
Based on data from the North Carolina Employment Security
Commission, Cleveland County had a total labor force of 43,940
persons in December 1990. Of that number, 41,090 persons were
employed and 2,850 (6.5%) were unemployed.
The proposed action will have a positive impact on the economy
of the area. It is anticipated that the proposed facility will
generate residential, commercial, and industrial growth in the area.
An increase in the tax base will be realized as various businesses
locate along the proposed project.
3. Public Facilities and Services Impacts
No churches or schools are located directly adjacent to the
project. Shelby High School is located just north of the project on
South Dekal.b Street. Lily Memorial Baptist Church is located on
7
Whitner Street to the east of the project. There are no hospitals or
other medical facilities located in the project area. The proposed
action will not interfere with the accessibility of these facilities
and services.
4. Relocation Impacts
Since the right of way for the project has already been
purchased, no new relocations will be caused by the project. The only
purchases associated with the project will be drainage and
construction easements which will not cause any relocations.
B. Land Use Planning
1. Status of Plannin
The proposed roadway extension lies in the planning and zoning
jurisdiction of the City of Shelby. The City has an adopted and
approved Land Development Plan. The Shelby Thoroughfare Plan was
adopted in 1979.
2. Existing Land Use
From the beginning of the project at NC 18/NC 150 to SR 1105 the
primary land uses are farmland and woodland.
From SR 1105 to SR 1106 the project crosses several residential
and farmstead properties fronting on SR 1106. Large portions of this
area are farmland and woodland.
From SR 1106 to north of the Southern Railway the land is
undeveloped. From the railway to the end of the project at existing
Dekalb Street the land use is primarily single family. residential
sites.
3. Existina Zonin
The land in the vicinity of the proposed alignment is
predominantly zoned for residential sites. There is a small section
zoned for industrial use adjacent to the Southern Railway and a small
section zoned for business adjacent to NC 18 at the beginning of the
project.
4. Future Land Use
Expected future development in the project area should be mainly
residential in nature. Exceptions to this will be in the area of the
Southern Railway, which is zoned for industrial development; and at
the beginning of the project along NC 18, which is zoned for
commercial development.
The Shelby Thoroughfare Plan identifies the South Dekalb Street
Extension as a major thoroughfare. It recommends the initial
construction of a two-lane roadway on a four-lane right-of-way, with
8
eventual widening to four lanes. Traffic increases since 1979 have
made a four or five lane section necessary from the time of
construction.
5. Project Compatibility With Local Plans
The project will provide direct access to land which is now
relatively inaccessible. This should substantially increase the
land's development potential. This is compatible with the City's Land
Development Plan, which calls for development of the land within the
project's vicinity.
6. Farmland
The State of North Carolina Executive Order Number 96 requires
state agencies to consider the impact of construction projects on
prime farmland, as defined by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
under the auspices of the federal Farmland Protection Policy Act. A
soil survey has not been completed for the area and a determination
of the presence of prime farmland soils in the project area cannot be
made at this time.
C. Cultural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has reported that
there are no known archaeological sites within the project area. It is
unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by
the project construction. No archaeological investigation will be required
in connection with this project.
In the earlier Environmental Assessment for this project, two
structures of historical or architectural importance were identified
within the project area. In reassessing the architectural resources of the
area for this document, only one of these structures was located.
In a memorandum dated August 27, 1991 the SHPO states, "We concur
that the Hamrick Log Cabin is located outside the area of potential effect
for this project and that the Hogue House no longer exists at the location
cited in our letter of January 19, 1979. We also concur that the mill area
is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
No National Register-listed or state study list properties are located in
this project area."
D. Natural Resources
1. Plant Communities
a. Uplands
Pine Forests
There are two areas of pine forest near the project
corridor. The first contains a mixture of shortleaf pine Pinus
9
eschinata) and Virginia pine Pinus virginiana), mixed with
scattered hardwood constituents, including, red maple Acer
rubrum , Southern red oak uercus falcata , sweetgum
(Liquidamber styraciflua), and dogwood Cornus florida . The
second site is dominated by loblolly pine Pinus taeda , and has
an understory of kudzu and poison ivy. Secondary trees, found in
limited number, include wild cherry Prunus serotina and red
cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Approximately 2 1/2 acres of pine
forests lie within the right of way.
Mixed Deciduous Hardwood Forest
The proposed roadway corridor passes through 4 tracts of
mixed deciduous hardwood forest. These areas are situated on
rolling piedmont topography and are dominated by a mixture of
Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), white oak uercus alba ,
willow oak uercus hellos , Southern red oak uercus
falcata , sweetgum (Liquidamber styraciflua), dogwood Cornus
florida , shortleaf pine Pinus echinata , scrub pine Pinus
virginiana), and mockernut hickory Cara tomentosa). Other
commonly occurring canopy species include sycamore Platanus
occidentalis), water oak uercus ni ra , American holly Ilex
o aca , and beech Fa us ganrdifol-ia). Common shrubs include
strawberry bush Euon mus americanus) and huckleberry
(Gaylussacia sp.). Vines include Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera
japonica), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans , and greenbrier Smilax
rotundifolia). The herbaceous layer is sparse, due to canopy
shading, but includes Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), false solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa and
seedlings of various canopy species. Approximately 8 acres of
mixed deciduous hardwood forest lie within the right of way.
Agricultural or Disturbed Areas
Most of the area impacted by the proposed project falls
into this category. Approximately 44 acres will be impacted
within the right of way. This category includes crop land,
fallow farm fields, pastureland, and areas significantly altered
by man's activities, including residential, industrial, and
cleared areas not associated with farming activities.
The majority of impact occurs within fallow farm field
areas. These areas appear to have been cropped within the past
several years. Some even contain remnant crop species, such as
soybeans. These areas are dominated by a variety of terrestrial
grasses and opportunistic species which include morning glory
I omea ur urea , pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), cockleburr
Xanthium strumarium), ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Queen
Anne's lace Daucus carota , broomsedge (Andropogon spp),
Johnson grass (Sorghum halelpense), and beggar ticks Bidens
spp).
10
The roadway corridor also passes through a small section of
grassy pasture approximately 1000 feet east of its NC 18
intersection. This area is dominated by a variety of low-growing
terrestrial grasses and a scattering of broomsedge (Andropogon
spp)•
In addition, the corridor traverses several man-dominated
areas which include areas significantly altered by residential
or industrial activities and clearing not associated with
farming activities.
b. Wetlands
Wetlands along the roadway corridor are generally small,
herbaceous fringes associated with headwater streams. Five
wetland systems will be impacted.
Moving through the proposed project corridor from south to
north, the first wetland site encountered is a small site
associated with an intermittent headwater stream. The adjacent,
flat bottomland area contains a wetland which borders the
stream. The wetland is vegetated with a mixture of smartweed
(Polygonum spp) and false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical. The
wetland width at the proposed crossing varies from 10 to 20
feet.
The second wetland site encountered is also an intermittent
headwater stream, but with a rock substrata. The stream is
narrow, and wetlands areas are limited by canopy and suitable
substrata. Wetlands occur intermittently on bars and consist
primarily of smartweed Pol onum spp).
The third site, which is north of SR 1112, is a braided
headwater stream with both a defined permanent channel and an
overflow channel at the proposed crossing. This wetland is the
largest of the five impacted. It is nearly 120 feet wide, with
soils containing a large amount of organic material, crayfish
holes, and is saturated to the surface in September. Canopy
species include red maple Acer rubrun , sweetgum (Liquidamber
styraciflua), and box elder Acer ne undo , with a subcanopy
containing ironwood Car inns caroliniana) and saplings of the
canopy layer. The predominant shrub is tag alder Alnus
serrulata . The dominant member of the herbaceous layer is
(Arbundinaria i antea . The herbaceous layer is scattered due
to canopy shading.
The fourth site, located north of SR 1105, is associated
with a headwater crossing which varies in width from 2 to 20
feet, depending on the topography. In areas exposed to sunlight,
tag alders Alnus serrulata line the stream. The wetlands
contain a mixture of smartweed (Polygonum spp), and impatiens
(Impatiens ca ensis . Uncut areas contain riverbirch Betula
ni ra and sycamore Platanus occidentalis), with the banks of
11
the stream densely vegetated with yellowroot (Xanthorhiza
simplicissima), a colonial shrub commonly associated with shaded
stream banks.
In addition to the wetland areas adjacent to the streambed,
there are several isolated pockets of wetlands within a power
line easement, which appear to have been formed by a combination
of excavation and/or blocked drainage. The largest of these
pockets is 20 feet wide and 100 feet long and contains beakrush
(Rhyncospora sp), seedbox Ludwi is decurrens), woolgrass
Scir us cyperinus), rush Juncus effusus , and willows Salix
sp).
The final wetland site is associated with a small headwater
stream and varies in width from 2 to 6 feet on either side of
the stream. In cleared areas, such as the existing power line
easement, the stream contains a dense mixture of smartweed
(Polygonum spp), seedbox Ludwi is s pp), and climbing hemp weed
Mikania scandens . Sections of the stream within the right of
way are overgrown with upland vegetation and contain no wetland
vegetation.
Wetland Impacts Summary
Stream Stream Wetland Total
Name Impact Impact Impact
Hickory Creek
Tributary #1 0.02 ac. 0.05 ac. 0.07 ac.
Hickory Creek
Tributary #2 0.03 ac. 0.17 ac. 0.20 ac.
Hickory Creek
Tributary #3 0.03 ac. 0.35 ac. 0.38 ac.
Hickory Creek
Tributary #4 0.03 ac. 0.03 ac. 0.06 ac.
Hickory Creek
Tributary #5 0.02 ac. 0.08 ac. 0.10 ac.
Totals 0.13 acres 0.68 acres 0.81 acres
2. Wildlife
The various community types found within the study area have the
potential to support a myriad of vertebrate animal species. Common
mammals that may be found within the study area include Virginia
12
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), red fox Uul es vul es , gray fox Uroc on
cineroargenteus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and
numerous species of small rodent.
Bird species that could be found within the study area include
common bobwhite Colinus virginianus), blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata , American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning dove
Zenaida macroura , field sparrow S izella usilla , pine warbler
(Dendroica inus , and many others.
Numerous reptiles and amphibians can be found in the study area,
especially in the vicinity of wetlands. Reptile species may include
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), black rat snake Ela he obsoleta
obsoleta , and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina . Amphibians
may include upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), northern
cricket frog Acris crepitans), and slimy salamander (Plethodon
glutinosus).
3. Soils
Soils are an important feature in any area, as their makeup
often dictates what types of vegetation may occur there. No published
or draft soils maps for this area are currently available from the
US Soil Conservation Service.
4. Water Resources
All five streams crossed by the project are headwater
tributaries of Hickory Creek. All five originate north of Hickory
Creek and flow in a southerly direction. These waters ultimately
drain into the Broad River.
These waters are classified as class C, with a supplemental
classification as trout waters, by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. This classification
reflects "best usage" of these waters and is defined as suitable for
the propagation and survival of aquatic life, fishing, wildlife, and
secondary recreation. Although these tributaries carry a
supplemental classification as trout waters, it is unlikely that any
of them could support stocked trout due to their small size and
intermittent nature. Water quality standards applicable to this
classification are set forth in 15 NCAC 2B .0200, Classifications and
Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North
Carolina.
Strict adherence to Best Management Practices should be
advocated during the design and construction phases of this project
in order to minimize impacts to water resources.
5. Federally Protected Species
Plant and animal-species with the federal protection status of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), or Purposed
13
Threatened (PT) are protected under the federal Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531-1543). Information was collected
from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program regarding the potential presence of protected
species within the study area.
One federally Threatened species, the dwarf-flowering heartleaf
(Hexastylis naniflora), is listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
as potentially occurring within the study area. The dwarf-flowering
heartleaf is morphologically difficult to distinguish from the more
common heartleaf (Hexastylis virginica) unless the species is
flowering, which usually occurs in April-June.
Dwarf-flowering heartleaf is usually found in sandy, acidic
soils, in and around ravines, in mixed deciduous hardwood forests
with mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia . In Cleveland County, the two
soil types it would occur on are Pacelet and Madison soils. Although
the potential occurrence of Pacelet soils and the possible presence
of several acres of mixed deciduous hardwood forest habitat make its
presence a possibility, the species is not likely to occur within the
subject corridor. A field investigation will be conducted prior to
project construction to insure that the species does not occur in the
project area.
E. Hiahwav Traffic Noise Analvsis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
project on noise levels in the immediate project area. Traffic noise
impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of
highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of
Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be used in
the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23
CFR, Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various
land uses is presented in Table N2. 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.
It is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was available for
use in this noise analysis. Only existing natural or man-made barriers
were included in the model. The roadway section and proposed
intersections were assumed to be 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 year 2015.
The noise abatement criteria summary for each alternative is listed
in Table N5. The approximate number of receptors expected to experience
traffic noise impacts, either by approaching or exceeding their respective
14
FHWA noise abatement criteria or by substantial increase, are
listed for each activity category. Some 40 receptors (38 residences and 2
businesses) are predicted to experience noise impacts with the
construction of the project.
Predicted noise level increases from this project range from +2 to
+30 dBA. Large variations and substantial increases in exterior noise
levels are common on new location projects due to the new road traversing
areas that currently have little or no highway traffic noise in their
acoustic environment. When real-life noises are heard, level changes of
2-3 dBA are barely perceptible. A 5 dBA change is more readily
noticeable, and a 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or
a halving of the loudness of the sound.
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with
"approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b]
substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of
substantial increase is shown in Figure N2. Consideration for noise
abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in either
category.
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 earth berms or artificial abatement walls. However, these,
mitigating measures may not be feasible or reasonable in all cases,
particularly for receptors with frontage along primary or secondary roads
which cross the proposed project. Reduction of traffic noise from the
proposed roadway may not necessarily lower the noise levels at these
receptors to within the recommended noise abatement criteria and/or below
a substantial noise level increase.
The project will maintain uncontrolled access with driveway
connections permitted for each abutting property. All intersecting
roadways will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be
high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant
sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce
the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically
unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety
at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient
reduction, a barrier's length would normally be eight (8) times the
distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor
located 50 feet from the barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet
long. An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit
its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter
5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
15
Businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along
a particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility.
Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to
disallow these two qualities and, thus, would not be acceptable abatement
measures in their case.
Based on past project experience, isolated receptors generally
require noise barriers which are too costly because of the length and
height required for a reasonable noise level reduction. For this reason,
no isolated receptors were analyzed in detail for this report.
Purchasing the residences which are projected to experience a
substantial noise increase or providing noise insulation for such
residences would greatly increase the cost of this project and would
render the project prohibitively expensive.
Based on the above factors, no physical abatement measures are
feasible and none are recommended for this project.
The projected increase in noise levels and associated noise impacts
are expected of a proposed facility on new location. 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 and none is proposed. This evaluation
completes the highway traffic noise requirements, and unless a major
project change develops, no additional reports are required for this
project.
F. Air Quality Analysis
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model For Predicting Air Pollutant
Levels Near Highways And Arterial Streets" was used to predict the CO
concentration at the nearest sensitive receptors to the project.
The background CO concentrations for the project area was estimated
to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR)
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most
rural areas.
The closest receptor affected by "worst case" air quality conditions
resulting from building the proposed 5-lane curb and gutter section (from
NC 18/NC 150 to SR 1106) was receptor R1 (residence). With the
construction of the 4-lane curb and gutter section (from SR 1106 to South
Dekalb Street), receptor R57 will likely experience "worst-case" air
quality conditions. The predicted 2000 and 2010 one hour average CO
concentrations for the proposed project are as follows:
16
One Hour
Closest CO Conc.(ppm)
Cross Section Receptor 2000 2010
5-lane curb and gutter R1 (Res) 3.5 3.4
4-lane curb and gutter R57 (Res) 4.2 4.0
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
1-hour - 35 ppm; 8-hour average - 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these
standards. Since the results of the "worst case" 1-hour CO analysis is
less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not
exceed the standard.
The project is located within the Eastern Mountain Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Cleveland County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this
project.
G. Construction Impacts
There are some environmental impacts normally associated with the
construction of highways. These are generally of short term duration and
measures will be taken to minimize these impacts.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition, and other operations will be
removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the
contractor. Any burning done will be in accordance with applicable local
laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina Implementation
Plan for Air Quality in compliance with 15 NCAC I.D. 0520. Care will be
taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practicable
from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create
hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant
surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of
motorists or area residents.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications, which is entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution". The N. C. Division of
Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
which has been approved by the N. C. Sedimentation Control Commission.
This program consists of the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and
sedimentation contained in the "N. C. Highway.Standard Specifications for
Roads and Structures" together with the policies of the Division of
Highways regarding the control of accelerated erosion and sedimentation on
work performed by State Forces.
17
Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas'that are outside of
the right-of-way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required
by the plans or special provisions or unless disposal within the
right-of-way is permitted by the Engineer.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes. Care will be taken not to block
existing drainage ditches.
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the contractor shall obtain certification from the State Historic
Preservation Officer of the State Department of Cultural Resources that
the removal of the material from the borrow source will have no effect on
any known district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed on
the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification
shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the
proposed borrow source.
General construction noise impacts such as temporary speech
interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near
the project can be expected, particularly from paving operations and from
the earth moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering
the relatively short term nature of construction noise, these impacts are
not expected to be significant. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby structures will moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
V. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were
consulted regarding this project:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
State Clearinghouse
N. C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
N. C. Dept. of Human Resources
N. C. Dept. of Public Instruction
N. C. Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
Isothermal Planning and Economic Development Commission
Cleveland County Commissioners
City of Shelby
Comments received when the original Environmental Assessment was
circulated in 1980 are included in Appendix B.
WTG/plr
APPENDIX A
lvsa r.u
^.09 ?? ?W \p?14¢j ! y0 J t'J lee 16
11? ? 191JCi0e42 ??
/o o ?• sj
le 1
,? nce IElm. Sch. 0 1117 / fro JA \
/ I?o6 ?o
Dorar "}p
° 1361 .25 lose
a SHELBY
226 POP. 15,310
g I SU& 150 r.??-
J 7.
226 1 Is
.,?
i.
7e 233v'10 ! i
7510 ' e , 193L
nw 1..7
/ e.u 01a
?. 7e BUS 127 WS 150
.18
4E At
(
4/ x26 ISO
1123' 1 50 O
? ji p? 2g70
gyp.
c° R-519 ?i
I a --
/ ?m
226 1e ;
so
PROJECT --- ----
IF,
e ,
LIMITS 226 3°
\ 74. 1so 1210, / 10
err. 7
00{? 17.8 7. t?
/ Oe .... / 7< 2)94
/ 2ne
/ y„33v _ J 104 22
/ 1257 .o \ 2117
III! 1225
2115 21 x 2:
/ Ille ? ? ?` 1 <`
1220 2193
w ^ ':.. s
1 f
_ _ JS
/ 121 2S? ° 2525 "pt 9 27'. II I 7120 -129 1233 6 i•
23 a 2575 ? 123!• ? II1! '• .<9 1126 ? ? ?-?1,?
04 O
/ 21]2 - ?O 1371 r
ss 1116 o
2e. Putnam Ch. ti
W.yette O '!
1793 16 Street Ob
2511 ^0 -73Ca Al / '09 '71 123
I 1 I I l 06 25ce ? 1797 05 70 /? •/ Z
I r S O 2507 y/ 10 p ® r \
/. t'z. - env I e
1 Sch.2 James love i I1 7 ?J 7533 t ¢
® ? ° \
7so
\\ ?'
117 la 17e CePO 2379~ a G'bo \ c 1105
C ?h ?.? 1212 150 J e 0 - o Od 012 1 - I \ 2.
1251 oa / m ?W
?/ 70 _271 i
Z517 12.. C 1217 1241 .In I A •d
\t\/ 2 251. _25. y,w '1224 v Ellis Chapel Ch. I \
]233 ., 1e 11!7" floe A
O ISO
el .Ol r 1,.5 © ? 2359
e\ i .1732 731
. .vV .
_ 2315 ]Slat 257 e0 y ?3 p.
\ 2 OS
\ t .II <5 ISO `,U v??i3J.` / Ib 2:
? I
Ch-tiara Tabernacle 05 '<` I O
JCh. /p 1235
IW
/ ^ Ix Lx
!,V la 2107 Tic \ I W
\g1 C6 yb \: 11,; 1105_0 1 /
z4o
" 2713 2179 a z 1103
771
I / \? '? 1111 2774 • 1 / , < 2371 '? - j399 2739
2375 2215
.12 1° 279.
/ 1236
233! _ 127 411- .16 TICS 1 c 7369
106 B T
°A 1103 2371
v 5,13 34 `, ? - 1 I Ilis
0?/ 1 Je
l '
2532 a
1179
/
i
SHELBY
NC 150, NC 150 TO
SOUTH DEKALB STREET
CLEVELAND COUNTY
R-519
0 mile 1/2 FIGURE 1
1 1 1
,
RSON
NGS
.731
.1
SOUTH DEKALB STREET EXTENSION FROM NC 15.0 TO
SOUTH DEKALB STREET
EST. 1995/2015 ADT IN HUNDREDS
NC 150,
NC 150
NC 18
SURE 3
z
_O
U
LU
rr
W
0
rr
D
U
w
z
J
LO
co
1
L
LL
? F
(D
CO
N
T
N
r
N
r
N
T
N
T
d'
W
rr
M
0
U-
.0
It
z
O
U
rWn
V
ao

N
T
LU
V
LL
rr
W
1
D
D LL
LL.
r N
z LO
co
rr
U
W
z
Nt ;3
N
T
N
T
N
r
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
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
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110

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

D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70

E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50

Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40

Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10

0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
Table N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
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 significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
e 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped Lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CRF) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITICN OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
NC-150, FROM NC-150 AT NC-18 TO SOUTH DEKALB STREET IN SHELBY
CLEVELAND COUNTY, STATE PROJECT t 8.1800501, TIP 0 R-519
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
11 NC-18-150, 0 .2 mile N of NC-150 Grassy Area 65
2 SR-1105, 0.4 mile E of NC-18-150 Grassy Area 53
3 SR-1106, 0.4 mile S of SR-1114 Grassy Area 54
A2 SR-1112, 0.2 mile E of NC-18-150 Grass Pasture 51
Notes => 1 dBA levels at numbered sites were measured at 50 feet from
the center of the nearest lane of traffic.
2 dBA level at lettered site was measured to establish ambient
baseline level.
RECEPTOR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE N4 1/2
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOS URES
NC-150, FROM NC-150 AT NC-18 TO SOUTH DEKALS STREET
SHELBY, CL EVELAND COUN TY
STATE PROJECT # 8 .1800501, TI P # R- 519
AMBIENT DIST TO PREDICTED MAX FIRED NOISE
RECEPTOR NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPO SED NOISE LEVEL NOISE LEVEL
LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCE LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y- LEVEL INCREASE

NC-18 to SR-1112
Residence B NC-18 50' R 66 50' L - - * 70 + 4
Residence 8 " 330' R 51 100' R - - 65 * +14
Residence a " 430' R 51 165' R - - 61 * +10
Residence a If 505' R 51 225' R - - 58 + 7
Residence B if 940' R 51 80' R -------------- R/W------- ------
Residence 8 " 955' R 51 85' R -------------- R/W------- ------
SR-1112 to SR-1106
Residence a SR-1105 475' l 51 Z15' L - - 59 + 8
Residence B 320' L 51 200' L - - 60 + 9
Residence B " 180' L 51 150' L - - 62 * +11
Residence B " 80' L 51 190' R - - 60 + 9
Residence 8 SR-1106 450' L 51 280' L - - 56 + 5
Residence a " 380' L 51 . 210' L - - 59 + 8
Residence a " 210' L 51 140' L - - 63 * +12
Residence B " 120' L 51 190' L - - 60 + 9
Residence a " 100' L 51 160' R ----------- --- R/W------- ------
Residence B If 70' L 51 270' R - - 57 + 6
Residence B If 130' L 51 260' R - - 57 + 6
Residence 3 " 310' L 51 220' R - 59 + 8
Residence 8 If 240' L 51 320' R - - 55 + 4
Residence a " 110' L 51 365' R - - 53 + 2
SR-1106 to END OF PROJECT a SOUTH 0EKAL3 STREET
Residence 8 SR-2104 75' L 51 75' L - 69 * +18
Residence B " 55' R 51 55' R - - * 71 * +20
Residence a If 140' R 51 140' R - - 64 * +13
Residence 8 " 80' L 51 80' L - * 69 * +18
Residence a " 145' R 51 145' R - - 64 * +13
Residence a If 260' R 51 260' R - - 58 + 7
Church E " 400' R 51/<40 400' R - 53/<40 + 2
Residence B " 345' R 51 345' R - - 55 + 4
't'OTES: Distances are from center of existing or proposed roadways. -Y- => Noise Level from other contributing
roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -L- => Proposed roadway's noise level
contribution.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * => Traffic noise impact
(23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4 2/2
Leq TRAFF IC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC-150, FROM NC-150 A T NC-18 TO SOUTH DEKALB STREET
SHELBY, CLEVELAND COUNTY
STATE PROJECT # 8.1800501, TIP # R-519
AMBIENT DIST TO PREDICTED MAX PRED NOISE
RECEPTOR RECEPTOR NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED NOISE LEVEL NOISE LEVEL
# LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY DISTANCE LEVEL ROADWAY -L- -Y- LEVEL INCREASE

SR -1106 to END OF PROJECT a SOUTH DEKALB STREET (CONTINUED)
29 Residence S SR-2104 2251 R 51 225' R - - 60 + 9
30 Residence a If 1501 R 51 1501 R - 63 * +12
31 Residence a 11 401 R 51 40, R - - * 73 * +22
32 Residence a 's 1301 L 51 1301 L - - 65 * +14
33 Residence B 301 L 51 301 L - - * 75 * +24
34 Residence B 451 R 51 451 R - - * 72 * +21
35 Residence a 1451 R 51 145' R - - 64 * +13
36 Residence B 235' R 51 2351 R - - 59 + 8
37 Residence a 3301 R 51 3301 R - - 56 + 5
38 Residence 3 If 340' R 51 340' R - - 55 + 4
39 Residence B 11 2401 R 51• 2401 R - - 59 + 8
40 Residence a 1501 R 51 1501 R - 63 * +12
41 Residence B 401 R 51 401 R - - * 73 * +22
42 Business C if 501 L 51 501 L - - * 71 * +20
43 Business C 11 1701 L 51 1701 L - - 62 * +11
44 Residence a if 351 R 51 351 R - - * 74 * +23
45 Residence B 's 351 R 51 351 R - - * 74 * +23
46 Residence a 11 351 R 51 351 R - - * 74 * +23
47 Residence e It 40' L 51 40' L - - * 73 * +22
48 Residence a 11 351 R 51 351 R - - * 74 * +23
49 Residence a 11 45' L 51 45'.L - - * 72 * +21
50 Residence B If 301 R 51 301 R - - * 75 * +24
51 Residence a 11 501 L 51 501 L - * 71 * +20
52 Residence a to 401 R 51 401 R - - * 73 * +22
53 Residence B If 501 L 51 501 L - - * 71 * +20
54 Residence a to 301 R 51 301 R - - * 75 * +24
55 Residence a If 50' L 51 501 L - - * 71 * +20
56 Residence 8 If 45' R 51 45' R - - * 72 * +21
57 Residence e If 20' l 51 20' L - - * 81 * +30
58 Residence e If 601 R 51 60' R - - * 70 * +19
59 Residence a 11 501 L 51 501 L - - * 71 * +20
60 Residence a 's 501 R 51 50, R - - * 71 * +20
61 Residence B " 501 L 51 501 L - - * 71 * +20
62 Residence a 501 R 51 501 R - - * 71 * +20
63 Residence a If 501 L 51 501 L - - * 71 * +20
NOTES: Distances are from center of existing or proposed roadways. -Y- => Noise level fran other contributing roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A -weighted noise levels. -L- => Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * => Traffic noise impact (23 CFR Part 772). -

TABLE NS
FHUA NOISE ABATEMENT CRIT ERIA SUMMARY
NC-150, FROM NC-150 AT NC-18 TO SOUTH DEKALB STREET
SHELBY, CLEVELAND C OUNTY
STATE PROJECT # 8.1800501, TIP # R-519
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dIA (Maximum)
Description 50, 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA
NC-18 to SR-1112 67 63 58 <25, 82,
SR-1112 to SR-1106 68 64 59 <25, 91,
SR-11C6 to End of Project a South 70 66 60 49, ill,
DeKalb Street
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C 0 E
0 3 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 0
0 33 2 0 0
TOTAL => 0 38 2 0 0
VOTES => 1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel Lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 d8A contour distances are measured from center of prcposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC-150, FROM NC-150 AT NC-18 TO SOUTH DEKALB STREET SHELBY, CLEVELAND COUNTY STATE
PROJECT # 8.1800501, TIP # R-519
RECEPTOR E X T E R I OR N01 SE LEVEL I N C R E A S E S NOISE LEVEL
S E C T I O N i '
i r INCREASES

I <1 2-3
I I 4-5 1
I 6-7
I 8-9 i10-1112-13 14-15 16-17118-19120-21122-23124-251
I I I I I I I I ? >25
1 > 10 d8A
I
I I r T-I
NC-18 to SR-1112 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
SR-1112 to SR-1106 0 1 2 2 6 1 1 ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
SR-1106 to End of 0 1 3 1 3 1 5 1 0 3 13 8 3 1 35
Project
1 I
I I
I I I
I
I

T O T A L
I i 0 2
I I 6
I 4
I 9 3
I I 6 2
I I 0 3 13
I 8 3
I I i 1
I 39
I
APPENDIX B
ISOTHERMAL -
w
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
D O BOX et
RUTHERFORDTON. N. C. 28139
:Jo:veu 287-2231
Rutherford
Fcik 1 Cleveland
L.(ecutive Committee

Gladys Gibbs
Hugh Dover
Bob Irvin
I. K. Flack. Jr.
Fred Placak
Guy Rabb
Bill Weaver
April 18, 1979

lIr. T. L. Waters
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear N[r. Waters:
GLADYS GiBSS
PAUL D. HUGHES
Execuhve'Direc:er
RE: Relocation of NC 150 (DeKalb Street),
Cleveland County, I.D. No. R-519
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on
the above referenced highway project. During our review process,
a copy of the proposal was sent to the Cleveland County Board of
Commissioners and the City of Shelby.
Cleveland County has endorsed the project. The City of
Shelby endorses the project but with an important qualification.
If the anticipated shopping center is located adjacent to the
intersection of US 74 and South DeKalb Street, Shelby supports
the extension of South DeKalb Street. If, however, the anticipated
shopping center is located elsewhere than at that intersection,
Shelby supports extension of South DeKalb Street only if more sub-
stantial intersection improvements at US 74 are included.
Written comments from Shelby are attached. This letter
provides more detailed comments from Shelby regarding the proposed
project.
I hope these comments will be helpful to your office.
PDH:mc
Attachment
cc: Dave Wilkison
S 1?c ear y
4aul- D . ug e
Executive Dir for
F 1
tq.
??r:JJFVJ
7-
CIT`t OF SHELBY
BOX 207 - WASHINGTON AT GRAHAM ST. - SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA 28150
April 4, 1979
Mr. Ed dare
Isothermal Planning and
Development Commission
P. 0. Box 841
Rutherf ordton, NC 28139
Re: Clearinghouse No. 8519
Relocation of NC 150
Dear Mr. Ware:
The City Council wishes to endorse the subject project
with an. important qualification.
If the anticipated shopping_center is located adjacent
to the intersection of US-74 and South De Kalb Street, this
City supports the extension of South DeKalb Street. We
support it in this circumstance because of the desirability
of bringing traffic to that site expeditiously, from South
of Shelby. We submit that storage_ lanes for US 74 left
turns at South DeKalb Street, and widening of a section of
South DeKalb Street, would be minimal accompanying improve-
ments- to complement the construction.
If however, the anticipated shopping center is located
elsewhere than at that intersection, this City supports
extension of South DeKalb Street only if more substantial
intersection improvements at US 74 are included. We submit
that introducing additional through traffic through that
intersection at the existing grade, without the shopping
center element, is not attractive.
We appreciate having the opportunity of commenting on
this project.
DMW:jdm
cc:, Mayor Roark
T ly,
. Wllkison
City Manager

IJUIHtHMAL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
P O BOX 841
RUTHERFORDTON. N. C. 28139
•, ?Cc.vell
287-2281
?^ri„therford
c k 1 ' Cleveland I
.-recutive Committee May 23, 1980
Gladys Gibbs
Hugh Dover
Bob Irvin
I. K. Flack, Jr.
Fred Placak
Guy Rabb
Hill Weaver
Mr. T. L. Waters
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Waters:
??,?ElVE?7\
v d
r
? plvtr,,?ti CF ?,'
RcSE?'_
RE: State Clearinghouse No. 8071679
State Projects 9.8122928 and 6.801002,
I.D. No. R-519; South DeKalb Street Extension
GLADYS GIBBS
Chairman
PAUL O. HUGHES
Executive Director
The Isothermal Planning and Development Commission is the Areawide
Clearinghouse for Cleveland, McDowell, Polk, and Rutherford Counties. We
are presently reviewing the above referenced clearinghouse notifications.
Attached are some preliminary comments on your environmental assessment.
These do not represent the official positions of the Isothermal Commission
yet and are not the official A-95 clearinghouse comments. If you have any
reaction to these comments, please contact us immediately. You should ask
for Mr. Mickey Lewis at this same address and telephone number or myself.
The City of Shelby is aware of this letter by means of a copy.
Sincerely,
:?7
Edwin L. Ware
Administrative Officer
ELW: dh
cc: Dave Wilkison
Chrys Baggett
R.E. Heinz
Mickey_Lewis
Wayne Elliott
Pricilla Alden
STAFF COMMENTS
Shelby - South Dekalb Street Extension
Cleveland County - I,D No. R-519
Overview:
The project is in conformance with existing land use plans
and is compatible with existing zoning and current land uses.
There is a great need to divert much of the existing traffic of
South Lafayette Street to a more desirable thoroughfare corridor.
The project will lessen traffic congestion in downtown Shelby and
allow for thru traffic to bypass much of the central business
district. It is obvious that the project is needed and will greatly
benefit the citizens of the City-of Shelby and Cleveland County.
Environmental Comments:
This project is unusual in that land acquisition and some
clearing occurred before the environmental assessment was prepared.
This is in reverse of most federal-state projects which require
an environmental assessment previous to any land acquisition or
development. It is not clear if the provisions of NEPA or the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act applied during the period
of 1972-1974 when land acquisition and building removal occurred.
Because.of the previous commitment of resources in purchasing
right-of-way and structure removal, the consideration of alternatives
is somewhat redundant. The route in essence was chosen and some
development occurred previous to the preparation of the environmental
assessment.
The assessment contains discussion (5 pages) on Noise Impact..
Table N2 on Page 11 states that 32 residences will be subjected
to noise levels that exceed FHWA design noise levels. The table.
indicates that 30 residences will be subjected to an L10 noise level
of 78dBA.'.. at 50 feet from center of nearest lane. These residences
are located between SR1106 and end of project. A closer examination
will show that in this area the location of these dwellings to the
proposed project will be much closer than 50 feet. The average dis-
tance of these dwellings to the center of nearest lane is approximately
35 feet. The L10 noise level at this distance will be in excess--of
78dBA and further exceeds the FHSYA design noise levels. Sound levels
ranging from 78dBA to 82dBA is considered to be moderately loud and
can be expected to produce a hearing threshold shift in some indivi-
duals which could result, over an extended period of time in a hear-
ing loss.
The second paragraph on page 10 states:--"Noise abatement
measures do not appear to be feasible---Futhermore since the right-
of-way has been acquired for this project major alignment shifts for
the purpose of noise abatement is not practical." No consideration
is indicated to mitigate the adverse environmental impact of excessive
noise levels for 32 residences in the project area. On page 15
under Alternatives the statement is made--"Since the right-of-way
has been acquire and cleared, no additional location alternatives
are being considered."
Before this project is approved for final construction, additional
investigation should be undertaken to thoroughly evaluate the adverse
impact of noise on the 32 affected dwellings. Persons living in
these dwellings and in the immediate project area should be told of
the possible adverse health effects which could result from increased
noise levels. Under no circumstances -Should construction be allowed
until the problem of increased noise levels are entirely mitigated.
The health and welfare of human beings must always take precedence
over development opportunities.
This office requests DOT to make a thorough study of above comments
and to mitigate the adverse impact of noise pollution in the project
area.
ISOTHERMAL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
P o eox a,
RUTHERFORDTON. N. C 23139
I utherfortl
Cleveland
zxecutive Committee
29?-2281
! 1. ,
Z J U N 30 1960
C Ialvlo.Li
Hlt;iibV Ayg ?
G
June 23, 1980
Gladys Gibbs
Hugh Dover
Bob Irvin
I. K. Flack. Jr.
Fred Placak
Guy Rabb
Bill Weaver
Mr. W. H. Ingram
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Per. Ingram:
n
`? ` 1 ..
GLADYS GIBBS
PAUL D. HUGHES
Executive Director
Re: North Carolina State Clearinghouse No.
80-1679 State Projects 9.8122928 and
6.801002, I.D.. No. R-519; South DeKalb
Street Extension in Shelby
The Isothermal Planning and Development Commission is the Areawide Clear-
inghouse for State Planning Region C which includes Cleveland, McDowell, Polk,
and Rutherford Counties. We have completed review of the above referenced
clearinghouse notification. During the course of our review, the following
were given an opportunity to comment on the proposed project: Cleveland County
Board of Commissioners; City of Shelby; all other municipalities in Cleveland
County; Isothermal Commission staff.
We recognize that your proposal consists of two parts - a notification of
intent to apply for assistance from the Federal Highway Administration plus an
Environmental Assessment. Based on our review and comments from local govern-
ments and other agencies, we find that the proposed construction of the highway
is in compliance with local and regional goals and objectives. Isle, therefore,
recommend favorable review and that this project be funded by the Federal High-
way Administration.
However, while reviewing the Environmental Assessment, some problems were
discovered in the area of noise level. According to the Environmental Assessment,
32 homes on South DeKalb Street will be subject to excessive noise levels genera-
ted by additional traffic on South DeKalb Street after project completion. To
our alarm, the excessive noise level discussed in the Environmental Assessment
was casually dismissed with the statement on page 10 that "noise abatement measures
to not appear to be feasible."
Mr. W. M. Ingram
June 23, 1980
Page 2
Consequently, the Isothermal Commission staff has developed some detailed
environmental comments including five alternatives to the noise problem. We
suggest that you take a second look and a hard look at the noise problem and
perhaps you can find an alternative that would be feasible before beginning
construction of this project.
A copy of our environmental comments are attached. This letter along
with the attached comments should be used as the official comments of the Reg-
ion C Areawide Clearinghouse to accompany your application to the Federal
Highway Administration.
erely,
a.?
Paul D. Hughes
Executive Director
cc: State Clearinghouse
Dave Wilkison
Priscilla Alden
T.L. Waters
R.E. Heinz
Hal. Schimmack
Terrame Woodworth
Joe Hendrick
COM-LENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
SHELBY - SOUTH DEKALB STREET EXTENSION
CLEVELAND COUNTY
STATE PROJECTS 9.8122928 AND 6.801002
I.D. NO. R-519
(POSSIBLE FEDERAL AID PROJECT)
BACKGROUND
The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970 contained a requirement
that noise regulations be developed for the planning and design
of federal aid highways. The act required that the regulations
assign noise standards compatible with different land uses. It
further provided that the plans and specifications for a highway
project could not be approved unless they included measures to
comply with the standards. These standards are spelled out in the
Federal Highway Program Manual (FHPM), Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3,
"procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction
Noise" (FHPM 7-7-3), 1976.
The regulations require that a noise analysis be conducted for
each highway project. Noise-sensitive land uses and activities
in the vicinity of highway projects must be identified, and antici-
pated noise levels computed in L10 or Leg for the noise sensitive
areas on the basis of the worst noise situation expected to occur
from the highway in question.
Noise level predictions are to be compared with the appropriate
design noise levels to determine the need for noise abatement
measures for existing developed land. Such measures are to be taken
on all projects to meet the design noise levels to the extent that
- 1 -
reasonable opportunities exist to control noise.
It is important to recognize several factors associated with
these design levels.
- The Federal Highway Administration authorizes the use of
federal funds for noise abatement wherever a traffic noise
impact can be identified provided only that the measures
reduce the noise impact and the overall benefits exceed
the overall adverse social, economic and environmental
effects. (Para. 12, FHPM 7-7-3.)
- A noise impact can exist when:
(1) The predicted traffic noise levels approach or exceed
the design noise levels; or
(2) The predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed
the existing noise levels. (Para. 47 FHPM 7-7-3.)
The attached Table 1 identifies maximum acceptable noise levels,
with the understanding that in many cases the achievement of lower
noise levels would result in even greater benefits to the community.
It can be seen under category B that the maximum L10 exterior noise
level for residences is 70 dBA. The environmental assessment indi-
cates on Table N2 (see attached) that the L10 traffic noise impact
for 30 residences in the project area is 73 dBA, an increase of
8 dBA over the accepted maximum. This excessive dBA level was
calculated at 50 feet from the center line of nearest lane of
travel. These 30 residences are located between SR 1106 and end
of project. A closer examination will show that in this area the
location of these dwellings to the proposed project will be much
closer than 50 feet thereby increasing the traffic noise impact
and further exceeding the FHWA design noise levels.

In the summary of the environmental assessment, the statement
is made---"Based on comments received from agencies consulted and
to fact that this project is to be built on previously acquired
right-of-way, it was determined that this project will have no
significant effect on the quality of human environment." The
second paragraph on page 10 states---"Noise abatement measures do
not appear to be feasible ---Futhermore since the right-of-way has
been acquired for this project, major alignment shifts for the
purpose of noise abatement is not practical." Table N2 (page 11)
of the assessment appears to contradict those statements. The
table indicates that 32 residences will be exposed to noise levels
that are in excess of the FHIVA standards. The assessment has
stated that---"this project will have no significant effect on the
quality of human environment." If this decision or determination
has been made, it must-be made clear what factors were involved in
making that decision in view of the fact that the projects design
noise levels are in excess of the FHWA standards.
The assessment has no mention of the possible adverse effects
of excessive noise levels on humans. A full and open discussion
on the possible adverse health effects of excessive noise on humans
should be addressed in the environmental assessment in order that
all parties involved can make an informed decision on the merits
of this project.
It is understood that previous decisions concerning this project
were made 8 to 10 years ago at a time when noise pollution was not
understood-and rarely discussed. Since that time, the U.S. Congress
and the Environmental Protection Agency has made extensive studies
on noise pollution and its effect on human health.. These studies
-5-
have directly linked excessive noise to hearing losses, high blood
pressure, increased heart rate and more rapid breathing. Several
of these factors contribute to cardiovascular disease and it is
believed that there is'a direct relationship between high noise
levels and the increased incidence of heart attack and stroke.
A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences has stated:
"Levels of noise which do not interfere with the perception of
speech by adults may interfere significantly with the perception
of speech by children as well as with the acquisition of speech,
language, and language related skills." Children who live in
noisy homes and play in noisy areas may never develop the ability
to listen well enough to learn once they are of school age.
Sleep disruption resulting from intrusive' noise detracts from
the general health and performance of individuals. Disruption of
sleep does not necessarily include awakening. Shifts from deep
sleep to light sleep make additional demands on our bodies; the.
result being the loss of deep sleep which is the time needed to
restore and replenish the many physiological processes in the body.
The human body needs uninterrupted deep sleep to function properly.
during the waking hours.
While there is much that is not known concerning the health
impacts of noise on humans, scientists and government officials
agree that excessive noise is detrimental to human health. This
reasoning has led to the establishment of noise guidelines by
federal agencies including the Federal Highway Administration.
These published guidelines (Table 1) are being held in disregard
by the environmental assessment which states that: "this project
will have no significant effect on the quality of human environment."
-6-
llternativ--s To The p~e 'ec`
In considering alternatives which were not addressed by the
environmental assessment, it should be made clear that the previous
commitment of resources in right-of-way purchase and clearing
should have no bearing on the discussion of the project in relation
to possible noise abatement measures. The argument concerning
previous commitment of resources is not valid when equated in
terms of human health and welfare.
Alternative 1
Purchase the 32 residences in the project corridor and remove
all families from the impacted area.
Alternative 2
Restrict access in the residential area and construct a sound
barrier which will effectively.eliminate adverse noise levels.
This will necessitate the construction of access roads to the resi-
dential area.
Alternative 3
Thoroughly soundproof all impacted dwellings to the extent
that interior noise falls well below the accepted maximum interior
noise levels. This is not a desirable alternative being that nothing
is done to mitigate exterior noise to an acceptable level.
Alternative 4
Relocate the project to an area where highway traffic noise
will not adversely affect human habitation.
Alternative 5
Do not build the project.

Consideration of alternates Z or 3 should require that all
residents within the noise impacted area be notified and made
fully aware of the possible health consequences of living in a
high noise impact area. Residents of the project area have a
right to know what possible effects excessive noise levels will
have on their families.
` The Department of Transportation is specifically requested
to mitigate the adverse noise levels in the project area to an
acceptable level. The environmental assessment as presently
written is unacceptable in that no mitigation measures are dis-
cussed or planned. The proposed project should not be approved
for futher planning or construction until the excessive noise levels
are entirely mitigated.
Attached are several articles reprinted from the EPA Journal,
Noise and the Environment., October, 1979. These articles discuss
the serious problem of noise pollution in American society and
indicate steps that must be taken to alleviate these health problems.
- R -

_ -f ? U?ENT
r
L L:_!, ?AAL c
_v(\- L(CES
leic:,h,
rh Ccrolina
4 l 'i
icn cf
crd Histcry
_.:: rector
January 19, 1979
.+??10RA:VDU:I `
TO: T. L. Waters, Manager
Research and Planning Branch ,?--
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: Larry E. Tise
State Historic Ase va Officer
SUBJECT: Relocation of NC 150 (Dekalb Street),
Cleveland County, I.D. No. R-519
Thank you for your memorandum concerning the above project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project
area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely'that
any archaeological resources which may be'eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction.- We therefore recommend that no archaeological inves-
tigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The staff of the Division of Archives and History has conducted a search
of our maps and files and has located the following structures of
historical or architectural importance within the project area:
Hamrick Log Cabin; in field northeast of junction of
SR 150118 (South Lafayette Street) and SR 1105 (Melrose
Drive).
Old Hogue House, 0.2 mi. north of junction of NC 150 and 18.
Two-story Federal-style frame house, built ca. 1840; moved
in 1928.
i V t. I : kips.
e'ci?/
es 3. H?,nt. Jr.,
rr
R^
Since a comprehensive inventory of Cleveland County has never been
conducted, there may be additional structures of historical or archi-
tectural importance located within the planning area.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning this comment, please contact Ms. F. Langdon Edmunds, Environ-
mental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
LET:slw
v
iN }} North Carolina Depc
Resources &Commu
A
rtment of Natural
nity Development
1?C,.vcrc N. Lee, Secre-,r,
January 25, 1979
t
MEMORANDUM
TO: T.L. Waters
FROM: Ozzie Gray
-r
ii
SUBJECT: Relocation of N. C. 150 (DeKalb Street); Cleveland County
File #EA79-26
The Department of Natural Resources and Community Development has no
comment or objections to offer pertaining to the subject document.
OG:kh:4971
Post Office Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Dii t#U O:

Dudxlc . Prc'+ait._.' 0
._.
1141=1=1 ._
stfuilu
Davin
fknvood Erica Ne&dak
.
Mom _-
Webb SPrfngsr
Gricr,? -
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Jarnes G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
August 27, 1991
Nicholas L.- Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Deppartment of Transportation
P.(5. -Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Reevaluation of extension of NC 150 to
South Dekalb Street, R-519, M-9053(1),
ER 92-7160,. Cleveland..Cou=7
Dear Mr. Graf:.`
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of August 9, 1991, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the photographs and information submitted concerning
historic structures located in the project area. - We concur that the Hamrick
Log Cabin is located outside the;area of potential effect for this project and
that the, Hogue House no longer exists at the location cited in our letter of
January- 19, 1979. - We also concur that the mill area is not eligible for listing
in the. National Register of Historic Places. No National Register-listed or
atate study list properties are located in this project area.
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. - r..:. -
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. `'1f 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: . J. Ward
B. Church-
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807