19960165 Ver 1_Complete File_19960101

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
C
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 16, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: CE for NC 24-26 in Albemarle
Stanley County
State Project DOT No. 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
EHNR # 96-0296, DEM # 11169
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 impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The document states that 0.3 acres of wetlands will be impacted.
DEM does not have concerns for this project if the environmental commitments are
implemented. DOT is reminded that endorsement of a CE by DEM would not
preclude the denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water
impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
nc24-27.fon
cc: Monica Swihart
weD
FEB 16 ft
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

d.w STATEv
ti
401 iSSLI'ED
6 016 5
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
March 22, 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 --
ATTENTION: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
- SECRETARY
UU MAR 2 6
Subject: Stanly County - NC 24/27 from Canton Road to NC 740 in Albemarle;
State Project No. 8.T680301; T.I.P. No. R-2530A
Attached for your info_xtna_tionmis...a--copy---of the project planning report
for the subject project.'(-The project--is keing pro essed by the Federal
Highway Administration as a,"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). Therefore, we do--not--wt.ici.pat.e--r-eguesting an Individual Permit
but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR
330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers.
The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will
be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone],
Extenc;nnv -3016,
L..?y,.J, , Jvv. Sincerely,
?64/L-"?CL-ev" d;-,,"'
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
Attachment
cc: Steve Lund, COE, Asheville Field Office
John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
B. G. Payne, P. E., Division 10 Engineer
Beverly J. Grate, Planning & Environmental

2
NC 24/27
from Canton Road to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanly County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-24(2)
State Project No. 8368030I
TIP Project No. R-2530A

w
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 24/27
from Canton Road to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanly County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-24(2)
State Project No. 8.T680301
TIP Project No. R-2530A
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
e AJ.Gr to
Project Plan ng Engineer

c
17Z:
e
° v

obert P
Hanson
P
E o
`` .,d:1 o w
."a.. .. 1
,
.
.
.
Project Planning Unit Head
4:.
2 J 1117 C?
r?
Lubin V. Prevatt P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY .................................................................... i
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..................................... I
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT ...................................................................2
A. Need for the Proposed Improvements ............................................2
1. Traffic Volumes .................................................................2
2. Capacity ...................................................................2
3. School Bus Data ...............................................................3
4. Accident Analysis .............................................................3
5. Thoroughfare Plan .............................................................3
B. Existing Conditions . ...................................................................3
1. Length of Roadway Studied Section ..................................3
2. Route Classification .................................... .......................3
3. Existing Cross-Section ................................ .......................3
4. Existing Right of Way ................................. .......................4
5. Utilities. ............................................ .......................4
6. Access Control ............................................ .....................:4
7. Speed Limits . ............................................. ......................4
8. Structures 4
9. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control ...... ......................5
10. Railroad Crossing ........................................ ......................5
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ........................................ ......................5
A. Length of Project ............................................ .......................5
B. Cross-Section ............................................ .......................5
C. Alignment ............................................ .......................5
D. Design Speed ............................................ .......................5
E. Right of Way ............................................ .......................5
F. Access Control ............................................ .......................6
G. Bridges and Culverts ............................................ .......................6
H. Intersection/ Interchange Treatment ....................... .......................6
1. Bicycle Accommodations ....................................... .......................7
J. Sidewalks ............................................ .......................7
K. Cost Estimate. ............................................ .......................7
IV. ADJACENT PROJECTS. ...................................................................7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
V
VI.
Page
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................... ......7
A. Design Alternatives ............................................................. ......7
1. Cross Section .............................................................. ......7
2. Alignment ............................................................. ......8 r
B. "No-Build" Alternative ............................................................ ......8
C. Alternative Modes of Transportation .............................................8
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .......... .....8
A. Land Use Planning .............................................................. .....8
1. Status of Local Planning Activities ................................ ..... 8
2. Existing Land Use ........................................................ .....8
3. Existing Zoning ............................................................. .....9
4. Proposed Land Use ....................................................... ...10
5. Farmland .............................................................. ...10
B. Social and Economic Environment ........................................... ...10
1. Relocation Impacts ....................................................... ...10
2. Social Impacts .............................................................. ...12
C. Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................ ...12
1. Architectural Historic Resources .................................. ...12
2. Archaeological Resources ............................................. ...13
D. Natural Systems. .............................................................. ...13
1. Biological Resources ..................................................... ...13
a. Terrestrial Communities ................................... ...13
b. Aquatic Communities ........................................ ...15
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................... ...16
2. Waters Impacted and Characteristics ............................. ...17
a. Best Usage Classification ................................... ...17
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................... ...18
3. Special Topics .............................................................. ...18
a. Waters of the United States ............................... ...18
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ... 18
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........................19
d. Permits .................................................................19
e. Rare and Protected Species ..................................20
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
E. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation ..............................22
1. Physical Resources ...........................................................22
2. Physiography ..................................................................22
3. Geology and Soils ...........................................................23
4. Hazardous Material Inventory ..........................................23
a. Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities ......... 23
b. Other Potential Hazards .......................................26
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis ...................................................26
G. Air Quality Analysis .................................................................30
H. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns .........................32
1. Geodetic Markers .................................................................34
J. Section 4(f) Resources ................................................................34
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.... 34
FIGURES
APPENDIX
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 - Proposed Lane Configuration
Figure 4 - Traffic Projections
Figure 5, 5A. 5B - Floodplain Areas in the Project Vicinity
Figure 6 - Waters of the U. S., Surface Waters and Wetlands
Figure 7 - Future Revision of US 52 under TIP Project R-2320
List of Tables
Table I - Bridge Data ...................................................................4
Table 2 - Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities ................................16
Table 3 - Water Resources Characteristics ..............................................17
Table 4- Federal Candidate/NC Protected Species for Stanly County....... 22
Table 5 - Stream Crossings ...............................................................33
NC 24-27
from Canton Road to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanly County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-24(2)
State Project No. 8.T680301
TIP Project No. R-2530A
SUMMARY
Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen NC 24-27 to a multi-lane section from Canton Road to NC 740 in
Albemarle.
The improvements to NC 24-27 will be made in two parts. Section "AA" begins
at the end of the existing multi-lane section approximately 300 meters (984 feet) east of
the intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1963 (St. Martin Road) and continues east to the
US 52-NC 73-NC 138 intersection. Section "AB" will pick up at the US 52-NC 73/
NC 138 intersection and continue to the beginning of the existing multi-lane section
approximately 250 meters (820 feet) west of the intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1783
(Groves Avenue Extension) in Stanly County. The remainder of the project limits are
already multi-lane.
The 5.48 km (3.4 miles) project will widen the existing two to three lane facility to
a five lane curb and gutter section. The project will utilize the existing 45.7 m (150 feet)
of right-of-way as much as possible. Small portions of new right-of-way, construction
easements and permanent drainage easements may also be needed.
The proposed project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 and
construction for Section "AB" in FY 1999. Construction of Section "AA" is currently
scheduled "post year" (beyond NCDOT's funding horizon).
The total estimated cost of the proposed project includes $580,500 for right-of-
way acquisition and $12,100,000 for construction. The Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) cost includes $2,500,000 for right-of-way and $7,900,000 for
construction.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will have a positive impact on the Albemarle area by
increasing the safety and traffic handling capacity of the subject section of NC 24-27. One
business will require relocation. No relocation of residences is anticipated as a result of
this project. No recreational facilities or sites listed on the National Register of Historic
Places will be involved.
Replacement of existing culverts and bridge rehabilitation may involve discharge of
excavated or fill material into waters of one or all of the creeks which cross the project
area. Approximately 0.3 acre of jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted.
Eighteen (18) residences or businesses are predicted to experience traffic noise
levels in excess of the FHWA-noise abatement criteria. However, noise abatement
measures are not considered reasonable or feasible as part of this project.
Summary of Environmental Commitments
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will implement all practical and
standard measures and procedures to minimize environmental impacts as well as impacts
to the human environment. Impacts will be minimized by utilizing Best Management
Practices during construction.
Because this project will involve crossing a regulated floodway, NCDOT will
coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local authorities to
ensure compliance with applicable floodplain ordinances.
It is likely a Nationwide Section 404 wetland permit will apply to this project. A
Section 401 water quality certification will be required from the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources prior to issuance of any Federal Section 404
Permit.
4. Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered in the development of the project:
a) Improving the existing facility to a five lane curb and gutter section throughout the
entire length of the project
This design alternative was chosen because it provides the number of lanes
required for projected traffic volumes. Because of the urban nature of the project vicinity
curb and gutter is recommended. Curb and gutter will decrease the right of way cost in
this area.
b) Improving the existing facility to a four lane shoulder section in Section "AA" and
a five lane curb and gutter section in Section "AB"
Improving the existing facility to a four lane median divided section on Section
"AA" and a five lane curb and gutter section on Section "AB" would add approximately
$600,000 to the project construction cost. Local officials prefer a five lane curb and gutter
section throughout the entire length of the project. A median divided section would
require five or more median cuts to accommodate adjacent properties. A four lane median
divided section would also require wider construction limits to accommodate grass
shoulders.
C) "No Build" Alternative
The "No Build" alternative was rejected because the existing facility will not be
able to serve the high volume of projected traffic along NC 24-27.
Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Fish and Wildlife
U. S. Geological Survey
Stanly County Board of Commissioners
Centralina Council of Governments
City of Albemarle
N.C. Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
A citizen's informational workshop was held on May 17, 1995 to obtain public
comments on the project.
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting the following:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, -North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone]
NC 24-27 Widening
from Canton Road (SR 1249) to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanly County
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-24(2)
State Project No. 8.T680301
T.I.P. Project No. R-2530A
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen NC 24-27 to a multi-lane section from Canton Road to NC 740 in
Albemarle.
The improvements to NC 24-27 will be made in two parts. Section "AA" begins
at the end of the existing multi-lane section approximately 300 meters (984 feet) east of
the intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1963 (St. Martin Road) and continues east to the US
52-NC 73/NC 138 intersection. Section "AB" will pick up at the US 52-NC 73/NC 138
intersection and continue to the beginning of the existing multi-lane section approximately
250 meters (820 feet) west of the intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1783 (Groves Avenue
Extension) in Stanly County. The remainder of the project limits are already multi-lane.
The 5.48 km (3.4 mile) project will widen the existing two to three lane facility to
a five lane curb and gutter section consisting of four 3.6 m (12-foot) through lanes and a
3.6 m (l 2-foot) continuous left-turn center lane with 3.0 m (10-foot) berms. Additional
improvements will also consist of replacing Bridge No. 48 over the Winston-Salem
Southbound Railway and Bridge No. 49 at the US 52 interchange. Bridge No. 39 and 46
over Long Creek and Town Creek respectively will be widened and rehabilitated. A
traffic signal at SR 1900 (Coble Avenue) and improvements at the US 52 interchange are
also proposed.
The project will utilize the existing 45.7 m (150 feet) of right-of-way with
additional construction easements, small portions of new right-of-way and some
permanent drainage easements needed.
The proposed project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 and
construction for Section "AB" in FY 1999. Construction for Section "AA" is currently
scheduled "post year" (beyond NCDOT's funding horizon).
The current estimated cost of the proposed project includes $580,000 for right-of-
way acquisition and $12,100,000 for construction. The 1996-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) has programmed $2,500,000 for right-of-way acquisition
and $7,900,000 for construction.
2
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. Need For the Proposed Improvements
The proposed project will improve the safety and traffic carrying capacity of the
subject section of NC 24-27. The proposed project will relieve traffic congestion and
provide safer travel in the project area.
Traffic Volumes
Projected traffic volumes along the subject section of NC 24-27 for the
year 1999 range from 11,727 vehicles per day (vpd) east of Coble Avenue to
21,152 vpd east of the US 52-NC 73/ NC 138 intersection. Projected traffic
volumes for the year 2019 range from 19,400 vpd to 34,912 vpd at the above
locations. Truck traffic will comprise approximately seven (7) percent of those
volumes (4% duals, 3% TTST's). Projected traffic volumes, major turning
movements, truck data and design hour data are shown in Figure 4.
2. Capaciit
A capacity analysis was performed for the recommended alternate to
predict the level of service (LOS) for the project. This analysis yielded the
following results:
Build Analysis No-Build Analysis
Route (1999 LOS (2019) LOS 1999 LOS 2019 LOS
SR 1963 B B B B
SR 1900 B B C C
US 52/NC 73 C D F F
*SR 1625 C D E F
t
SR 1625 will require major improvements to achieve an acceptable level of •
service. An adjacent project, TIP Project R-2530B, begins at the intersection of
SR 1625 and NC 740. Improvements to SR 1625 will be made as a part of TIP
Project R-2530B. Level of service shown with an asterisk (*) denotes future
project improvements.
Construction year (1999) NC 24-27 will operate at a LOS of A with
improvements and a LOS of B without improvements. Design year (2019)
NC 24-27 will operate at a LOS B with improvements.
The No Build Alternative will result in a LOS of F and E for US 52-
NC 73/NC 138 intersection and SR 1625 by 1999. The LOS for these
intersections will continue to deteriorate without improvements.
3. School Bus Data
Approximately 11 buses use NC 24-27 making a total of 25 trips per day.
Bus destinations are scattered throughout east and west Albemarle.
4. Accident Analysis
The rates for NC 24-27 were obtained from studies conducted from June 1,
1991 to May 31, 1994. The accident rate for this studied section is 175.56
accidents per one hundred million vehicle kilometers. In comparison to the
statewide rate of 175.33 accidents per one hundred million vehicle kilometer for
urban "NC" two lane undivided routes and 159.24 accidents per one hundred
million vehicle kilometers for urban "NC" three lane undivided routes.
5. Thoroughfare Plan
The Albemarle Thoroughfare Plan was adopted in 1988. NC 24-27 is
designated a major thoroughfare on the Albemarle Thoroughfare Plan. The
proposed five lane curb and gutter section is in conformance with the thoroughfare
plan and construction of this project will be a step toward implementation of the
thoroughfare plan.
B. Existing Conditions
Length of Roadway Studied Section
The length of the studied section of NC 24-27 is approximately 5.4 km (3.4
miles). This section extends from the existing multi-lane section approximately
300 meters (984 feet) east of the intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1963 (St.
Martin Road) to approximately 250 meters (820 feet) west of the intersection of
NC 24-27 and SR 1783 (Grove Avenue Extension).
2. Route Classification
NC 24-27 is classified as an Urban Principal Arterial route in the North
Carolina Statewide functional classification system.
3. Existing Cross Section
The pavement width of NC 24-27 varies from a two-lane 7.2 m (24-foot)
section (from east of SR 1963 to US 52-NC 73/NC 138) to an l lm (36-foot) three
lane section (from the US 52 interchange to SR 1783). There are 1.8m (6-foot)
grass shoulders along the project.
4. Existing Right-of-Way
A 45.7 m (150-feet) of right-of-way for this project was purchased when
the original roadway was built. The right-of-way widens to contain the US 52/
NC 24-27 interchange.
5 Utilities
Underground utilities include a 300 millimeter (12 inch) water line
suspended under the north side of the railroad overpass. Several sanitary sewer
lines cross the project including lines along both streams. A distribution powerline
runs on the north side along most of the project. Aerial telephone and television
cables are found on the east and west ends of the project. The utility impact of the
proposed project is "medium", with the most significant impacts occurring in
Section "AB" of the project.
6. Access Control
No control of access exists along the project, with the exception of the
US 52 interchange, which has full control of access.
7. Speed Limits
The current posted speed limit is 70 km/h (45 mph).
8. Structures
(feet):
The existing bridges are described in Table 1; dimensions are in meters
Table 1 Bridge Data
Bridge Feature Date Horiz. Vert. Structure Sufficiency Estimated
No. Crossed Built Clearance Clearance Length Rating Rem. Life
39 Long 1957 8.6 (28.1) N/A 61(200) 77.8 19
Creek
46 Town 1957 8.6 (28.1) N/A 52(170) 80.2 19
Creek
48 WSSB 1957 12 (40.2) 6.7 (22.0) 46(150) 65.4 39
RR
49 US 52 1957 8.6 28.1 4.6 (15.0) 1 41(133) 74 19
In addition to the bridges mentioned in Table 1, five culverts exist along
NC 24-27. The culverts are found at the tributary to Poplin Branch, Poplin Creek,
Rock Creek, Little Long Creek and Long Creek.
9. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
All highway intersections are at-grade, with the exception of the US 52/
NC 24-27 interchange. The intersections of US 52-NC 73/NC 138, and NC 24-27
and SR 1963 and NC 24-27 are signalized. Mt. Vernon Drive, Lee Street, and
Henson Street are all stop sign controlled.
10. Railroad Crossing
There is one railroad crossing at the Winston-Salem Southbound Railway.
Two trains per day use this railway. This crossing is grade separated.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Length of Project
The length of the proposed project is approximately 5.48 km (3.4 miles).
B. Cross-Section
It is recommended that NC 24-27 be widened to a five-lane, 19.2 m (64-foot)
pavement (face to face) with 3.0 m (10-foot) berms. This includes a 3.6 m (12-foot)
exclusive left turn lane.
C. Alignment
The proposed widening will be aligned to the south side of NC 24-27 to make use
of the existing offset right of way.
D. Design Speed
Due to the urban nature of the proposed project and the proposed curb and gutter,
the recommended design speed is 80 km/h (50 mph). The posted speed limit is expected
to be 70 km/h (45 mph).
E. Right-of-Way
The project will utilize the existing right-of-way as much as possible. Small
portions-of new right-of-way may be needed in addition to the existing 45.7 meters (150
feet of right-of-way. Additional construction easements and permanent drainage
6
easements may also be needed along portions of the project to accommodate proposed
improvements.
F. Access Control
Full control of access;is proposed from the US 52/NC 73-NC 138 intersection to
the US 52 interchange. The remainder of the project will not have control of access.
G. Bridges and Culverts
Two bridges will be replaced to accommodate the widening of NC 24-27 and two
will be rehabilitated and widened. To meet current design standards the Winston-Salem
Southbound railroad bridge and the adjacent US 52 interchange bridge will require
replacement. The US 52 interchange bridge will be replaced with a 40.5 meters (133 feet)
long structure, having a clear roadway width of 22.2 m (78.3 ft) and a vertical clearance of
5.2 in (17.06 ft). The bridge over the Winston-Salem Southbound Railway will be
replaced with a 45.7 m (150 ft) long structure, having a clear roadway width of 29.5 m
(96.8 ft) and a vertical clearance of 7.2 in (23.6 ft). Current design standards require 7.0
to 7.2 meters (23 to 23.6 feet) vertical clearance for railroad bridges.
Bridges No. 46 and 39 over Little Long Creek and Long Creek, respectively will
be rehabilitated and widened. Both Bridge No. 46 and Bridge No. 39 will be revised to a
clear roadway width of 22.2 m (72.8 ft).
Five culverts along NC 24-27 will be retained. Poplin Branch, Poplin Creek, and
Rock Creek culverts will be extended. Little Long Creek and Long Creek culverts will be
widened.
H. Intersection/ Interchange Treatment
Recommended improvements to the US 52-NC 73/NC 138 intersection include an
exclusive right turn lane in the north bound direction and dual lefts and an exclusive right
in the southbound direction. On NC 24-27 at the same intersection, dual lefts and an
exclusive right are recommended westbound and an exclusive right is recommended
eastbound (see Figure 3). An adjacent project (R-2320) will compliment project R-2530A
by eliminating the current "offset" of US 52 and provide a four lane facility from US 74 in
Wadesboro to NC 24-27 in Albemarle (See Figure 7).
A signal is proposed at Coble Avenue and NC 24-27.
The US 52 interchange will undergo ramp and bridge improvements to meet
current design standards. Bridge improvements include raising the grade of the bridge to
match that of the WSSB Railroad bridge. Ramp improvements include removing the
northwest quadrant ramp and replacing it with a loop in the north east quadrant relocating
the existing northeast quadrant ramp. Other interchange improvements are minor.
7
Henning Drive north and south of NC 24-27 will be cul-de-saced to provide full
control of access from the US 52-NC 73/NC 138 intersection to the US 52 interchange.
Bicycle Accommodations
No special bicycle accommodations are recommended for this project.
J. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are proposed for the project.
K. Cost Estimate
The estimated cost for the proposed improvements includes $580,500 for right of
way and $12,100,000 for construction. The construction cost for section "AA" is
estimated at $4,700,000, construction cost for "AB" is estimated at $7,400,000.
IV. ADJACENT PROJECTS
North Carolina's 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) lists
three projects that are adjacent to this project.
R-2530B - Widening of NC 24-27 from NC 740 to the Pee Dee River. This project is
not currently funded in the TIP. R-2530B will extend the multi-lane
widening of NC 24-27 eastward.
R-0967 - Widening of NC 24-27 to multi-lanes from Locust to Albemarle.
Construction of the first phase is scheduled for 2001. R-0967 will widen
NC 24-27 to the west of R-2530A.
R-2320 Improvements to US 52 from US 74 in Wadesboro to NC 24-27 in
Albemarle. Connection to NC 24-27 is currently funded in the TIP and
scheduled for construction in 2001. Project R-2320 will compliment
project R-2530A by eliminating the current "offset" of US 52 (see
Figure 7).
V. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION
A. Design Alternatives
Cross Section
As an alternative to the recommended alternative, a four lane 6.1 m (20 ft)
median divided section on Section "AA" and a five lane curb and gutter section on
Section "AB" was studied. Improving the existing facility to a four lane median
8
divided section on Section "AA" would add approximately $600,000 to the
construction costs of the project. Local officials prefer a five lane curb and gutter
section throughout the entire length of the project. A median divided section
would require five or more median cuts to accommodate adjacent properties. For
these reasons, this alternative was rejected.
2. Alignment
Because the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to adjoining properties,
no alignment alternatives were considered.
B. "No-Build" Alternative
If the "no-build" alternative were chosen, it would have a negative impact on
transportation in Albemarle. With anticipated increases in traffic volumes, the level of
service provided by the existing facility would deteriorate even more. Increased
congestion would lead to higher operating costs and increased travel times. Therefore, the
"no-build" alternative has been rejected.
C. Alternative Modes Of Transportation
No alternative mode of transportation is considered to be a practical alternative.
Highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation in the project area, and the
project involves widening an existing highway.
VI. SOCIAL. ECONOMIC. AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Land Use Planniniz
Status of Local Planning Activities
The proposed widening is within the City of Albemarle's planning and
zoning jurisdiction. The City adopted the Land Development Plan Revision in
1971, no update is scheduled. The City enforces zoning and sub-division
regulations, which are used as the primary land use guide for growth. The zoning
ordinances are updated regularly.
2. Existing Land Use
The project area is best described as a mix of land uses. There are many
industrial and commercial businesses mixed in with residential and institutional
uses. There are varied land uses at the beginning of the project where NC 24-27
splits with SR 1274, to SR 1900 (Coble Avenue). Some of the area is agricultural,
with the remainder being residential and commercial. Stanly Technical College is
located approximately one-quarter mile northwest of the project beginning. At the
intersection of the project corridor and SR 1963 there is a small strip mall of
commercial businesses (Burleson Square). Behind the strip mall is the Tiny Tears
Nursery and Day Care and a small mobile home facility. Beside the strip mall is
the local Veterans Assembly building. There is a large apartment complex (Creek
Ridge) and a small mobile home facility in a residential area west of the SR 1900
intersection. The Stanly County Correctional Facility, a minimum security center,
is located at the intersection of SR 1900 on the southwest corner, mini- storage
warehouses are on the southeast and northeast corners, and the City Department
of Public Works is on the northwest corner.
A waste water treatment plant is located at the southern terminus of
SR 1900, approximately one-half mile south of the project corridor.
The area from SR 1900 to the US 52-NC 73 intersection is primarily
residential with some service stations and a small textile industry at the
intersection.
The Winston Salem Southbound Railway travels north-south between
US 52-NC 73/NC 138 and US 52/SR 1645 (First Street).
From US 52 to the project terminus the land uses continue to vary. As the
project corridor crosses the US 52/(First Street) intersection, a Baptist church and
the Rock Creek recreational facility are located on the south side of the corridor,
and small commercial uses are on the north side. A portion of the area past the
US 52 intersection is undeveloped partially due to hilly terrain on both sides of the
corridor.
Within the partially undeveloped area is a farm machinery sales
establishment, a convenience store, a mobile home sales facility and a building
supply center. Towards the terminus of the project corridor is the heaviest
development of the project area. A Wal-mart, an Ingles Supermarket, a Lowe's
Building Supply and assorted service stations, used car lots, restaurants and a
Comfort Inn motel have been constructed here in the last five years. There is also
a new car dealership, a small strip mall, more fast food businesses and a large mall
on each side of the project corridor (East Gate on the north side and Albemarle
Plaza on the south) at the intersection of NC 24-27, the project terminus. There
are several industrial uses located south of the NC 24-27 intersection off SR 1783
(Grove Avenue Extension).
3. Existing Zoning
According to planning officials, zoning along the project corridor is
displayed by the existing land uses. The beginning of the project corridor has some
agricultural and residential zones but this area is primarily business. The entire
project area is scattered with every type of zoning classification from institutional
to highway business. The majority are commercial.
10
4. Proposed Land Use
The project area is expected to see further growth in an east to west
direction along the corridor extending away from the industrial, and increasing
growth of commercial along the eastern portion of the project area. Growth of
commercial uses is expected to be the primary trend in the future.
Albemarle is a "bedroom community" for commuters working in Charlotte
which is fifty miles to the west. Many of these commuters use NC 24-27 as a
transit route to and from work, and this thoroughfare is expected to see further
growth due to the increasing traffic volumes along this corridor. According to the
planning staff, most of the residential uses along the project corridor are expected
to change over to business uses in the future.
5. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. These soils are designated by the
U.S. Soil Conservation Service based on crop yield, moisture content, and various
other factors. Soils which have been developed or committed to urban use by the
local planning authority are exempt from consideration under the Act. As
previously discussed, the project site and its vicinity are zoned for commercial land
uses and significant development has occurred in its vicinity. Therefore, further
consideration of potential impacts to prime farmland is not required.
B. Social and Economic Environment
Relocation Impacts
The proposed action will require small portions of new right-of-way, one
business will require relocation due to the proposed control of access between the
US 52 interchange and the US 52/NC 73-NC 138 intersection.
To help minimize the impact of relocation NCDOT has a policy to ensure
that comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of
state and federally- assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
11
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of
homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing
programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for
payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where
displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher
cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will
compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250
to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina
Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed
to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in
which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior
to displacement, for negotiations and possession of replacement housing which
meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a
90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of
displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to
public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
property will be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation
officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations,
and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of
replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or
(3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The
relocation officer will also supply information concerning other state or federal
programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory
services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting
to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project.
Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in
12
reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as
attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make
a payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings.
Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased
interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500
(combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including
incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down
payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the rent
supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's
state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable
replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a
reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No relocation payment received
will be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any
person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial
means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The
purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation
by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided.
It is not felt that this program will be necessary on the project, since there appear
to be adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
2. Social Impacts
The proposed improvements will provide a safer highway facility for all
commercial users. In addition, the improvements will make for a safer facility to
deliver goods and services. The proposed action will not disrupt neighborhood
cohesion. It will not interfere with the accessibility of facilities and services.
C. Historic and Cultural Resources
Architectural Historic Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106,
codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded,
13
licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
To comply with Section 106, the area of potential effect (APE) of the
subject project was reviewed by an NCDOT staff architectural historian in the
field. One property within the APE, a former Catholic Church, was evaluated for
National Register eligibility. NCDOT and FHWA have determined that the former
Catholic Church is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
There are no other properties in the APE eligible or listed on the National
Register or the State Study List.
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) concurs
that the former Catholic Church is not considered eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places (see Appendix page A-2). This action
completes compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966.
2. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area.
Therefore, it is unlikely any archaeological resources eligible for inclusion in the
National Register will be affected by the project construction. The SHPO
recommended that no archaeological investigation be performed in connection
with this project (see Appendix page A-3).
D. Natural Systems
Biological Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
Four distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project
study area: Man Disturbed, Oak-Hickory Forest, Piedmont Alluvial
Forest, and Pine Scrub Forest. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and
populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
Man Disturbed Community
The disturbed community exists along the highway right of way
throughout the length of the project. This community is maintained
through frequent mowing by DOT road maintenance crews. This
community will be heavily impacted by the proposed project. The roadside
community consists of a number of mixed species which include foxtail,
14
fescue, broomsedge, horsenettle, poke-berry, silverling, and scotch broom.
A number of sapling tree species are prevalent in this area. These include
the princess tree, redbud and river birch.
A profusion of animals and birds utilize this community for forage
and cover. During the site visit several birds were observed in the
disturbed area. Many of these birds were seen moving between each of the
described communities. Birds identified during the site visit include: tufted
titmouse, yellow-rumped warbler, northern cardinal, Carolina chickadee,
eastern phoebe, mocking bird, goldfinch, Carolina wren, rufus-sided
towhee, white throated sparrow, ruby and golden crowned kinglet, hermit
thrush, song sparrow and hairy woodpecker. A turkey vulture, American
crow and red-tailed hawk were observed in the vicinity of the project area.
Disturbed roadside communities provide refuge for a myriad of
opportunistic animal species. Some of the more common mammals
inhibiting this community include: the Norway rat, white-footed mouse
and the house mouse. These species also serve as prey for red-tailed
hawks and other predators.
Oak Hickory Forest
An oak-hickory community exists immediately up slope from each
of the Piedmont alluvial forests in the project area. The most common oak
species in these communities include black oak, spanish oak, scarlet red
oak, white oak and northern red oak. The two hickories common in this
community are the pignut hickory and mockernut hickory. Blackgum,
sweetgum, and ash are also found on these upland slopes.
The understory of the oak hickory forest consists primarily of
shrubs and small trees often associated with rich woodland slopes. The
shrubs most commonly encountered in this community include maple-
leaved viburnum, redbud, ironwood, buckeye, blueberry, winged elm,
storax, witch hazel, sourwood and strawberry bush.
There are only a few plants present on the winter forest floor. The
three plants most commonly encountered during the site survey were heart
leaf, spotted pipsissewa and cranefly orchid.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
The vegetation of the Piedmont Alluvial forest canopy is comprised
of a number of deciduous species. The most common species include:
river birch, sweetgum, red maple, sycamore, boxelder, American elm,
water oak, backgum and green ash. Shortleaf pine is also a prevalent
canopy tree in this community.
15
The prominent shrubs and saplings found in the understory include
privet, ironwood, elderberry, strawberry bush, and dogwood. A few vines
are found in this community as well. Poison ivy, and cross vine are
prevalent.
The herbaceous flora of the alluvial community encountered during
the site visit includes cornflower, wild strawberry, chickweed and
Veronica. The grass bottlebrush plant and fescue are also abundant in the
bottomlands and along the stream edges. A few species common to
piedmont bottomlands during the early spring include spring beauty,
toothwort and Catesby's trillium.
The alluvial bottomlands provide ideal breeding habitat for several
amphibian species. Among the most common species of frogs in the
piedmont are grey tree-frogs, southern cricket frogs and spring peepers. In
addition, three lined salamanders and marbled salamanders are locally
abundant and are frequently found under logs and stones in bottomlands
adjacent to creeks in the piedmont.
Pine Scrub Community
The Pine Scrub community is located in disturbed areas adjacent to
the project area. This community consists primarily of scrub pine, winged
sumac and Japanese honeysuckle.
b. Aquatic Communities
Four piedmont perennial streams and one ephemeral stream system
will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical characteristics of the
water body and condition of the water resources reflect faunal composition
of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
Each of the perennial streams are bordered by oak hickory upland
communities and alluvial bottomlands. Two of the sites visited had sewer
lines cut along the streams. Removal of the bottomland and vegetation
adjacent to the stream increases siltation and runoff into the stream thus
influencing water clarity and species composition.
The larger streams Long Creek, Little Long Creek and Poplin
Creek are moderately sized piedmont perennial streams. Some of the more
common fish that occur in similar streams include green sunfish, bluegill
and bluehead chub. The Natural Heritage files indicates the Carolina darter
has been collected in Long Creek. The Carolina Darter is listed as a
species of Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.
16
The small stream (Poplin Branch) provides habitat for crayfish and
invertebrates capable of tolerating various amounts of siltation. These
include some species of dragonflies and damselflies.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the
biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or near
these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This
section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of
area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts
are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these
biotic communities resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the entire proposed right of way width of 45.7 m (150 ft).
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2 Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY
Oak Hickory Forest 1.7 (4.1)
Maintained 6.0 14.0
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 0.3 0.74
Pine Scrub Forest 1 0.1 (0.1)
TOTAL IMPACTS 8.1 19.08
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
The proposed widening will eliminate and/or alter some of the existing
wildlife habitat in the project area, while subsequently creating new habitat.
Portions of the roadside shoulder, agricultural lands, and forest will be impacted by
roadway construction. This will result in direct loss of plant species from grubbing
operations, soil compaction, and soil erosion. Consequently, subterranean and
burrowing organisms will be eliminated in the wake of highway construction.
Animals capable of migrating will seek new habitat for forage and shelter. In
summary, food and cover requirements of individual organisms will dictate the
overall impacts to wildlife utilizing the construction area.
17
2. Waters Impacted and Characteristics
There are seven stream crossings within the proposed project area
(Figure 5). Long Creek, Little Long Creek and Poplin Creek are located within
the Yadkin-Pee Dee watersheds. Long Creek originates in Rowan County near
Gold Hill and flows south approximately 38.7 km (24 mi.) to its confluence with
Rocky River. Little Long Creek originates approximately 3.2 km (2 mi.) north of
Albemarle and flows approximately 8.0 km (5 mi.) to its confluence with Long
Creek. At the time of the site visit, each of these creeks had a moderate to fast
flow rate and heavy siltation due to rains the previous night. Specific information
on the water resources in project area is summarized in Table 3.
Neither High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS II) nor
outstanding Resources Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1 mile) of project
study area. The eastern end of the project is located approximately 2.4 km (1.5
mile) from the Yadkin-Pee Dee watershed.
a. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Table 3 lists best usage
classifications for all water resources likely to be impacted by the proposed
project.
Table 3 Water Resources Characteristics
STREAM WIDTH DEPTH SUBSTRATE FLOW CLARITY CLASS
Lon Crk 15(50) 1.1(3) eb, bo mod d C
Little Long
Crk 6(20) 0.6(2) peb, bo mod gd C
Poplin Crk 3(10) 0.15 0.5 eb, co mod d C
Poplin
Branch 1.2(4) 1(3.28) si mod gd C
Rock Crk. 3(10) 0.150._5 si mod d C
Tributary 1 0.91(3) 0.15 0.5 si mod d C
Tributary 2 >0.91 >3 >0.15 >0.5 si mod d C
NOTES: Values are given in meters (feet).
Class C: Suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture.
18
The abbreviations int, per, ut, si, sa, peb, co, bo, mod and gd denotes
intermittent stream, perennial stream, unnamed tributary, silt, sand, pebble,
cobble, boulder, moderate, and good.
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources include increased
sedimentation and siltation resulting from construction around the streams.
These impacts may result in the following adverse conditions: decreases in
the depth of light penetration, suppressing plant and algal growth which
provides a food source for some fish; increase in sediment loads which
clogs the filtration apparatus of filter feeding benthos and fish, buries
benthic organisms and isolates them from their food source and spoils
downstream spawning beds for fish. Sedimentation may additionally lead
to changes in concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff that
may occur during construction.
Sedimentation and erosion control measures (Best Management
Practices) will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of this
project. Grass berms along construction areas (roadsides, bridge sites,
road medians, etc.) help decrease erosion and allow toxic substances to be
absorbed into the soil before these substances reach waterways. Poorly
managed application of sedimentation control policies will result in serious
damage to the aquatic community.
3. Special Topics
a. Waters of The United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 CFR 328.3, and
defined are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to
life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these
areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Approximately 0.3 acre of below headwaters wetlands are located
within the project area (Figure 5). The soil color in the wetland is 2.5 YR.
5\2. Evidence of hydrology at the time of the site visit included signs of
flow, stained leaf litter, and standing waterline oxygenated rhizospheres.
Plant species observed with wetland indicator status include green ash,
ironwood, blackgum, sweet bay, red maple and willow oak.
19
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has instituted a
numerical rating system ranging from 0 to 100, to gauge wetland quality.
This fourth version of the rating system assesses wetlands on the basis of
water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal, aquatic life,
recreational and educational values of a wetland community. The DEM
rating for this wetland is 43.
This wetland meets the National Wetlands Inventory classification
of Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded
(PFO 1 Q.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacement of existing culverts and bridge rehabilitation may
involve discharge of excavated or fill material into waters of one or all of
the creeks which cross the project area. Approximately 0.3 acre of
jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted.
d. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a General Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5
(A) 14 will be required from the Corps of Engineers (COE) for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
Nationwide Permit conditions include the following:
The width of the fill material is limited to the minimum necessary
for the actual crossing.
2. The fill placed in waters of the U. S. is limited to a fill area of no
more than 0.3 ac.
3. No more than a total of 200 linear feet of the fill for the roadway
can occur in special aquatic sites, including wetlands.
4. Crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the
restriction of, and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows
and the movement of aquatic organisms.
5. Fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, require a 30-day
notification to the district engineer.
20
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state
issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of the United
States. A Section 401 water quality certification will be required from the
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources prior to
issuance of any Federal Section 404 Permit.
e. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna flora have been in the process of decline
either due to natural forces of their inability to coexist with man. Federal
law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, requires
that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected, be subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT)
are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of December 30, 1995,
the FWS lists the following federally-protected species for Stanly County:
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii). A brief description of each species'
characteristics and habitat follows.
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) E
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half
mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an
area, and having an open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance
can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding
season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the
major food source for bald eagles.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bald eagles usually nest near large rivers and/or lakes where they
forage for fish. Based upon extensive in-house and field investigations, it
has been determined that suitable nesting and foraging habitat does not
exist within the immediate project area. Therefore, no impacts will occur
to the bald eagle as a result of the project.
21
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows
1-2 m tall from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous root. The stems are deep
red solitary and only branch above mid-stem. The leaves are rough feeling
above and resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath. Leaves of the
sunflower are opposite on the lower part of the stem and usually become
alternate on the upper stem. The broad flowers are borne from September
until frost. These flowers are yellow in color and arranged in an open
system upwardly arching heads. The fruit is a smooth, gray-black achene.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to North and South Carolina.
These flowers grow best in full sunlight or light shade in clearings and
along the edges of open stands of oak-pine-hickory upland woods.
Common soils that this species is found in are moist to dryish clays, clay-
loams, or moderately podzolized. Natural fires and large herbivores are
considered to be historically important in maintaining open habitat for these
sunflowers.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species was found on the crest of a slope on
the north side of the highway across from Westwood mobile home park. A
plant by plant survey of the entire project area was conducted and no
Schweinitz's sunflowers were found. Therefore, no effects to this species
will result from the proposed widening of NC 24-27.
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are five (5) federal candidate (C2) species listed for Stanly
County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal protection
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as
organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data
currently exist to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act of the
North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal candidate species, the species' state status (if
afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area. This species list is provided for information
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
22
Table 4 Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species for Stanly County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME FED/NC STATUS HABITAT
Aster eor ianus Georgia Aster C2\C es
Ju lans cinerea Butternut C2\C es
Lotus urshianus var. helleri Heller's trefoil C2\C es
Nestronia umbrellula Nestronia C2\SR es
Verbena ri aria no common name C2\C es
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit,
nor were any of these species observed. A review of the data base of the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare species and unique habitats provided
records of the Carolina Darter occurring in Long Creek. The North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has listed this species as Special
Concern (SC). SC status is defined as "any species of wild animal native or
once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the Wildlife
Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken
under regulations adopted under the provisions of this article.
Additionally, the Natural Heritage program data base lists a basic oak-
hickory forest as a unique habitat. This forest is located approximately 1
mi. (1.6 km) from the study area.
E. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation
Physical Resources
Stanly County lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Providence. The
topography of Stanly County is characterized by gently rolling forested hills and
open fields. The average elevation throughout the project area is approximately
182.0 m (600 ft) above mean sea level.
2. Physiography
Terrain along the project corridor is undulating to steep with a relief of
54.9 meters (180 feet) along the length of the project. Seven streams, Poplin
Branch, Poplin Creek, Long Creek, Little Long Creek, Rock Creek, and two
unnamed tributaries, will be crossed. Drainage in the vicinity will be governed by
these streams.
23
3. Geology and Soils
Subsurface lithology is from the Carolina Slate Belt, primarily the Floyd
Church Formation. It consists of obscurely bedded to well bedded, highly
fractured, tuffaceous metasikltstone. Bedrock is typically encountered at depths
from 50.8 to 101.6 centimeters (20 to 40 inches).
According to the USDA soils manuals, soils in the area are primarily from
the Badin-Goldston soils association. They are shallow, well drained soils on
uplands.
Engineering properties of the soils indicate slight erosion equipment
hazards in the area. The depth to the seasonal high water table is greater than 1.8
meters (6 feet). Shrink-swell potentials are low to moderate. Soil reactivity,
measured in pH, ranges from 3.6 to 6.5 or extremely to slightly acid. The risk of
corrosion in concrete and uncoated steel is high. The soils are rated as poor for
use as roadfill material due to low strength. Construction of shallow excavations
and embankments is moderately restricted due to the depth to bedrock and high
clay content of the soil. Use for local roads and streets is severely limited due to
low soil strength and excessive wetness near stream crossings. AASHTO soil
classifications are given to be A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7.
4. Hazardous Material Inventory
a. Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities
A field reconnaissance identified seven UST facilities within the
currently defined project limits. Records from the Division of
Environmental Management's Groundwater Section were consulted to
ascertain registry information at these sites and to identify any additional
reported sites. A location and description of the facilities are listed below.
Because of the existing right of way 45.7 meters (150 feet), it is not
anticipated that any of these UST sites will be involved with this project.
This information is included in case later design requires construction limits
to extend further than currently expected.
Section AA
Site 1.
Farmer's Used Cars
NC 24-27
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Unknown
Facility ID#: Unknown
24
This facility is located on the north side of NC 24-27, approxi-
mately 15.2 meters (50 feet) east of the intersection with Mt. Vernon
Drive. It was a Shell service station at some time in the past and is now
operated as a used car dealership and inspection center. An area of
disturbed concrete is behind the abandoned pump island, possibly
corresponding to the location of a UST pit. One tank, probably from the
tank pit, was on the surface at the north edge of the property. An oil
change pit, overgrown with kudzu, is behind the station building. No
information of DEM registry is currently available.
Site 2.
Eury's Truck Stop
Highway 24-27 Bypass
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: R. J. Eury (Barefoot Oil Company)
Facility ID#: Unknown
This facility is located on the south side of NC 24-27,
approximately 61 meters (200 feet) west of the intersection with NC 138
South. There are five USTs on the property, three containing gasoline, one
with diesel and one with kerosene. Information on the size, construction
and registry of the tanks is not available at this time. The gasoline tank pit
is located on the east side of the parking area, approximately 38.4 meters
(126 feet) from the NC 24-27 centerline.
Site 3
Friendly Mart
199 Highway 24/27 Bypass
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Still Oil Co. 1410 East Main Street Albemarle, NC
Facility ID#: 0-023433
This convenience store and restaurant is located in the northwest
quadrant of the NC 24-27/NC 138 South intersection. There are five
USTs registered with the DEM at this location, three 22, 710 liter (6,000
gallon) tanks containing gasoline, one 37,850 liter (10,000 gallon) tank
containing diesel fuel and one 2,080 liter (550 gallon) tank containing
kerosene. The diesel/kerosene tank pit is located on the east side of the
building, approximately 54.5 meters (179 feet) from the centerline. All
tanks are made of steel with no cathodic protection. Installation of the
tanks was completed during May, 1964.
25
Site 4.
Convenient Corner #2
Highway 52 North
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Albemarle Oil Company 300 Circle Drive Albemarle, NC
Facility ID#: 0-023433
This convenience store and restaurant is located in the northwest
quadrant of the NC 24-27/US 52 North intersection. There are three
active USTs registered with the DEM. Each tank contains gasoline and is
made of steel with no cathodic protection. The tanks have 37,850, 30,280
and 22,710 liter (10,000, 8,000 and 6,000 gallon) capacities. The UST pit
is located in front of the building, approximately 32 meters (105 feet) from
the NC 24-27 centerline. According to DEM records, two steel, 1,210 liter
(4,000 gallon) tanks, one containing diesel and one with kerosene, were
permanently closed during December 1986. The location of this pit is
unknown.
Section AB
Site 5
Phase One Nite Spot (Formerly: Center Mart)
505 Highway 24-27
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Unknown
Facility ID#: Unknown
This facility is located on the north side of NC 24-27 at the
intersection with Spaulding Street. It is currently operated as an
entertainment center. An out-of-service pump island is in front of the
building. The undisturbed tank pit is located at the western edge of the
concrete parking area, approximately 43 meters (141 feet) from the NC 24-
27 centerline. There are fill ports and vent piping for two USTs. No DEM
registry information is currently available.
Site 6
Quick Check Exxon #8
627 Highway 24-27 East
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Wynn Dozier
Facility ID#: 0-033520
26
This convenience store is located in the northwest quadrant of the
NC 24-27/Henson Road intersection. There are two USTs registered with
the DEM at this location. Both tanks contain gasoline, are made of fiber
glass reinforced plastic with cathodic protection and have 45,420 liter
(12,000 gallon) capacities. The tank pit is located in front of the building,
approximately 25.6 meters (84 feet) from the NC 24-27 centerline.
b. Other Potential Hazards
Two other facilities with USTs were found during the
reconnaissance and document search, the City of Albemarle Service Center
and the NCDOT Maintenance yard. These sites are on either side of
NC 24-27 at the intersection with SR 1900 (Coble Avenue). Both
properties contain USTs that are outside the right of way described for this
widening project. The City of Albemarle Service Center stores
transformers on site and makes repairs on their vehicles. Due to the terrain
at this location,. there is a possibility that soil and/or groundwater
contamination, if any, may creep downslope, towards NC 24-27.
Collection of soil samples within the proposed northside right of way of
NC 24-27 may be warranted prior to construction.
The files of the Division of Solid Waste Management's Solid and
Hazardous Waste and Superfund Sections were consulted in order to
identify any reported contamination sources or events within project limits.
Based on the field reconnaissance and DSWM records, no additional
environmental hazards are expected to affect construction on this project.
F. Highway Traffic Noise Anal
An analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening on
noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation included an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient
noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the
proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for
the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of
Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted,
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Characteristic of Noise
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range
of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
27
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table NI (see Appendix page A-] 7).
Review of Table N 1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed
to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three
things:
I ) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with
various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise
abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned
Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for
various land uses is presented in Table N2 (see Appendix page A-18). The Leq, or
equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time
period has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating
sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same
energy content.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine
the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this noise level information was to
quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. From SR 1963 (the western termini of the project) to US 52, the
existing Leq noise level along NC 24-27 was determined to be 66.6 dBA. From US 52 to
SR 1783 (the eastern termini of the project), the noise level measured 69.4 dBA. Both
measurements were taken at 15 meters from the roadway.
28
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the Noise
Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983).
The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD47-108).
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. Only those
existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway
sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this
analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions made
in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the
year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour of the design year 2019, would be
exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and
those land uses predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase.
Table N5 (see Appendix page 30) indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted noise level increases for
this project range from +3 to +8 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to
barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of
the sound.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within
1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in either
category. As shown in Table N4, page A-29, 18 receptors along the project are predicted
to experience noise impacts.
29
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied with
a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures to
effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass,
attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain no control of access, with the exception of full control at
the US 52 interchange, meaning most commercial establishments and residences will have
direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all other intersections will adjoin
the project at grade.
. For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and
long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction.
Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight
distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 15 meters (50 feet) from the barrier would normally require a
barrier 120 meters (400 feet) long. An access opening of 12 meters (40 feet) (10 percent
of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable
measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus,
would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
"No-Build" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "no-build" alternative were also considered. If the
proposed widening did not occur, 6 residential receptors would experience traffic noise
impact by approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors in the
immediate vicinity of the project could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise
levels in the range of +1 to +5 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect
noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project,
can be expected, particularly from paving operations and from earth moving equipment
during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of
construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are
30
not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural
elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway
traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change
develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted.
G. Air Quality Anal
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial and
internal combustion engines'are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of common
outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting
from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SOD, and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned with determining
expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
CO Analysis
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor closest to the
highway project, two concentration components must be used: local and background. The
local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the
near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the
result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge
of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined using line source computer
modeling and the background concentration was obtained from NCDEHNR. Once the
two concentration components were resolved, they were added together to determine the
ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and to compare to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
31
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor
to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes,
vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes
are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the
CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within any section. Carbon monoxide vehicle
emission factors were calculated for the year of 1999 and the design year of 2019 using
the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile
source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8
parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was located at a distance of 22 meters from the
proposed centerline. The "build" and "no-build" one-hour CO concentrations for the
nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 1999 and 2019 are shown in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations PPM
Nearest Sensitive Receptor Build No-Build
1999 2019 1999 2019
R-77 2.8 3.0 3.8 7.4
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period is 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period is 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard.
Other Pollutants
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere
where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive
emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
32
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient
ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to decrease as a
result of reductions in automobile emissions.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will
cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. Newer cars
with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating, lead emissions. In the future,
lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the
sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31,
1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will
cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
The project is located in Stanly County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR, Part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that burning
will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will only be utilized under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust
generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process, and no additional reports are required.
H. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns
The terrain along the project is very hilly and rolling with natural streams and
draws located such that the roadway can be drained without difficulty. Table 5
summarizes the major stream crossings associated with the project and includes
recommendations for accommodation of the proposed widening. The project also
involves two minor stream crossings.
33
Table 5 Stream Crossings
Site Stream Existing Structure Recommendation Flood lain Status
1 Poplin Branch Box Culvert Retain and Extend Not in flood hazard zone
IA Poplin Creek Box Culvert Retain and Extend ; may need Included in detailed flood
under US 52 supplementation stud ; regulated floodwa
2 Rock Creek Reinforced Retain and Extend Included in detailed flood
Concrete Arch stud ; regulated floodwa
3 Little Long Bridge # 46 Retain and Widen Included in detailed flood
Creek stud ; regulated floodwa
4 Long Creek Bridge # 39 Retain and Widen Included in detailed flood
stud ; regulated floodwa
From recent field review and preliminary hydraulics analysis, the existing drainage
structures at Poplin Branch, Rock Creek, and Long Creek were determined hydraulically
adequate and in good condition. The proposed extension of these structures can be
accommodated without any significant modification of the existing stream alignment and
channel geometry. The triple barrel culvert at the US 52 crossing of Poplin Creek
appears to be hydraulically undersized, with the detailed flood study profile indicating that
the roadway is flooded at less than a ten-year design frequency. However, from
discussions with nearby store personnel and the District Engineer for this area, there has
been no history of roadway overtopping at this location. Based on this information it is
recommended that the existing culvert be retained and extended; however, the need for
supplementation will be investigated in detail in final hydraulics design. Both Bridge
No. 39 and Bridge No. 46 have been evaluated for bridge scour, and both were found to
be at low risk for scour problems.
Stanly County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program.
The floodplain areas in the vicinity of Poplin Creek, Rock Creek and Long Creek
crossings are primarily undeveloped and wooded with no buildings in the vicinity of the
project with a floor elevation below the I00-year flood level indicated in the detailed flood
study. Supplementation of the existing three-barrel culvert at this location may be
considered in final design to reduce the flood hazard in the vicinity of this stream crossing,
however, such improvement may require floodway modification at this site. The proposed
roadway widening and associated drainage accommodations will not have a significant
adverse effect on the existing floodplain areas and will not significantly increase the
existing flood hazards in the project vicinity. The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will
coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local authorities to
ensure compliance with applicable floodplain ordinances.
Both bridge sites (Long Creek and Little Long Creek) are below headwaters. All
of the culvert sites (Rock Creek, Poplin Creek, Poplin Branch) are above headwaters.
The project is not in a water supply watershed nor in a high quality water zone; therefore,
erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the appropriate specification,
installation, and maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control measures.
34
Existing drainage patterns will be maintained and may be improved where practicable.
Ground water resources will be evaluated in final hydraulics design to ensure measures are
taken to prevent contamination. Recommendations are preliminary and subject to
change, based on information obtained from a more detailed study during the final
hydraulics design phase of the project.
Geodetic Markers
It is anticipated that this project will have no impact on any geodetic survey
markers.
Section 4(f) Resources
No Section 4(f) properties will be involved with this project. One public park
(Roosevelt-Ingram Memorial Park) is located on the south side of NC 24-27,
approximately 2400 feet east of the US 52 interchange. At this location the proposed
widening will take place within the existing NCDOT right of way. No land will be
required from this park.
V1I. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On October 28, 1994, a letter was mailed to the following federal, state, and local
agencies to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning proposed
project (Note: an asterisk indicates those agencies who respond to this letter):
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife
U. S. Geological Survey
*Mayor of Stanly County
Stanly County Commissioner
*Centralina Council of Governments
*City of Albemarle
*N.C. Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
On May 17, 1995 a citizens information workshop was held in Stanly County.
This workshop was held in order to obtain comments and suggestions about the project
from the public. Approximately 31 persons attended this meeting. Most of the citizens in
attendance spoke in favor of the proposed project. Many of the questions and comments
concerned impacts to individual properties and questions regarding the proposed typical
section. Other comments included schedule for proposed action and safety improvements
at the US 52-NC 73/NC 138 intersection.
BG/plr
FIGURES

Z? d ri ? r
114
V4
W4
?lk
W4

y 1

w
z
(? z LL
W
F
N
c
zo?Q ? N 0Do
QVrnVco
Q F p¢ W Z N} N
xozmNZ?
oz Q- E
a? 3o,n
>
°z cc
Haa.p o
"IRIX 11 Z --A

i?
K

?::: _ i
i
EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 52-NC 73
-----
--------•-
N C 24-27
NC 138 (AQUADALE RD.)
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A
US 52-NC 73
.,?

US 52
SR 1645
(FIRST ST.)
BRIDGE

SR 1645
(FIRST ST.)
u
BRIDGE 49 1
_ _
---------- ----- --------- -------
----------
- ? .
NC 24/27
NC 138 (AQUADALE RD.) US 52
RAISED
MEDIAN
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 24-27 WIDENING
PROPO SED LANE CONFIGURATION FOR
i US 52-NC 79/NC 198 INTERSECTION
d US 52 INTERCHANGE
R-2530A
NOT TO SCALE FIG.9
a
A
NC 24 - 27 FROM SR 1249
TO NC 740 IN ALBEMARLE
ESTIMATED 1999/2019 ADT
TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN HUNDREDS
51
LEGEND
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
PM = PM PEAK
(0,0) = DUALS TTST (%)
NOTE: DHV-i D
(indicates the direction D)
PM
DHV D
(0,0)
NC 24 - 27

6

k, io

R 1249

49 ?60PM10
200 (4,s) A A
A ?
121 41
106 ?- ;
0
16 22
? ?.?

PM 10 182
(8) 234
28 6 0 33 NC 138 51
a >77
r X US 52/NC 73
53 (2,1) 53 28
211
126 349
207
!s 25 34

a
x
34 35 46

m
68
SR 1274 70 6OPM10
ea `(2,2) 60PM10 94
x(2,2) 126
20 60 PM 10 53 US 52 SR 1645

30 t --
(2,1)
85
\21

113
181
207
339
-? o
A .0
N ;

2 ./
\.. a
SR 1963 7
13
CITY STREET
7 60 PM10 24
29 +- r
? 11 (3, I ) 39 f 95
208
301
12
210
6 ?r i?,,3o 22
SR 1900 SR 1783 65 3
6
2 ?
0 55 PM 8 4-16 8 75 g p-
65 22 4 60 PM 9 11
1 1 -
- `
(2,1) 101 (3,4) 30 6 .
(2,1) 16
184
L 309
190

° v 5

? 9

CITY STREET NC 24-27-73 56

j7
-
62
84

6 3P M)9

SR 1625
w ;
m 8 14 116
9
16 130
15 24 181
55 PM 9 15 27 180
121 (3, 2)
196 90
170
FIGURE 4
A A . NC 7 40
1
27
HENSON ST.

7 7
,? 1
i- ??? _ ," / t \. , \ _

1. , I • 576

-1 11
? ?
?
3
? t
? ' ? ?-
?'
? 6 ..
.
'• ?.? ? (?•: /? - - -- - , ,15
' ?
/\ 1?` 1``? yOl ./ // `'.,.•(! .1n•.?:\ ? I1?,. ???Walnut t\?1'+J1 .
J
i \, I -
Y?i I1 I'? ,l. -1 _ .-
?
r_-_.-I1 ? `? •
-
A
i ' eLd? ? ? •: `? ?I ? ? ? r Stilt ? ? \ 1 ,,.?-
h/41 ?': `- r-
_F??
/
EOGEMONT-S7 LOVE ??
• t ;East 4lbemdtle •?
T-5 1-. , I ?', •-c ?;yA 7• RN II I ?i ._\? ?`_%•., I , I - 3y `r..
T

o ?ov,(,er
R
.?DKINa STREET\1'' I `I KY)__ -
+` BM 40- -??/?(' ?

- ?: .? ••

,. I _-
, `
i
^?
III ,
,
'
1 ?- ?
\ /
II
a
- .
(
? k I 2
I 1+
\ I

\ o
?l
a
` CANNON rI. A E ?,
CAN
NON,
568 )-
?
ta
S j ark
rl
?' J
S
/
1 ??
1
`
t ?g t .?
-`; )\\
C X
( L'
i J ` ?
( I ^ I
\ ?\ j °_ r
I
ield
? ?, ;

?•?J
AN

- ¦ I rV
\ I .M?i

i ? j?t ?PEB` ' : I`.

, _
.ill.

l I / 'Carkway
i?
Aft

?; ? ,??
1 GII' r ?,
•
'\G(p(-"?? 'rd/ T I ?!! 6? ? ? '? ?
? > \ t I ?• 1 • ! ? n `J/ ? \ ? .. J a iti, I r /: . iI e / rj 'e ( L?b ?.
? ' 2? ?
E
/
\\ \ /' ? / ?? ?" ,. I' e /
P ; \ •? ? i \ --i, 4 4r ?, i
o?/ ? '
BM \ ('
/
$t3? ?
, >
L
AST. i
:
II
579.) !IGarden? r??
. t t
' ti'J I o i' a J :? - !ya
? \I s'? _ 565 i
/. 4iaYopLti? ?,,,
, • ?RK S6" E, I,
TEVl " t`/ I 27

"rk
Pud-Gpsp
1
I
n '

rj\ ? ? ,133 Ab ndon
mirpUlt
c u yl''\i -l? l I. /?- ' ?/ \ ? ? i r 'd I J
;
v
.
\ ' \ ? \ ?`, / ? \ J \`
?Tra r
rk Pl egln.
arld? c 4ZO? ?\ ??
?? ?,+FAii

BM,? I `. ' !ill \I I ill
- IT /? III I ?\I. i
?
' / '`
` /? ??
\?
\? `•?
\
Bethesda r
?
?,
_...1 I ! _t\ - `_ v
\
,
_? • ?, ,r ,
\ ?_/, (?
I'T

' `? ' - - \•: b

!5
l
= Bethesda\ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION
Cem
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
/ 1 '? `?L
L
\Cc BRANCH
7? ?7? ,? ?7 1\
+ APPROXEWATE LBUTS OF

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
\
I
S b
i ' )
. \ \
!
% 539 J 2 '5_TRIP
FLOODPLAIN AREAS
IN THE PROJECT VICINITY u., ;
u'!II \ \? //???1 lI \~ r \\? .11
•???" ' /"' J r-'

\r Il
:??? •"_ ` _i'' •?"

52 /-` TIP PROJECT R-2530A
/i /?' FIGS
' -- •-?.------.?Ll- \ \\?_'--- - Ilii•?/
/? 5I6 1/l/ \ n' Ix'j n

UA'
City of Albemarle
AREA NOT INCLUDED
LEGEND
Dw B
T

14

XRM3
SITE 4
\
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
FLOOOPLAIN AREAS
IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
TIP PROJECT R•2530A
100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
SITE 3
R
L
J?
FIG.5A
. II71 "I
1
__j
LIMIT OF
I STUDYEiD

0
4
EAST
?O
Oo
0
P?
1 Q°?
llru ' ESN
SOUTH
I STREET
LEGEND
100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
I
SITE IA
L Ne
I SITE 2
500-YEAR FLOOD
-? CONTAINED IN
CULVERT \ o
? o
`ROCK CREEK q
-ARK DRIVE
LIMIT OF
DETAILED
STUDY
I
-Foot Bridge ??P<<G
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
FLOODPLAIN AREAS
IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
TIP PROJECT R-2530A
FIG.5B
c(J•\ 1: . ?l': 57'1:°?•? Z r.'-.'..
t • 'tom \/ ?(-G• .?.1? .' , l ? ? tt_
fi'''t-•': ( V
• I l O Y ,.X, ??,i K.
"allow
_ \ \ f } t ,? I rr
i..
0??, ? 1. t + )? K.?•?•/ 1 ??\?? T_,, A'
•]/ ?`;'?' / 1i. ?. ( ':r':-?_:-:'".-i,i,.}.• / ? I -_- =lam -. •,, -_ ,,'' .QIY f/(+??? a{ f- J:. 11 r ,j ? if-' ` .l
'? ?"?\,? '.. r 1.15 • ?„? _•'^..?-•'?I,-L -.. \ v"1
:.O ?•? S,y. `?J?4•. •//•• a. A+T` r.i. _ aTT :'?I!• i'• '? +!'....,r \ _y°'n '(..: ??,.y"+5A11
hl tt {?.; ! ti{?rKf:y /.C'. ftl.? ;'• ?1}?' ?' L? ll l:,rR? fi +1;T''?0?
.:, 't1 [ t„i£•`• fb :tG;y • ? ' f e ? w,. G15 1 1 {.
1 ?v?l'x•5 • . • ?1? . 7 - ? ? ? ?ta(J t T c. ! + c t ' ? ,y r? ,+'_ \'"v? ? "Gl? ° - ? \? i' J t p ;ast?t?u" '
N
,°?, t ` ? ? 3,?r 11.. bn .:ti ?k+L"9•,¢:?'SF`t f t ?? '/ ? .' \ . '' .. sr } T? ,
-hl
R Y i tlfw ?tt? 1 - ?_11 ? _ k .+ ie F
•( •l?f ?. i '. <'? o ' '? +" /` i.rr? tC {.?a} ?? y? s :? •.t /°?rfb_?' • 'Yl ? ? ? 1 ? ?1' /b'i';
I.i .{r ?`? .• •`.F` '^ Y 1?_ ?! 1. •j?NP ' .1 l \\ 't!•r mod, T ??? rt Ufa r? \ l?
• '; ?/ r*?. ?*f; ?1'???n' lt?.?rss!`F??i 1?.?y41r? n} s• { t .. ? •' ??Ai (? ???r
'? f ? •_, ? 5J, •ar. r ?5(r>••?• ISn?? y? 1` , k - }O?' : t ( ? .1i,1'7 4
%L.l/ P ,?, _. __ ,. ,•w.- ?!. (ly`r `t;....?. ?,? T ?YF ? :r .t? ...?J17,?,j? ??t ? ,._. ?,.c?•• 1 1
I.h?ttkl)' ?!? .43':? jlI ?,? T r:1•!1 •: ar- Vii: rte: \'b\ ,`??`•. /
•f
5

` r ,xP' ••? 41
rta.-. • Sr. b r. , . ,

r ? M

• ?. F
J
.f
.*
. . .....
:. =$ _
.-
Y-cu

'92 LK
?J.+ G?Ai ? '' ?... ?? , 1+ ? i?c f r ?'r.l' •.Clt l ?11

o ?
F "1
F U'
U-
4 w Cl)
ZZ
?0
D
Z Pualz
z
w
?' Z =) Co
Z
r
iFWA. )QON
=
%ac wW- cc
p
°
za
??Za
a
F(nm,?U
a
5 ? Okla-H
?
cn w
zI.Qok tJ WQ
j ? H U-
1+ v
l (?
1 '
awl
s
;O )
A, I
1
:?sa ('' of • oo • •) _?'
.••.. ,.. v- x., O ?: v ?' :? f''r ? ?' ? ) j X11 '.}
y$. `¦• ? S .t.? Fy??•y=`?? <ji qt, ?J'1.n+ ? Z ?'•r • s?t:s ?? ?i! ti (`/?,•^
• .. • • \. ? - ay' ' n ..?.{fp?'• tt • • r 1'yi ) ? 1 it+ l \?
.",-_ Mh !1.i' t'O 't? ?, ?•, t\= ??.Z F}+? R1'" • L?i + '?I r+??ir \ •.
? Ta" Y'..}e QQjp ? mil" ',?' { ' f•(. ' lm?i•t ''U' " ? • • ? ?} y ?r? ,
?L? y'/ ,f,• '>•i. "t?117. '?'d'k, .q q?, ' ' ? 4 j ? + '`. } ?+t?(r.
? .. . tav 'Y•{. nT xt; t Iz t IN '+? i' y
. t.r' 7.t 'h':{ ! I+t ,(t .. \ 1?? .h-+ t r?'j? f 1, 1?1 COIC
E ? ?c•W +•?'c?v x t ,yY+, `,?:}as ?},? w ??,y"•„ "? ?T. i w? y ?.
el,
ZOO=!;
-?, O? ^`` f 1 ;•'l'b p r ?) O' r r?',. r • a., r)O? iK =.`a•'^-
• ? y (}' makes + t ` ?' ? r , 1 ?.J !? x v' ?f
IQ :3
. r
wlleZ
S314 ??'•2? I ? .cd• J •`` ? (...tea • '2•:??: ,_,?,' .?-- ` ??_ '. `? ..;; . •, .i
EXISTING TRAFFIC PATTERNS
NC
FUTURE TRAFFIC PATTERNS
(TIP PROJECT R-2320)
US 52/NC 73
NC 24-27
NC 138
i
NOT TO SCALE
US 52
SR 1645
T
0
FUTURE REVISION OF US 52 UNDER
TIP PROJECT R-2320
FIG. 7
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
a PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
APPENDIX

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 18, 1975 -
MEMORANDUM
aJAN 3 1995
Division X
William
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation /
FROM: David Brook
L
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 24-27 from SR 1249 to NC 740,
Stanly County, R-2530A, Federal Aid Project No.
STP-24(2), State Project No. 8.T680301, CH 95-E-
4220-0296
GIViSiCN OF
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
Donna Dodenhoff conducted a comprehensive survey of historic architectural
resources in Stanly County in 1990. We have conducted a search of our maps
and files and have located the following structures of historical or architectural
importance within the general area of the project:
Former Catholic Church (ST 547)
We recommend that an architectural historian with the North Carolina Department
of Transportation evaluate this property for National Register eligibility. No further
historic structures survey is necessary.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church

109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-1
s
40
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 21, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for NC 24-27
from east of SR 1963 to east of SR 1783,
Albemarle, Stanly County, R-2530A, Federal Aid
Project STP-24(2), State Project 8.T680301, ER
95-9081
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
JUAI 2 6 1995
Z D1ti•
'r $
Thank you for your letter of May 10, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Scott Owen concerning the above project.
We concur that the following property is not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places:
Former Catholic Church (ST 547). This property was moved from its original
location in 1970, and lacks sufficient architectural significance to overcome
the effects of the move.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
A \I
VDa i Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
8
A-2
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
31T.? f
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 15, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook 41--t-4 la
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: NC 24-27 from SR 1249 (Canton Road) to
NC 740, R-2530A, Stanly County, 95-E-
4220-0296
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
??? C
T O
r SL`P
19 199S
?h?'?'MENTP` ? .
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street -Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 1?3P
A-3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
CEHNR
November 30, 1994
TO: McMa McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0296; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 24-27, TIP No. R-2530A
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6)- Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employe, 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

A-4
Melba McGee
November 30, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow.locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDO"'k utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: .
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10776er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
A-5
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone]
Dec 07'94 . 7:59 No.001 P.06
r? Nor?th,?Ca?rolina
Wfl(fiffe Resources Commission 0 _
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
MEMORANDUM Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 6, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for NC 24-27, from SR 1249
(Canton Road) to NC 740 in Albemarle, Stanly
County, North.Carolina, TIP No. R-2530A, SCH
Project No. 95-0296.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen existing NC 24-27 from SR 1249
to NC 740 in Albemarle. Two alternatives are being
considered; a five lane curb and gutter section throughout
or a four lane shoulder section with a raised median from
the western terminus to the US 52 interchange with a five
lane curb and gutter section along the remaining portion of
the project.
At this time the NCWRC has no specific recommendations
or concerns regarding the subject project. However, to help
facilitate document preparation and the review process, our
general informational needs are outlined below:
A-6
NCWRC,HCP,FRLLS LRKE TEL:[phone] Dec 07'94 7:59 N0.001 P.07
Memo Page 2 December 6, 1994
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project construction
should be included in the inventories. A listing
-ref designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project. The need for channelizing or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
A-7
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 07'94 8:00 NO.001 P.08
Memo Page 3 December 6, 1994
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary
development facilitated by the improved road
access.
'V.
9. If construction of this facility is to be
coordinated with other state, municipal, or
private development projects, a description of
these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors
should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please contact David Cox, Highway
Project Coordinator, at [phone].
CC: Wayne Chapman, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Ken Knight, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and wildlife Service, Raleigh
A-8
NW
I?.\IVI.I.?C:'!??i'?/11 !`.!'I :', !.. I.{!.,•\t :'?i
f rater-Agency Project hevie?Y l:esponse
i
I '01.1 My
C. Nan - Ife ! ypc of P ra jecc
-? The applie.i,- t should be advised that plans and specifications for ail hater system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Ervironmencal Health prior co:che•award
of a contract or the inluatloll Of construccioli (as requi-ed by 1SA NCAC 18C .0300 et.. seq.).
For informatioll, contact the Public Water Supply Se_tion, [phone].
-? This-project will be classified as a non-community pu'rlic water supply and rnusL comp;y with
state and feneral drinking water rionitoring reQulreme::LS. For more lnformaLio11 the applicant
J '
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, (9151 733-2321.
-? Jf this project is const111cted as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet- of adjacent
-? Watels to the har./est of shellfish. For information -e?arding the-shellfisi sanitation progra.?
m, the applicant should contact. the Shellfish S:nitaiiDn Branch at [phone].
The spoil-disposal are?( s) proposed for this project rna-.• produce a mosgtrito breeding-problen:.
r
•-) For inTormacion concerning appropriate mosquito '_ontrol measures, the applicant •shouia:
contact the Public Health Pest Nlaragement• Section t (919) 726=8971.
-? The applicant should be advised Chat prior to she removal or demolition of dilapidated
-? scruetures, an exteisive rod-drlc C6.11rol Proarar itl:' be rlecessa-;? l.il Cr6er'c0 pl"eVeP_t zi?e
' r
n7lgratlon o{ tlic rodents Lc adlaccll The :':Orm?,L1On. COI1Cer rlinz mdCAL contro'
contact tl,Le local heals h dep'a1LirenL. or the Put ilc Htalt!: PesL l\ha11a;e. n:en=.?eCC11,r 1' :LC (919)
733-64-07.
-?'i_e ah??licanr should be advised Cc cJnCacc the !-cal, he:llch deYarL1_zer1- rearuing the::
r .a s.. rcs .• °e..r./- 1 rr-?1 r,`n arid ?rllri•4 !C' /. ]. 10Y,
Ll!? . 1? _•A.L. .1.
itouir?.li-an fc. r.. (s ; rle r .
_ For Information C^P..-'F?!i?? "'_?Ltr can., ?n;! C;ti °r on_s:r.e. 7!asce C-1_'oosa n?ri_nods, c01-acct ha
/9 i?j !'1 LH?S
---? The appilcani: should be advised LO corliraC:L Lhe..,iota? i'lealtil dep..rtnl•?nr. re;a;ding the Sac1iL:1_ •
J l'ac1lttlC_S I-cgLllrecl IUr ;ll:; IirU)Cc;t
it CY.ISLII119 WaLC:' lir1C.': will bc: Leioc--aZc-,. Call!::-1 Lilt: C:O11SC1'UcLiC.)n. !7i'.1:15 l1i' 111 C: tV'.lif'l' !...
r.1ocaciorl I11USL be Subli-IlUCCI CO Lll(: l` '!SIO11 0:: iil''I!'L1P111Cr1L'al i-'Ca?Cll, L:!?iIC Nn%:,Lel SLlll_
JCCL'lOll, 1-11-111 1\e\'ICvI uiartCl'I, ?.?30 Sc .v.aiv, i -,t:rrCl ,?;ilCtC4,l, (\lC?1'L,l co 11 n:,,., 9)
?3 ='?L;r sM? cvlcaier:. - Sectionn/BranC'E
A ?
. Dace
' • state of NeAh Caronns " geviewing Off":
Osoaflnlatft of andron"llit. Hiss! t. and Natural Msouteas U
'" -
.
hpjeet Nlambsf: Due Oats:
RITE+tZf3OVZjtNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMEOM -? lj -
ct It has then detsrryst"d test the ENNR pentlit(s) anWw 11110prOvvs MdiWilid clay need to a obtained in
w review of this pra»io
for toll-this -?Pt,pjact to e101001r with North C A10111116 Law.
t Office indicated On the to' Me of the foftn.
estiorn wparding these permits should be addressed to the Ilepiona
these pans and portraits are available froth the same Normal proem.
i
t
o
a
applications. MNo ion and guidelines talat
Time
pionsi Offiq.
WIC" APPIAAMN PROCEDURES w REOLUREMENTS !amnytltime
'EIIMTT>:
Application 00 days store begin wdtmtt:tldn Or ttswisto 01 EO oars
rnrut a awailruet a operate wastewater tootment
construction contracts On•stte WaVoctron. losta0la?+
ciullsa, "wet "Stem Klenaiens, a aura teehnicat ao aaril
Conference IMIw
%Ismns ao1 «actwplnp into state outtaa waters.
?OES • fanrrt t0 dteeharge Into tludisce mitts sneer Application 11110 Oars before 0"18 activity. pe?sito inspection.
nference uawt Additionally. oetain permit to 110120 Oars '
p'mn to operate and construct wastewater facilities ?re•alppocation co
Construct wastewater treatment twiiity-granted afir NPOES Mph tNrAt
actnarrv into state Surface wetem.
time. 30 days shor few" of plats or claw of Upon
pemnil?llwCMraar to ewer.
x ears
Noi00fitJlion Me"" Confataeoa 11111111,1101" foams" ftA)
later NN P~
? are
st
te cation of :utoco%W and penn+t WuaO
? fts duel
wlt Consttuctan pontut
a
Application Copy swat a served on owl% adjacent npanon Oropemr
prWpiication conference Lust. pill"
ection
ins
l ? Oars
.
p
te
MOP and fM Permit owner. On•a
may reauire Easement to fist tram N.C. Dellso Bent of M days
Administration and Federal Orodpe and fill potmMt.
110 Bars
Go
netmtt to Construct i operate Ai falutnon Abatement OVA
crnues andror Emission Souris as per 1SA NCAC 21N days)
a
?ny Open burning associated with subject proOOSM
a+ust as on compliance with ISA NCAC 2011S20.
pemolntnon.ot rentltrations of structures containing a0 Sri
@&tlestos m otortai must to in compliance with tSA MfA
NG?C 20 05ft which re0nntes notification and toWevOl ,
prior to demnaarat Contact Asbestos Contra Orono AO rays)
919 7334M
Com offs "urce Permit requited under 16A NCAC 20.01100•
This Sedimentation Pollution Contra Act of 1973 must tw property aeeressed for any lane disturbing activity An erosion a woof entatt0
roper Regional Office (Lane Ousiny Sect.t at least 30
ith
f
l
d
p
20 days
p
i
e
w
lan
control plan will be required it one or Mrs acres to be deturbee
t A te* at =3C lot the first acre and f20 00 for esc% 03e1lrona, acre or am must accorh an Ina tan
t 13
ivi
ds•s before be mmitiac
The Seerrnentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to tie relemenced LOCat OrOrnanea: 0 days(
On-site inspection usual wrely bond filed with ENN11. SOno mount
30600
600
wanes with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area Gays)
0
Mining forme
mined greater than one acre nwst be permmod The spor"nate Send
must be received afore the permit can be lwww
On-site inspection by M.C. Division Forest RasoutoM a permit
NOmft Carolina wPMrrg permit I Itay
wAI
aaaeds a an
oecet Ground Cs On-site inspection by N.O. Division Forest Resoureas reemNs0'M more
gran five acres of ground efeannp anivitiss are Involved. IrnspeCtitMns
- I Mr
OuAI
co i N.C. a arntiea M ttnastat N.C. with h or organic cells
VICOUld Oo rpuasled at least tan days before =JUN burn Is planned.
-- ,0.120 says
• MuAI
91tA
Oil IHhning wall-
K permit required. application 00 days before begin po a n0=11L eM
30
Apolicant must trte N.C. Qualified engineer to. prepare plans•
inspect construetton. comity construction is according to EMNPt al ? 40 Oars)
him sooty forrrllt
a0 plans May also rwours permit under mnotiauno contra peg
a 40/ permit from Corps of Engineets An Inspection Of wile IS Peeee-
sary to verity Huard Classification. A minimum tee of 1200.00 swat ac-
Company the application. An additional processing toe based on a
percent or the lotat Protect cost wilt to rettwted upon contONltr9
Continued •: t s!verat
w rs
f
i
t
A-10
I'"
State of North Carolina I v 1994
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural ources
Division of Land Resources sy_.
James G. Martin. Governor PROJECT RSVIHW CONIaMS Charles H. Gardner
WWiam W. Cobey. Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: R S- 62 c1 G County: . 57/}i /,Y
Project Name: O 2-,F 4
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation.Control
•i
No comment
This projeclt will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land=disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control
should be prepared by the Department
erosion control program delegation to
North Carolina Sedimentation Control
Other (comments attached)
plan required for this project
of Transportation under the
the Division of Highways from the
Commission.
For more information contact the Land Quality section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Te!ephone [phone]
P,n Equal Opponunlry Affirmadv< A-1 1 Employer
CHAIRMAN:CAROLYNCARPENTER CENTRALINA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
WCECHAIRMAN: CLAYTON LOFLIN POST OFFICE BOX 35008 ONE CHARLOTTETOWN CENTER
SECRETARY.- HOYLE MARTIN CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28235 1300 BAXTER STREET
TREASURER: ROBERT RANDALL 704/372-2416 FAX [phone]

TO: Stanly County Manager ?34y678 Q
Albemarle City Manager;
NC Intergovernmental Review Process ICY
- M
1VWW
Review and Comment Form a a
?? City M>tes?
c?. Office
This office has received the attached information about a proposal
your jurisdiction.
If you need more information, contact the applicant directly. If you need an extension
of time for review, contact Hilda Threatt immediately.
If you wish to comment on this proposal action, complete this form with comments and
return to this office by January 1 1 , 1995
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no comments
regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier Number 95-0296
Commenterrs Name Raymond I. Allen Title
City Manager
Representing City of Albemarle
(Jurisdiction)
Address P. 0. Box 190
Albemarle, North Carolina 28002-0190
Phone [phone]
Date November 23, 1994
CABARRUS COUNTY concord harrnsburg kannapolis mount pleasant GASTON COUNTY belmont bessemer city cherryville cramerton dallas
gastorna high shoals lowell mcadenville mount holly ranlo spencer mountain stanley IREDELL COUNTY harmony mooresville statesville
troutman LINCOLN COUNTY lincolnton MECKLENBURG COUNTY charlotte Cornelius davidson huntersville matthews mint hill pmewlle
ROWAN COUNTY china grove Cleveland faith granite quarry lands rockwell salisbury spencer STANLY COUNTY albemarle badin
locust new London norwood oakboro nchfield stanfield UNION COUNTY Indian trail marshville monroe stallmgs wingate
A _»
City of f Albemarle
North Carolina
Office of Mailing Address
P. 0. BOX 190
City Manager November 23, 1994 Albemarle, N. C
[phone] 28002-0190
Ms. Hilda Threatt
_ Centralina Council of Governments
Post Office Box 35008
Charlotte, North Carolina 28235
Re: Intergovernmental Review Process - State I.D. #95-0296
(Widening of N.C. 24-27)
Dear Ms. Threatt:
This is in response to the request for comments from the City of Albemarle
regarding the above-styled project. The Albemarle City Council reviewed
this request at its November 21 meeting.
The City Council voted unanimously to endorse the proposed widening of
N.C. 24-27, and expressed the opinion that this is a critical transpor-
tation need for the City. The City is unaware of any specific environmental
impacts that should be considered in design and construction of the project.
The City Council also voted to endorse the alternative of a five lane curb
and gutter section for the length of this project. It is the City's
opinion that this design will best serve the City's needs now and in the
future.
If you need any additional information or clarification, please let me
_ know.
Sincerely,
Raymond I. Allen
City Manager
RIA:pwt
cc: James R. Jensen, City Engineer
Benton Payne, 10th Division Engineer
A-13
United States Department of the In
•?
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE N',
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726 'JAN 0 1995 _
January 5, 1995
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
?RONME?P
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your October, 28, 1994 letter requesting U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) comments on the proposed widening of NC 24-27 from SR
1249 to NC 740 in Albemarle, Stanly County, North Carolina. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
To assist you in your preparation of the biological assessment, this office
maintains a list of Federally-listed species by county within North Carolina.
Habitat requirements for the Federally-listed species in the project area should
be compared with the available habitat at the project site. If appropriate
habitat is present, surveys for the species should be performed, and survey
methodologies and results should be forwarded to this office for review and
comment.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and candidate
(C) species that are known to occur in Stanly County. Candidate species refers
to any species being considered by the Service for listing as endangered or
threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed rule. These species are not
legally protected under the Act or subject to its provisions, including Section
7, until formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. Although
candidate species have no legal status and are accorded no protection under the
Act, their inclusion will alert you of potential proposals or listing.
Therefore, it would be prudent for you to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate
species or their habitat.
The Federally-listed endangered Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
is known to occur in Stanly County along NC 24-27. This sunflower frequently
occurs in road rights-of-way, in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to
dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams that often have a high gravel
content. This species is known to occur in areas with full sunlight or light
shade, and is dependent on periodic disturbances to reduce the shade and
competition of woody plants, such as maintained road rights-of-way. If
appropriate habitat for the Schweinitz' sunflower is available in the project
area, we recommend that surveys be conducted. If surveys indicate that
Schweinitz' sunflower are located within the project area, the project has the
potential to adversely affect this plant species, and you should contact our
office for further information before proceeding.
The Service's review and comment on any biological assessment could be expedited
if it contained the following information:
A-14
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of
the associated habitat that may be affected by the action;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed
action and are later in time but are still reasonably certain
to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of
Federal, State, and private activities in the project and
cumulative effects area;
C. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger
action and depend on the larger action for their
justification;
d. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent
utility apart from the action under consideration;
e. Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered
as part of future Section 7 consultation);
5. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any
listed species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
6. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential
effects;
7. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria;
Additionally, if any of the proposed work may impact wetland habitats, we
recommend that you consult the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the need
for Department of the Army permits to perform work in wetlands for which they may
have regulatory responsibility. The Corps' contact person in this regard is Mr.
Robert Johnson, Room 75, Grove Arcade Building, 37 Battery Park Avenue,
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-2714
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments early in the planing
process. If we may be of further assistance, please contact biologist Kate
Looney at 856-4520 (ext. 16).
Sincerely,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
A-15
REVISED NOVEMBER 30, 1994
Stanly County
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - E
Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - E
-4-
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate" (C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - C2
Georgia aster (Aster aeoraianus) - C2
Butternut (Juolans cinerea) - C2
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) - C2*
no common name (Verbena riparia) - C2
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
A-16
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
"-
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
A-17
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
IV%
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.
H 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 H above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CPR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
<50 >15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
A-18
TABLE N3.1 1/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project N B.T680301, TIP N R-2530A
Alternative 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION N&REST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEV EL
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL N AME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE

Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road)
1 Business C NC24-27 43.0 L 59 NC24-27 43.0 L - - 65 + 6
2 Business C It 81.0 L 53 " 87.0 L --------------------N/A---------- ---
3 Church E It 71.0 R 55/<40 to 67.0 R - - 61/<40 + 6/0
4 Residence B " 92.0 R 52 It 85.4 R - - 58 + 6
5 Residence B " 36.0 R 61 " 29.4 R - - * 68 + 7
6 Residence B " 94.0 R 52 " 87.4 R - - 58 + 6
7 Residence B " 44.0 R 59 " 37.4 R - - * 66 + 7
8 Residence B " 58.0 R 57 " 51.4 R - - 63 + 6
9 Residence B '• 83.0 R 53 " 76.4 R - - 59 + 6
9A Residence B " 102.0 R 51 " 95.4 R - - 57 + 6
10 Residence B " 110.0 L 50 " 116.6 L - - 54 + 4
11 Residence B " 53.0 L 57 " 59.6 L - - 62 + 5
12 Residence B " 33.0 L 61 " 39.6 L - - to 66 + 5
13 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 " 46.6 L - - 64 + 4
14 Residence B " 82.0 L 53 " 88.6 L - - 58 + 5
15 Residence B " 43.0 L 59 " 49.6 L - - 63 + 4
16 Church E 27.0 L 63/<40 •' 33.6 L - - 67/42 + 4/2
16A Residence B " 37.0 L 60 to 43.6 L - - 65 + 5
17 Residence B " 74.0 L 54 •' 80.6 L - - 59 + 5
18 Residence B 63.0 L 56 " 69.6 L - - 60 + 4
19 Residence B 57.0 L 57 " 63.6 L - - 61 + 4
20 Residence B " 58.0 L 57 " 64.6 L - - 61 + 4
21 Residence B " 58.0 L 57 to 64.6 L - - 61 + 4
22 Residence B " 48.0 L 58 to 54.6 L - - 63 + 5
23 Residence B to 35.0 L 61 " 41.6 L - - 65 + 4
24 Residence B " 106.0 L 50 " 112.6 L - - 55 + 5
25 Residence B 99.0 L 51 " 105.6 L - - 56 + 5
26 Residence B " 95.0 L 51 to 101.6 L - - 56 + 5
27 Residence B " 94.0 L 52 " 100.6 L - - 56 + 4
• 28 Residence B " 85.0 L 53 " 91.6 L - - 57 + 4
29 Residence B " 83.0 L 53 " 89.6 L - - 57 + 4
30 Residence B " 77.0 L 54 to 83.6 L - - 58 + 4
30A Residence B " 69.0 L 55 '• 75.6 L - - 59 + 4
30B Residence B to 87.0 R 52 to 80.4 R - - 59 + 7
31 Apts. (4) B '• 104.0 R 50 to 97.4 R - - 56 + 6
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> No ise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise l evels shown as exterior/interior ( 58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFA Part 772).
A-19
TABLE N3.1 2/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project 9 8.T680301, TIP N R-2530A
Alternative 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road) Cont'd
32 Apts. (4) B NC24-27 60.0 R 56 NC24-27 53.4 R - - 63 + 7
33 Apts. (4) S " 61.0 R 56 " 54.4 R - - 63 + 7
34 Business C " 50.0 R 58 " 43.4 R - - 65 + 7
35 Business C " 53.0 R 57 " 53.0 R - - 63 + 6
36 Business C " 39.0 L 60 •' 43.0 L - - 65 + 5
36A Business C " 45.0 L 59 " 52.0 L - - 63 + 4
37 Residence B " 75.0 L 54 " 82.0 L - - 58 + 4
38 Residence B " 88.0 L 52 " 95.0 L - - 57 + 5
39 Residence B " 105.0 L 50 " 110.0 L - - 55 + 5
40 Residence B " 130.0 L 48 " 136.0 L - - 53 + 5
SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138
41 Business C NC24-27 38.0 R 60 NC24-27 36.0 R --------------------N/A------ ---- ---
42 Business C " 56.0 L 57 " 62.6 L - - 61 + 4
43 Residence B " 37.0 L 60 It 43.6 L - - 65 + 5
44 Residence B " 86.0 L 53 It 92.6 L - - 57 + 4
45 Residence B " 89.0 L 52 " 95.6 L - - 57 + 5
46 Residence B " 91.0 L 52 " 97.6 L - - 56 + 4
47 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 " 46.6 L - - 64 + 4
48 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 " 46.6 L - - 64 + 4
49 Residence B " 92.0 L 52 " 98.6 L - - 56 + 4
50 Residence B 90.0 L 52 " 96.6 L - - 57 + 5
51 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 " 46.6 L - - 64 + 4
52 Residence B '• 92.0 L 52 " 98.6 L - - 56 + 4
53 Residence B " 95.0 L 51 •' 101.6 L - - 56 + 5
54 Residence B " 95.0 L 51 " 101.6 L - - 56 + 5
55 Residence B " 94.0 L 52 " 100.6 L - - 56 + 4
56 Residence B " 88.0 L 52 " 94.6 L - - 57 + 5
57 Residence B " 39.0 L 60 " 45.6 L - - 64 + 4
58 Residence B " 82.0 L 53 " 88.6 L - - 58 + 5
59 Residence B " 75.0 L 54 " 81.6 L - - 58 + 4
60 Residence B " 30.0 L 62 " 36.6 L - - * 66 + 4
61 Residence B " 25.0 L 63 " 31.6 L - - * 68 + 5
62 Residence B " 46.0 R 59 " 39.4 R - - * 66 + 7
63 Residence B •' 46.0 R 59 " 39.4 R - - * 66 + 7
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A
A-20
TABLE N3.1 3/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
Alternative 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION t& REST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- M AXIMUM INCREASE

SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138 (COnt 'd)
64 Residence B NC24-27 76.0 L 54 NC24-27 69.4 L - - 60 + 6
65 Residence B " 82.0 L 53 " 75.4 L - - 59 + 6
66 Residence B " 76.0 L 54 " 69.4 L - - 60 + 6
67 Residence B " 37.0 L 60 " 30.4 L - - * 68 + 8
68 Residence B " 73.0 L 54 " 66.4 L - - 61 + 7
69 Residence B " 38.0 L 60 " 31.4 L - - * 68 + 8
70 Residence B " 79.0 L 53 " 72.4 L - - 60 + 7
71 Residence B " 26.0 L 63 " 32.6 L - - It 67 + 4
72 Residence B " 27.0 L 63 " 33.6 L - - * 67 + 4
73 Residence B " 91.0 L 52 " 97.6 L - - 56 + 4
73A Business C " 18.0 L 66 " 24.6 L - - 70 + 4
74 Business C " 50.0 R 58 " 43.4 R - - 65 + 7
75 Business C " 47.0 R 58 " 40.4 R - - 65 + 7
76 Business C It 92.0 R 52 " 85.4 R - - 58 + 6
77 Business C 17.0 R 66 " 23.6 R - - 70 + 4
NC 138 to US 52
78 Business C NC24-27 55.0 R 60 NC24-27 48.4 R - - 68 + 8
79 Residence B 95.0 R 54 It 88.4 R - - 61 + 7
80 Residence B 80.0 R 56 " 73.4 R - - 64 + 8
81 Residence B " 61.0 R 59 " 54.4 R - - * 66 + 7
82 Residence B •' 41.0 R 62 " 34.4 R - - * 71 + 9
83 Residence B " 63.0 R 59 " 56.4 R - - * 66 + 7
84 Business C " 47.0 R 61 " 40.4 R - - 69 + 8
85 Church E " 143.0 R 50/00 " 136.4 R - - 56/<40 + 6/0
86 Business C 48.0 L 61 " 54.6 L - - 66 + 5
87 Business C to 83.0 L 56 " 89.6 L - - 61 + 5
' US 52 to 600 Meters East of US 52
88 Church E NC24-27 90.0 R 55/<40 NC24-27 83.4 R - - 60/<40 + 5/0
89 Residence B " 156.0 R 48 to 149.4 R - - 53 + 5
90 Residence B " 147.0 R 49 to 140.4 R - - 54 + 5
91 Residence B " 142.0 R 50 " 135.4 R - - 54 + 4
92 Residence B " 138.0 R 50 " 131.4 R - - 55 + 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level con tribution.
All noise levels a re hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise l evels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR P art 772).
A-21
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID A LAND USE CATEGORY
TABLE N3.1 4/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project A 8.T680301, TIP P R-2530A
Alternative 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
US 52 to 600 Meters East of US 52 (Cont`d)
93 Business C NC24-27 155.0 L 49 NC24-27 161.6 L - - 52 + 3
94 Residence B It 133.0 L 51 •' 139.6 L - - 54 + 3
95 Apartments B " 128.0 L 51 " 134.6 L - - 54 + 3
96 Apartments B " 127.0 L 51 " 133.6 L - - 54 + 3
97 Residence B " 148.0 L 49 " 154.6 L - - 52 + 3
98 Residence B " 156.0 L 48 " 162.6 L - - 52 + 4
99 Business C " 40.0 L 63 to 46.6 L --------------------N/A---- ---------
600 Meters East of US 52 to End of Project
100 Business C NC24-27 63.0 R 59 NC24-27 57.6 R - - 63 + 4
100A Park B " 75.0 R 57 " 69.6 R - - 62 + 5
101 Residence B 54.0 L 60 " 59.4 L - - 63 + 3
102 Residence B " 40.0 L 63 '• 45.4 L - - * 66 + 3
103 Residence B " 116.0 L 52 " 121.4 L - - 55 + 3
104 Residence B It 97.0 L 54 " 102.4 L - - 57 + 3
105 Residence B '• 87.0 L 55 " 92.4 L - - 58 + 3
106 Residence B to 42.0 L 62 to 47.4 L - - 65 + 3
107 Residence B " 86.0 L 55 " 91.4 L - - 59 + 4
108 Residence B " 50.0 L 61 " 55.4 L - - 64 + 3
109 Residence B " 55.0 L 60 " 60.4 L - - 63 + 3
110 Residence B " 58.0 L 60 it 63.4 L - - 63 + 3
111 Residence B It 71.0 L 57 It 76.4 L - - 61 + 4
112 Residence B " 40.0 L 63 " 45.4 L - - * 66 + 3
113 Residence B " 81.0 L 56 " 86.4 L - - 59 + 3
114 Residence B " 41.0 L 62 " 46.4 L - - 65 + 3
115 Residence B " 72.0 L 57 " 77.4 L - - 60 + 3
116 Residence B It 97.0 L 54 of 102.4 L - - 57 + 3
117 Residence B " 86.0 L 55 " 91.4 L - - 59 + 4
122 Business C " 52.0 R 60 It 46.6 R - - 65 + 5
123 Business C " 47.0 R 61 " 41.6 R - - 67 + 6
124 Business C of 54.0 L 60 " 59.4 L - - 63 + 3
129 Business C " 19.0 L 68 " 24.4 L - - * 71 + 3
132 Business C " 94.0 R 54 " 88.6 R - - 59 + 5
134 Business C " 99.0 R 54 " 93.6 R --------------------N/A--- ----------
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noi se levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 7 72).

P
A-22
TABLE N3.1 5/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE M ?OSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
Alternative 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEV EL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE

600 Meters East of US 52 to End of Project (Cont'd )
135 Business C NC24-27 53.0 R 60 NC24-27 53.0 R - - 64 + 4
136 Business C 27.0 L 66 " 32.4 L - - 69 + 3
137 Residence B " 117.0 L 52 " 117.0 L - - 56 + 4
138 Apartments B 93.0 L 55 " 93.0 L - - 58 + 3
139 Apartments B " 94.0 L 54 " 94.0 L - - 58 + 4
139A Business C '• 31.0 L 65 " 31.0 L - - 69 + 4
140 Business C " 43.0 R 62 " 43.0 R - - 66 + 4
141 Business C " 34.0 R 64 " 34.0 R - - 68 + 4
142 Business C " 54.0 L 60 " 54.0 L - - 64 + 4
143 Business C " 50.0 L 61 " 50.0 L - - 65 + 4
144 Business C " 33.0 L 64 " 33.0 L - - 68 + 4
145 Business C " 45.0 R 62 " 45.0 R - - 66 + 4
146 Business C " 48.0 R 61 " 48.0 R - - 65 + 4
147 Business C " 48.0 R 61 " 48.0 R - - 65 + 4
148 Business C " 33.0 L 64 " 33.0 L - - 68 + 4
149 Business C 30.0 L 65 " 30.0 L - - 69 + 4
150 Business C " 65.0 L 58 " 65.0 L - - 62 + 4
151 Business C '• 77.0 R 57 '• 77.0 R - - 61 + 4
t
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). • _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-23
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY
TABLE N3.2 1/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # S.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
Alternative 2
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road)
1 Business C NC24-27 43.0 L
2 Business C " 81.0 L
3 Church E " 71.0 R
4 Residence B " 92.0 R
5 Residence B " 36.0 R
6 Residence B " 94.0 R
7 Residence B " 44.0 R
8 Residence B " 58.0 R
9 Residence B " 83.0 R
9A Residence B " 102.0 R
10 Residence B to 110.0 L
11 Residence B " 53.0 L
12 Residence B " 33.0 L
13 Residence B '• 40.0 L
14 Residence B " 82.0 L
15 Residence B " 43.0 L
16 Church E " 27.0 L
16A Residence B " 37.0 L
17 Residence B " 74.0 L
18 Residence B " 63.0 L
19 Residence B " 57.0 L
20 Residence B •' 58.0 L
21 Residence B to 58.0 L
22 Residence B " 48.0 L
23 Residence B " 35.0 L
24 Residence B to 106.0 L
25 Residence B 99.0 L
26 Residence B " 95.0 L
27 Residence B " 94.0 L
28 Residence B to 85.0 L
29 Residence B 83.0 L
30 Residence B 77.0 L
30A Residence B " 69.0 L
30B Residence B " 87.0 R
31 Apts. (4) B " 104.0 R
59 NC24-27 43.0 L - - 65 + 6
53 " 86.0 L --------------------N/A-------------
55/<40 " 70.0 R - - 60/<40 + 5/0
52 " 90.0 R - - 57 + 5
61 " 36.0 R - - to 66 + 5
52 It 95.0 R - - 57 + 5
59 " 44.0 R - - 64 + 5
57 " 59.0 R - - 62 + 5
53 It 84.0 R - - 58 + 5
51 " 103.0 R - - 56 + 5
50 It 111.0 L - - 55 + 5
57 55.0 L - - 62 + 5
61 of 26.0 L - - * 69 + 8
60 " 40.0 L - - 65 + 5
53 of 82.0 L - - 58 + 5
59 " 41.0 L - - 65 + 6
63/<40 It 26.0 L - - 69/44 + 6/4
60 to 35.0 L - - to 67 + 7
54 '• 73.0 L - - 60 + 6
56 " 65.0 L - - 61 + 5
57 It 61.0 L - - 61 + 4
57 " 58.0 L - - 62 + 5
57 " 58.0 L - - 62 + 5
58 " 50.0 L - - 63 + 5
61 It 35.0 L - - to 67 + 6
50 " 106.0 L - - 55 + 5
51 of 98.0 L - - 56 + 5
51 to 94.0 L - - 57 + 6
52 " 94.0 L - - 57 + 5
53 " 86.0 L - - 58 + 5
53 " 83.0 L - - 58 + 5
54 " 77.0 L - - 59 + 5
55 " 70.0 L - - 60 + 5
52 to 87.0 R - - 58 + 6
50 " 102.0 R - - 56 + 6
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
t
s
A-24
TABLE N3.2 2/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly Couaty, Proj ect # 8.T680301, TIP N R-2530A
Alternative 2
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID LAND USE CATEGORY RAPE DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE

Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road) Cont'd
32 Apts. (4) B NC24-27 60.0 R 56 NC24-27 59.0 R - - 62 + 6
33 Apts. (4) a '• 61.0 R 56 " 60.0 R - - 62 + 6
34 Business C " 50.0 R 58 " 47.0 R - - 64 + 6
35 Business C " 53.0 R 57 '• 55.0 R - - 62 + 5
36 Business C " 39.0 L 60 " 40.0 L - - 65 + 5
36A Business C " 45.0 L 59 " 50.0 L - - 63 + 4
37 Residence B " 75.0 L 54 " 80.0 L - - 59 + 5
38 Residence B " 88.0 L 52 " 93.0 L - - 57 + 5
39 Residence B " 105.0 L 50 " 108.0 L - - 55 + 5
40 Residence B " 130.0 L 48 '• 134.0 L - - 53 + 5
SR 1900 (Coble Road ) to NC 138
41 Business C NC24-27 38.0 R 60 NC24-27 34.0 R --------------------N/A--- ----------
42 Business C " 56.0 L 57 " 60.0 L - - 62 + 5
43 Residence B 37.0 L 60 " 43.0 L - - 65 + 5
44 Residence B " 86.0 L 53 " 92.0 L - - 57 + 4
45 Residence B 89.0 L 52 93.0 L - - 57 + 5
46 Residence B '• 91.0 L 52 " 96.0 L - - 57 + 5
47 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 " 45.0 L - - 64 + 4
48 Residence B to 40.0 L 60 " 45.0 L - - 64 + 4
49 Residence B " 92.0 L 52 •' 97.0 L - - 56 + 4
50 Residence B " 90.0 L 52 " 95.0 L - - 57 + 5
51 Residence B •' 40.0 L 60 " 45.0 L - - 64 + 4
52 Residence B " 92.0 L 52 " 97.0 L - - 56 + 4
` 53 Residence B " 95.0 L 51 •• 101.0 L - - 56 + 5
54 Residence B " 95.0 L 51 " 101.0 L - - 56 + 5
55 Residence B " 94.0 L 52 " 100.0 L - - 56 + 4
56 Residence B " 88.0 L 52 " 94.0 L - - 57 + 5
57 Residence B " 39.0 L 60 " 45.0 L - - 64 + 4
58 Residence B " 82.0 L 53 89.0 L - - 57 + 4
59 Residence B " 75.0 L 54 " 81.0 L - - 58 + 4
60 Residence B " 30.0 L 62 " 35.0 L - - 67 + 5
61 Residence B " 25.0 L 63 " 30.0 L - - • 68 + 5
62 Residence B " 46.0 R 59 " 39.0 R - - " 66 + 7
63 Residence B " 46.0 R 59 " 39.0 R - - * 66 + 7
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels a re hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contribut ing roadways.
Category E noise l evels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-25
TABLE N3.2 3/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE MCPOSURES
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID i LAND USE CATEGORY
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP N R-2530A
Alternative 2
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138 (Cont'd)
64 Residence B NC24-27 76.0 L 54 NC24-27 70.0 L - - 60 + 6
65 Residence B " 82.0 L 53 " 75.0 L - - 59 + 6
66 Residence B " 76.0 L 54 ^ 70.0 L - - 60 + 6
67 Residence B " 37.0 L 60 " 31.0 L - - * 67 + 7
68 Residence B „ 73.0 L 54 " 67.0 L - - 61 + 7
69 Residence B •' 38.0 L 60 " 32.0 L - - * 67 + 7
70 Residence B '• 79.0 L 53 " 73.0 L - - 60 + 7
71 Residence B " 26.0 L 63 " 31.0 L - - * 67 + 4
72 Residence B '• 27.0 L 63 " 32.0 L - - * 67 + 4
73 Residence B " 91.0 L 52 " 97.0 L - - 56 + 4
73A Business C " 18.0 L 66 " 25.0 L - - 69 + 3
74 Business C " 50.0 R 58 " 48.0 R - - 64 + 6
75 Business C " 47.0 R 58 to 42.0 R - - 65 + 7
76 Business C " 92.0 R 52 " 86.0 R - - 58 + 6
77 Business C •• 17.0 R 66 " 22.0 R - - 70 + 4
NC 138 to US 52
78 Business C NC24-27 55.0 R 60 NC24-27 49.0 R - - 67 + 7
79 Residence B " 95.0 R 54 " 88.0 R - - 61 + 7
80 Residence B 80.0 R 56 " 74.0 R - - 63 + 7
81 Residence B 61.0 R 59 " 55.0 R - - * 66 + 7
82 Residence B " 41.0 R 62 " 35.0 R - - * 70 + 8
83 Residence B " 63.0 R 59 " 57.0 R - - * 66 + 7
84 Business C " 47.0 R 61 •• 41.0 R - - 69 + 8
85 Church E " 143.0 R 50/<40 " 137.0 R - - 56/<40 + 6/0
86 Business C " 48.0 L 61 " 54.0 L - - 66 + 5
87 Business C " 83.0 L 56 " 89.0 L - - 61 + 5
US 52 to 600 Meters East of US 52
88 Church E NC24-27 90.0 R 55/<40 NC24-27 84.0 R - - 60/<40 + 5/0
89 Residence B " 156.0 R 48 " 151.0 R - - 53 + 5
90 Residence B " 147.0 R 49 to 142.0 R - - 54 + 5
91 Residence B to 142.0 R 50 " 136.0 R - - 54 + 4
92 Residence B " 138.0 R 50 " 133.0 R - - 54 + 4
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadwa ys. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise l evels are hourly A-weighted noise levels . -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-26

TABLE N3.2
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
4/5
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
Alternative 2
+ AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVE L
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- M AXIMUM INCREASE
US 52 to 600 Meters East of US 52 (Cont'd)
93 Business C NC24-27 155.0 L 49 NC24-27 160.0 L - - 52 + 3
94 Residence B 133.0 L 51 " 138.0 L - - 54 + 3
95 Apartments B '• 128.0 L 51 " 133.0 L - - 54 + 3
96 Apartments B " 127.0 L 51 " 132.0 L - - 55 + 4
97 Residence B •' 148.0 L 49 " 152.0 L - - 53 + 4
98 Residence B " 156.0 L 48 " 161.0 L - - 52 + 4
99 Business C " 40.0 L 63 " 46.0 L --------------------N/A-------------
600 Meters East of US 52 to End of Project
100 Business C NC24-27 63.0 R 59 NC24-27 57.6 R - - 63 + 4
100A Park B " 75.0 R 57 " 69.6 R - - 62 + 5
101 Residence B " 54.0 L 60 " 59.4 L - - 63 + 3
102 Residence B " 40.0 L 63 " 45.4 L - - * 66 + 3
103 Residence B " 116.0 L 52 " 121.4 L - - 55 + 3
104 Residence B " 97.0 L 54 " 102.4 L - - 57 + 3
105 Residence B " 87.0 L 55 " 92.4 L - - 58 + 3
106 Residence B " 42.0 L 62 " 47.4 L - - 65 + 3
107 Residence B •' 86.0 L 55 " 91.4 L - - 59 + 4
108 Residence B '• 50.0 L 61 " 55.4 L - - 64 + 3
109 Residence B 55.0 L 60 60.4 L - - 63 + 3
110 Residence B " 58.0 L 60 " 63.4 L - - 63 + 3
111 Residence B " 71.0 L 57 " 76.4 L - - 61 + 4
112 Residence B 40.0 L 63 •' 45.4 L - - * 66 + 3
113 Residence B " 81.0 L 56 " 86.4 L - - 59 + 3
114 Residence B " 41.0 L 62 " 46.4 L - - 65 + 3
115 Residence B " 72.0 L 57 " 77.4 L - - 60 + 3
116 Residence B " 97.0 L 54 " 102.4 L - - 57 + 3
117 Residence B 86.0 L 55 " 91.4 L - - 59 + 4
122 Business C •' 52.0 R 60 " 46.6 R - - 65 + 5
123 Business C " 47.0 R 61 " 41.6 R - - 67 + 6
124 Business C " 54.0 L 60 •' 59.4 L - - 63 + 3
129 Business C 19.0 L 68 " 24.4 L - - * 71 + 3
132 Business C 94.0 R 54 " 88.6 R - - 59 + 5
134 Business C " 99.0 R 54 " 93.6 R --------------------N/A-- -----------
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-27
TABLE N3.2 5/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project 9 S.T680301, TIP N R-2530A
Alternative 2
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEV EL.
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
600 Meters East of US 52 to End of Project (Cont'd)
135 Business C NC24-27 53.0 R 60 NC24- 27 53.0 R - - 64 + 4
136 Business C " 27.0 L 66 to 32.4 L - - 69 + 3
137 Residence B " 117.0 L 52 of 117.0 L - - 56 + 4
138 Apartments B " 93.0 L 55 to 93.0 L - - 58 + 3
139 Apartments B " 94.0 L 54 " 94.0 L - - 58 + 4
139A Business C " 31.0 L 65 " 31.0 L - - 69 + 4
140 Business C •' 43.0 R 62 " 43.0 R - - 66 + 4
141 Business C " 34.0 R 64 " 34.0 R - - 68 + 4
142 Business C to 54.0 L 60 " 54.0 L - - 64 + 4
143 Business C to 50.0 L 61 of 50.0 L - - 65 + 4
144 Business C " 33.0 L 64 to 33.0 L - - 68 + 4
145 Business C " 45.0 R 62 to 45.0 R - - 66 + 4
146 Business C " 48.0 R 61 " 48.0 R - - 65 + 4
147 Business C " 48.0 R 61 to 48.0 R - - 65 + 4
148 Business C " 33.0 L 64 " 33.0 L - - 68 + 4
149 Business C 30.0 L 65 " 30.0 L - - 69 + 4
150 Business C " 65.0 L 58 " 65.0 L - - 62 + 4
151 Business C " 77.0 R 57 •' 77.0 R - - 61 + 4
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). • _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
F

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

Alternative R 1 - 4-Lanes/6m median
1. Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road) 71 67 61 18.6m 35.9m 0 3 0 0 0
2. SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138 71 67 61 18.6m 35.9m 0 8 0 0 0
3. NC 138 to US 52 75 70 65 31.3m 54.4m 0 3 0 0 0
4. US 52 to 600 m East of US 52 72 68 62 23.7m 42.4m 0 0 0 0 0
5. 600 m East of US 52 to End 72 68 63 22.7m 41.6m 0 2 1 0 0
TOTALS 0 16 1 0 0
Alternative N 2 - 5-Lanes
1. Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road) 71 67 61 17.6m 35.2m 0 4 0 0 0
2. SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138 71 67 61 17.6m 35.2m 0 8 0 0 0
3. NC 138 to US 52 75 70 65 30.4m 53.8m 0 3 0 0 0
4. US 52 to 600 m East of US 52
• 72 68 63 22.7m 41.6m 0 0 0 0 0
5. 600 m East of US 52 to End 72 68 63 22.7m 41.6m 0 2 1 0 0
T OTALS 0 17 1 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
A-29
TABLE N5
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # S.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <•O 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
Alternative # 1 - 4-Lanes/6m median
1. Beginning to SR 1900 0
2. sR 1900 to NC 138 0
3. NC 138 to US 52 0
4. US 52 to 600M E. of US 52 0
5. 600m E. of US 52 to End 0
TOTALS 0
Alternative # 2 - 5-Lanes
1. Beginning to SR 1900 0
2. SR 1900 to NC 138 0
3. NC 138 to US 52 0
4. US 52 to 600m E. of US 52 0
5. 600m E. of US 52 to End 0
TOTALS 0
16 28 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
78 66 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 42 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 22 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 81 0 0 0 0 0 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial Increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
A

A-30
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co.
+ DATE: 06/20/95 TIME: 08:34,F.
` SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: NC24-27,Year 1999, Build
ZO = 108. CM
ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
PAGE 1
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------ ------------------ *---------------------------------------- *--------------------------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1029. 14.8 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1029. 14.8 0.0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R77, 22.0 m RCL BUS * -16.6 0.0 1.8
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co. RUN: NC24-27,Year 1999, Build
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 2.8
DEGR. * 4
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.80 PPM AT 4 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-31
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co.
DATE: 06/20/95 TIME: 08:34,,.
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
RUN: NC24-27,Year 2020, Build
PAGE 2
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S 20 - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES M I703 - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
*
LINK COORDINATES (M) *
LENGTH BRG TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
-------------------- --- *---------------------------------------- *-- ------------------- -------------- ----- ------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1648. 10.7 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1648. 10.7 0.0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
x
RECEPTOR
-------------------------
1. R77, 22.0 m RCL BUS
X
-16.6
0.0
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co. RUN: NC24-27,Year 2020, Build
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 3.0
DEGR. * 5
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.00 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
COORDINATES (M)
Y Z
-------------------------
1.8
It
A-32
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co.
DATE: 06/20/95 TIME: 08:33f,
* SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: NC24-27,Yr 1999, No-Build
ZO = 108. CM
ATIM 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
PAGE 3
V/C UEUE
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W Q
* X1 Yl X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VER)
------------------------ *---------------------------------------- *-- ------------------- -----------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1029. 25.9 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1029. 25.9 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
*
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------ - *------------------------------ -------*
1. R77, 17.0 m RCL BUS * -15.2 0.0 1.8
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co.
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
RUN: NC24-27,Yr 1999, No-Build
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
• WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 3.8
DEGR. * 7
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.80 PPM AT 7 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-33
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co.
DATE: 06/20/95 TIME: 08:31v
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: NC24-27,Yr 2020, No-Build
ZO 108. CM
ATIM 60. MINUTES MIXE - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
PAGE 4
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF R W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
----------------------- - *------------------------------ ---------- *-- ------------------- -------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1648. 44.6 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1648. 44.6 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
*
COORDINATES (M)
"
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
----------------------- - *------------------------------ -------*
1. R77, 17.0 m RCL BUS * -15.2 0.0 1.8
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co.
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
RUN: NC24-27,Yr 2020, No-Build
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 7.4
DEGR. * 9
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 7.40 PPM AT 9 DEGREES FROM RECI .
R

0
A-34
t w
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Prolp.ct Number: A, O a I County:
VV
Date:
? Project located in 7th floor library
ILI(1
Date Response Dqe (firm deadline):

This project is being reviewed as indicated below: ' WA4Ill) 41 _ 1
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
? Water ? ater Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville ? Groundwater Zildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? W
hi ? Recreational Consultant " ? Land Resources ? David Foster
ngton
as ? Coastal. Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
? Wilmington ?Others E vironmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
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(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
? Other (specify and attach comments) R
Uqy 3
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
fw,104
1
e??o
aww
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
January 24,1996
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Melba McGee
Legislative Affairs
Beverly J. Grate
Project Planning Engmeer
GARLAND B. GARRETT J PL
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: NC 24/27 from Canton Road to NC 740, Albemarle, Stanly
County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-24(2), State Project No.
8.T680301, T.I.P. Project No. R-2530A
Attached is a draft copy of the federally funded Categorical Exclusion for your
review. This document was programmed as an Environmental Assessment in the
beginning stages of the planning process, however due to minimal impacts to the
environment and adjacent properties it is proposed to be down graded to a Categorical
Exclusion. Please use this review period as an opportunity to make comments on the the
content of the document as well as an opportunity to comment on our proposal to
downgrade the project to a Categorical Exclusion. Please provide your comments by
February 12, 1996.
The right of way cost estimate is not finalized but will be included in the final
report.
Please feel free to call me at [phone] ext. 247 or fax [phone] in any
comments concerning this document. Thank you for your assistance.
BJG/bjg
Attachment

.
NC 24/27
from Canton Road to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanly County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-24(2)
State Project No. 8.T680301
TIP Project No. R-2530A

•
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
A
tit Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Bate Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

NC 24/27
from Canton Road to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanly County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-24(2)
State Project No. 8.T680301
TIP Project No. R-2530A
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Beverly J. Grate
Project Planning Engineer
Robert P. Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.
SUNIMARY
.................................................................i
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .....................................1
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. Need for the Proposed Improvements ............................................2
1. Traffic Volumes .................................................................2
2. Capacity ...................................................................2
3. School Bus Data ...............................................................3
4. Accident Analysis ............... ...........................................3
5. Thoroughfare Plan ............ .................................................3
B. Existing Conditions . ........................,.:........................................3
1. Length of Roadway Studied Section .................................. 3
2. Route Classification ........................................................... 3
3. Existing Cross-Section ....................................................... 3
4. Existing Right of Way ........................................................ 4
5. Utilities. ................................................................... 4
6. Access Control .................................................................. 4
7. Speed Limits . ................................................................... 4
8. Structures ................................................................... 4
9. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control ............................ 5
10. Railroad Crossing .............................................................. 5

III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ..............................................................5
A. Length of Project ................................................................... 5
B. Cross-Section ................................................................... 5
C. Alignment ................................................................... 5
D. Design Speed ................................................................... 5
E. Right of Way ................................................................... 5
F. Access Control ................................................................... 6
G. Bridges and Culverts ................................................................... 6
H. Intersection/ Interchange Treatment .............................................. 6
1. Bicycle Accommodations .............................................................. 6
J. Sidewalks ...................................................................7
K. Cost Estimate. ...................................................................7
IV. ADJACENT PROJECTS. ...................................................................7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................7
A. Design Alternatives ...................................................................7
1. Cross Section ....................................................................7
2. Alignment ...................................................................8
B. "No-Build" Alternative ..................................................................8
C. Alternative Modes of Transportation ............................................. 8
VI. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...............8
A. Land Use Planning ...................................................................8
1. Status of Local Planning Activities .....................................8
2. Existing Land Use ...................a:........................................8
3. Existing Zoning ..................................................................9
4. Proposed Land Use ..........................................................10
5. Farmland .................................................................10
B. Social and Economic Environment ........ ......................................10
I . Relocation Impacts ..........................................................10.
2. Social Impacts .................................................................10
C. Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................... I l
1. Architectural Resources ..................................................11
2. Archaeological Resources ................................................11
D. Natural Systems. .................................................................11
1. Biological Resources ........................................................11
a. Terrestrial Communities ......................................11
b. Aquatic Communities ...........................................13
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........................14
2. Waters Impacted and Characteristics ................................15
a. Best Usage Classification ......................................15
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........................16
3. Special Topics ...... ............................................................17
a. Waters of the United States ..................................17
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ... 17
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........................17
d. Permits .................................................................17
e. Rare and Protected Species ..................................18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
E. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation ..............................21
1. Physical Resources ...........................................................21
.................................21
2. Physiography .................................
3. Geology and Soils ...........................................................21
4. Hazardous Material Inventory ..........................................22
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis ...................................................25
G. Air Quality Analysis .................................................................28
H. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns .........................31
I. Geodetic Markers .................................................................32
J. Section 4(f) Resources ................................................................32
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.... 33
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 - Proposed Lane Configuration
Figure 4 - Tragic Projections
Figure 5, 5A. 5B - Floodplain Areas in the Project Vicinity
Figure 6 - Waters of the U. S., Surface Waters and Wetlands
TABLES
Table 1 - Bridge Data ...................................................................4
Table 2 - Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities ................................14
Table 3 - Water Resources Characteristics ............. .................................16
Table 4- Federal Candidate/NC Protected Species for Stanly County....... 20
Table 5 - Stream Crossings .................................................................31
APPENDIX
NC 24/27
from Canton Road to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanly County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-2.4(2)
State Project No, 8.T680301
TIP Project No. R-2530A
SUMMARY
Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen NC 24-27 to a multi-lane section from Canton Road to NC 740 in
Albemarle.
The improvements to NC 24-27 will be made in two parts. Section "AA" begins
at the end of the multi-lane section approximately 984 feet east of the intersection of
NC 24-27 and SR 1963 (St. Martin Road) and continues east to the US 52-NC 73-
NC 138 intersection. Section "AB" will pick up at the US 52-NC 73-NC 138 intersection
and continue to the beginning of the multi-lane section approximately 820 feet west of the
intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1783 (Groves Avenue Extension) in Stanly County. The
remainder of the project limits are already multi-lane.
The 5.48 km (3.4 miles) project will widen the existing two to three lane facility to
a five lane curb and gutter section. The project will utilize the existing 45.7 m (150 feet)
of right-of-way as much as possible. Small portions of new right-of-way, construction
easements and permanent drainage easements may also be needed.
The proposed project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 and
construction for Section "AB" in FY 1999. Construction of Section "AA" is currently
scheduled "post year" (beyond NCDOT's funding horizon).
The total estimated cost of the proposed project includes $******* for right-of-
way acquisition and $12,100,000 for construction. The Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) cost includes $2,500,000 for right-of-way and $7,900,000 for
construction.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will have a positive impact on the Albemarle area by
increasing the safety and handling capacity of the subject section of NC 24/27. No
relocation of residences or businesses is anticipated as a result of this project. No
recreational facilities or sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places will be
involved.
Replacement of existing culverts and bridge rehabilitation may involve discharge of
excavated or fill material into waters of one or all the creeks which cross the project area.
Approximately 0.3 acre of jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted.
Eighteen (18) residences or businesses are predicted to experience traffic noise
levels in excess of the FHWA noise abatement criteria. However, noise abatement
measures are not considered reasonable or feasible as part of this project.
3. Summary of Environmental Commitments
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will implement all practical and
standard measures and procedures to minimize environmental impacts as well as impacts
to the human environment. Impacts will be minimized by utilizing Best Management
Practices during construction.
Because this project will involve crossing a regulated floodway, NCDOT will
coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local authorities to
ensure compliance with applicable floodplain ordinances.
It is likely a Nationwide Section 404 wetland permit will apply to this project. A
Section 401 water quality certification will be required from the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources prior to issuance of any Federal Section 404
Permit.
4. Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered in the development of the project:
a) Improving the existing facility to a five lane curb and gutter section throughout the
entire length of the project
This design alternative was chosen because it provides the number of lanes
required for projected traffic volumes. Because of the urban nature of the project vicinity
curb and gutter is recommended. Curb and gutter will decrease the right of way cost in
this area.
b) Improving the existing facility to a four lane shoulder section in Section "AA' and
a five lane curb and gutter section in Section "AB"
Improving the existing facility to a four lane median divided section on Section
"AA" and a five lane curb and gutter section on Section "AB" would add approximately
$600,000 to the project construction cost. Right of way costs would increase by $
Local officials prefer a five lane curb and gutter section throughout the entire length of the
project. A median divided section would require five or more median cuts to
accommodate adjacent properties. A four lane median divided section would also require
wider construction limits to accommodate grass shoulders.
c) "No Build" Alternative
The "No Build" alternative was rejected because the existing facility will not be
able to serve the high volume of projected traffic along NC 24-27.
5. Coordination.
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Fish and Wildlife
U. S. Geological Survey
Stanly County Commissioner
Centralina Council of Governments
City of Albemarle
N.C. Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
A citizen's informational workshop was held on May 17, 1995 to obtain public
comments on the project.
6. Additional Information
Additional Information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting the following:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 25201
[phone]
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone]
NC 24-27 Widening
from Canton Road (SR 1249) to NC 740
Albemarle, Stanly County
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-24(2)
State Project No. 8.T680301
T.I.P. Project No. R-2530A
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen NC 24-27 to a multi-lane section from Canton Road to NC 740 in
Albemarle.
The improvements to NC 24-27 will be made in two parts. Section "AA" begins
at the end of the multi-lane section approximately 984 feet east of the intersection of
NC 24-27 and SR 1963 (St. Martin Road) and continues east to the US 52-NC 73/NC
138 intersection. Section "AB" will pick up at the US 52-NC 73/NC 138 intersection and
continue to the beginning of the multi-lane section approximately 820 feet west of the
intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1783 (Groves Avenue Extension) in Stanly County. The
remainder of the project limits are already multi-lane.
The 5.48 km (3.4 mile) project will widen the existing two to three lane facility to
a five lane curb and gutter section consisting of four 3.7 m (12-foot) through lanes and a
3.7 m (12-foot) continuous left-turn center lane with 2.4 m (8-foot) berms. Additional
improvements will also consist of replacing Bridge No. 48 over the Winston-Salem
Southbound Railway and Bridge No. 49 at the US 52 interchange. Bridge No. 39 and 46
over Long Creek and Town Creek respectively will be widened and rehabilitated. A signal
at SR 1900 (Coble Avenue) and improvements at the US 52 interchange are also
proposed.
The project will utilize the existing 45.7 m (150 feet) of right-of-way with
additional construction easements, small portions of new right-of-way and some
permanent drainage easements needed.
The proposed project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 and
construction for Section "AB" in FY 1999. Construction for Section "AA" is currently
scheduled "post year" (beyond NCDOT's funding horizon).
The current estimated cost of the proposed project includes $******* for right-of-
way acquisition and $12,100,000 for construction. The 1996-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) has programmed $2,500,000 for right-of-way acquisition
and $7,900,000 for construction.
2
H. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. Need For the Proposed Improvements
The proposed project will improve the safety and traffic carrying capacity of the
subject section of NC 24-27. The proposed project will relieve traffic congestion and
provide safer travel in the project area.
1. Traffic Volumes
Projected traffic volumes along the subject section of NC 24-27 for the
year 1999 range from 11,727 vehicles per day (vpd) east of Coble Avenue to
21,152 vpd east of the US 52-NC 73/ NC 138 intersection. Projected traffic
volumes for the year 2019 range from 19,400 to 34,912 at the above locations.
Truck traffic will comprise approximately seven (7) percent of those volumes (4%
duals, 3% TTST's). Projected traffic volumes, major turning movements, truck
data and design hour data are shown in Figure 4.
2. Ca aci
A capacity analysis was performed for the recommended alternate to
predict the level of service (LOS) for the project. This analysis yielded the
following results:
Build Analysis No-Build Analysis
Route (1999) LOS (2019) LOS 1999 LOS 2019 LOS
SR 1963 B B B B
SR 1900 B B C C
US 52/NC 73 C E F Worst than F
*SR 1625 C D E Worst than F
SR 1625 will require major improvements to achieve an acceptable level of
service. An adjacent project TIP R-2530B begins at the intersection of SR 1625
and NC 740. Improvements to SR 1625 will be made as a part of TIP R-2530B.
Level of service shown with an asterisk (*) denotes future project improvements. '
Construction year (1999) NC 24-27 will operate at a LOS of A with
improvements and a LOS of B without improvements. Design year (2019) will
operate at a LOS B with improvements.
School Bus Data
Approximately 11 buses use NC 24-27 making a total of 25 trips per day.
Bus destinations are scattered throughout east and west Albemarle.
4. Accident Analysis
The rates for NC 24-27 were obtained from studies conducted from June 1,
1991 to May 31, 1994. The accident rate for this studied section is 175.56
accidents per one hundred million vehicle kilometers. In comparison to the
statewide rate of 175.33 accidents per one hundred million vehicle kilometer for
urban "NC" two lane undivided routes and 159.24 accidents per one hundred
million vehicle kilometer for urban "NC" three lane undivided routes.
5. Thoroughfare Plan
The Albemarle Thoroughfare Plan was adopted in 1988. NC 24-27 is
designated a major thoroughfare on the Albemarle Thoroughfare. The proposed
five lane curb and gutter section is in conformance with the plans and construction
of this project will be a step toward implementation of the thoroughfare plan.
B. Existing Conditions
Length of Roadway Studied Section
The length of the studied section of NC 24-27 is approximately 5.4 km (3.4
miles). This section extends from the multi-lane section approximately 300 meters
(984 feet) east of the intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1963 (St. Martin Road) to
approximately 250 meters (820 feet) west of the intersection of NC 24-27 and SR
1783 (Grove Avenue Extension).
2. Route Classification
NC 24-27 is classified as an Urban Principal Arterial route in the North
Carolina Statewide functional classification system.
3. Existing Cross Section
The pavement width of NC 24-27 varies from a two-lane 7.3 m (24-foot)
section (from east of SR 1963 to US 52-NC 73-NC 138) to an I lm (36-foot)
three lane section (from the US 52 interchange to SR 1783). There are 1.8m (6-
foot) grass shoulders along the project.
4
4. Existing Right-of-Way
A 45.7 m (150-feet) of right-of-way for this project was purchased when
the original roadway was built. The right-of-way widens to contain the US 52/
NC 24-27 interchange. .
5 Utilities
Underground utilities include a 300 millimeter (12 inch) water line
suspended under the north side of the railroad overpass. Several sanitary sewer
lines cross the project including lines along both streams. A distribution powerline
runs on the north side along most of the project. Aerial telephone and television
cables are found on the east and west ends of the project. The utility impact of the
proposed project is "medium" with the most significant impacts occurring in
Section "AB" of the project.
6. Access Control
No control of access exists along the project with the exception of the
US 52 interchange which has full control of access.
7. Speed Limits
The current posted speed limit is 70 km/h (45 mph).
8. Structures
The existing bridges are described in Table 1; dimensions are in meters
(feet):
Table 1 Bridge Data
Bridge Feature Date Horiz. Vert. Structure Sufficiency Estimated
No. Crossed Built Clearance Clearance Length Rating Rem. Life
39 Long 1957 8.6 (28.1) N/A 61(200) 77.8 19
Creek
46 Town 1957 8.6 (28.1) N/A 52(170) 80.2 19
Creek
48 WSSB 1957 12 (40.2) 6.7 (22.0) 46(150) 65.4 39
RR
49 US 52 1957 8.6(28.1) 1 4.6(15.0) 1 41(133) 74 19
In addition to the bridges mentioned in Table 1, five culverts exist along
NC 24-27. The culverts are found at the tributary to Poplin Branch, Poplin Creek,
Rock Creek, Little Long Creek and Long Creek.
5
9. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
All highway intersections are at-grade, with the exception of the US 52/
NC 24-27 interchange. The intersections of US 52-NC 73/NC 138, and NC 24-27
and SR 1963 and NC 24-27 are signalized. Mt. Vernon Drive, Lee Street, and
Henson Street are all stop sign controlled.
10. Railroad Crossing
There is one railroad crossing at the Winston-Salem Southbound Railway.
Two trains per day use this railway. This crossing is grade separated.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Length of Project
The length of the proposed project is approximately 5.48 km (3.4 miles).
B. Cross-Section
It is recommended that NC 24-27 be widened to a five-lane, 19.5 m (64-foot)
pavement (face to face) with 2.4 m (8-foot) berms. This includes a 3.7 m (12-foot)
exclusive left turn lane.
C. Alisnment
The proposed widening will be aligned to the south side of NC 24-27 to make use
of the existing offset right of way.
D. Design Speed
Due to the urban nature of the proposed project and the proposed curb and gutter,
the recommended design speed is 80 km/h (50 mph). The posted speed limit is expected
to be 70 km/h (45 mph).
E. Right-of-Way
The project will utilize the existing right-of-way as much as possible. Small
portions of new right-of-way may be needed in addition to the existing 45.7 meters (150
feet on right-of-way. Additional construction easements, and permanent drainage
easements may also be needed along portions of the project to accommodate proposed
improvements.
6
F. Access Control
Access control will not change from the existing conditions.
G. Bridges and Culverts
Two bridges will be replaced to accommodate the widening of NC 24-27 and two
will be rehabilitated and widened. The US 52 interchange bridge will be replaced with a
40.5 meters (133 feet) long structure, having a clear roadway width of 22.2 m (78.3 ft)
and a vertical clearance of 5.2 m (17.06 ft). The bridge over the Winston-Salem
Southbound Railway will be replaced with a 45.7 m (150 ft) long structure, having a clear
roadway width of 29.5 m (96.8 ft) and a vertical clearance of 7.2 m (23.6 ft). Current
design standards require 7.0 to 7.2 meters (23 to 23.6 feet) vertical clearance for railroad
bridges. To meet current design standards WSSB railroad bridge and the adjacent US 52
interchange bridge will require replacement.
Bridges No. 46 and 39 over Town Creek and Long Creek respectively will be
rehabilitated and widened. Both Bridge No. 46 and Bridge No. 39 will be revised to a
clear roadway width of 22.2 m (72.8 ft).
Five culverts along NC 24-27 will be retained. Poplin Branch, Poplin Creek, and
Rock Creek culverts will be extended. Little Long Creek and Long Creek culverts will be
widened.
H. Intersection/ Interchange Treatment
Recommended improvements to the US 52-NC 73-NC 138 intersection include an
exclusive right turn lane in the north bound direction and dual lefts and an exclusive right
in the southbound direction. At the same intersection, on NC 24-27 on NC 24-27 dual
lefts and an exclusive right is recommended westbound and an exclusive right is
recommended eastbound (see Figure 3). An adjacent project (R-2320) will compliment
project R-2530A by eliminating the current "offset" of US 52 and provide a four lane
facility from US 74 in Wadesboro to NC 24-27 in Albemarle.
A signal is proposed at Coble Avenue and NC 24-27.
The US 52 interchange will undergo ramp and bridge improvements to meet
current design standards. Bridge improvements include raising the grade of the bridge to
match that of the WSSB Railroad bridge. Ramp improvements include removing the
northwest quadrant ramp and replacing it with a loop in the north east quadrant relocating
the existing northeast quadrant ramp. Other interchange improvements are minor.
I. Bicycle Accommodations
No special bicycle accommodations are recommended for this project.
Sidewalks
No sidewalks are proposed for the project.
K. Cost Estimate
The estimated cost for the proposed improvements includes $* * *, * * * for right of
way and $12,100,000 for construction. The construction cost for section "AA" is
estimated at $4,700,000, construction cost for "AB" is estimated at $7,400,000.
IV. ADJACENT PROJECTS
North Carolina's 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) fists
three projects that are adjacent to this project.
R-2530B - Widening of NC 24-27 from NC 740 to the Pee Dee River. This project is
not currently funded in the TIP. R-2530B will extend the multi-lane
widening of NC 24-27 eastward.
R-0967 - Widening of NC 24-27 to multi-lanes from Locust to Albemarle.
Construction of the first phase is scheduled for 2001. R-0967 will widen
NC 24-27 to the west of R-2530A.
R-2320 Improvements to US 52 from US 74 in Wadesboro to NC 24-27 in
Albemarle. Connection to NC 24-27 is currently funded in TIP and
scheduled for construction in 2001. Project R-2320 will compliment
project R-2530A by eliminating the current "offset" of US 52.
V. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION
A. Design Alternatives
Cross Section
As an alternative to the recommended alternative, a four lane 6.1 m (20 ft)
median divided section on Section "AA" and a five lane curb and gutter section on
Section "AB" was studied. Improving the existing facility to a four lane median
divided section on Section "AA" would add approximately $600,000 to the
construction costs of the project. Right of way costs would increase by
approximately $ . Local officials prefer a five lane curb and gutter section
throughout the entire length of the project. A median divided section would
8
require five or more median cuts to accommodate adjacent properties. A four lane
median divided section would also require wider construction limits for grass
shoulders. For these reasons, this alternative was rejected.
2. Alignment
Because the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to adjoining properties,
no alignment alternatives were considered.
B. "No-Build" Alternative
If the "no-build" alternative were chosen, it would have a negative impact on
transportation in Albemarle. With anticipated increases in traffic volumes, the level of
service provided by the existing facility would deteriorate even more. Increased
congestion would lead to higher operating costs and increased travel times. Therefore, the
"no-build" alternative has been rejected. "No-Build" level of service analysis will result in
level of service worst than F.
C. Alternative Modes Of Transportation
No alternative mode of transportation is considered to be a practical alternative.
Highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation in the project area, and the
project involves widening an existing highway.
VI. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Land Use Planning
1. Status of Local Planning Activities
The proposed widening is within the City of Albemarle's planning and
zoning jurisdiction. The City adopted the Land Development Plan Revision in
1971, no update is scheduled. The City enforces zoning and sub-division
regulations, which are used as the primary land use guide for growth. The zoning
ordinances are updated regularly.
2. Existing Land Use
The project area is best described as a mix of land uses. There are many
industrial and commercial businesses mixed in with residential and institutional
uses. There are varied land uses at the beginning of the project where NC 24-27
splits with SR 1274, to SR 1900 (Coble Avenue). Some of the area is agricultural,
with the remainder being residential and commercial. Stanly Technical College is
located approximately one-quarter mile northwest of the project beginning. At the
intersection of the project corridor and SR 1963 there is a small strip mall of
9
commercial businesses (Burleson Square). Behind the strip mall is the Tiny Tears
Nursery and Day Care and a small mobile home facility. Beside the strip mall is
the local Veterans Assembly building. There is a large apartment complex (Creek
Ridge) and a small mobile home facility in a residential area west of the SR 1900
intersection. The Stanly County Correctional Facility, a minimum security center,
is located at the intersection of SR 1900 on the southwest corner, mini- storage
warehouses are on the southeast and northeast corners, and the City Department
of Public Works is on the northwest corner.
A waste water treatment plant is located at the southern terminus of
SR 1900, approximately one-half mile south of the project corridor.
The area from SR 1900 to the US 52-NC 73 intersection is primarily
residential with some service stations and a small textile industry at the
intersection.
The Winston Salem Southbound Railway travels north-south between
US 52-NC 73/NC 138 and US 52/SR 1645 (First Street).
From US 52 to the project terminus the land uses continue to vary. As the
project corridor crosses the US 52/(First Street) intersection, a Baptist church and
the Rock Creek recreational facility are located on the south side of the corridor,
and small commercial uses are on the north side. A portion of the area past the
US 52 intersection is undeveloped partially due to hilly terrain on both sides of the
corridor.
Within the partially undeveloped area is a farm machinery sales
establishment, a convenience store, a mobile home sales facility and a building
supply center. Towards the terminus of the project corridor is the heaviest
development of the project area. A Wal-mart, an Ingles Supermarket, a Lowe's
Building Supply and assorted service stations, used car lots, restaurants and a
Comfort Inn motel have been constructed here in the last five years. There is also
a new car dealership, a small strip mall, more fast food businesses and a large mall
on each side of the project corridor (East Gate on the north side and Albemarle
Plaza on the south) at the intersection of NC 24-27, the project terminus. There
are several industrial uses located south of the NC 24-27 intersection off SR 1783
(Grove Avenue Extension),
3. Existing Zoning
According to planning officials, zoning along the project corridor is
displayed by the existing land uses. The beginning of the project corridor has some
agricultural and residential zones but this area is primarily business. The entire
project area is scattered with every type of zoning classification from institutional
to highway business. The majority are commercial.
10
4. Proposed Land Use
The project area is expected to see further growth in an east to west
direction along the corridor extending away from the industrial, and increasing
growth of commercial along the eastern portion of the project area. Growth of
commercial uses is expected to be the primary trend in the future.

Albemarle is a "bedroom community" for commuters working in Charlotte
which is fifty miles to the west. Many of these commuters use NC 24-27 as a
transit route to and from work, and this thoroughfare is expected to see further
growth due to the increasing traffic volumes along this corridor. According to the
planning staff, most of the residential uses along the project corridor are expected
to change over to business uses in the future.
Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. These soils are designated by the
U. S. Soil Conservation Service based on crop yield, moisture content, and various
other factors. Soils which have been developed or committed to urban use by the
local planning authority are exempt from consideration under the Act. As
previously discussed, the project site and its vicinity are zoned for commercial land
uses and significant development has occurred in its vicinity. Therefore, further
consideration of potential impacts to prime farmland is not required.
B. Social and Economic Environment
1. Relocation Facts
The proposed action will require small portions of new right-of-way,
therefore two relocatees are anticipated.
2. Social Impacts
The proposed improvements will provide a safer highway facility for all
commercial users. In addition, the improvements will make for a safer facility to
deliver goods and services. The proposed action will not disrupt neighborhood
cohesion. It will not interfere with the accessibility of facilities and services.
11
C. Historic and Cultural Resources
Architectural Historic Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106,
codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded,
licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
To comply with Section 106, the area of potential erect (APE) of the
subject project was reviewed by an NCDOT staff architectural historian in the
field. One property within the APE was evaluated for National Register eligibility
--a Former Catholic Church. NCDOT and FHWA have determined that the
Former Catholic Church is not eligible for the.National Register of Historic Places.
There are no other properties in the APE eligible or listed on the National
Register or the State Study List.
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) concurs
that the Former Catholic Church is not considered eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places (see Appendix page A-2). This action
completes compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966.
2. Archaeoloizical Resources
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area.
Therefore, it is unlikely any archaeological resources eligible for inclusion in the
National Register will be affected by the project construction. The SHPO
recommended that no archaeological investigation be performed in connection
with this project (see Appendix page A-3).
D. Natural Systems
Biological Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
Four distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project
study area: Man Disturbed , Oak-Hickory Forest, Piedmont Alluvial
Forest, and Pine Scrub Forest. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and
many populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
12
Man Disturbed Communi
The disturbed community exists along the highway right of way
throughout the length of the project. This community is maintained
through frequent mowing by DOT road maintenance crews. This
community will be heavily impacted by the proposed project. The roadside
community consists of a number of mixed species which include foxtail,
fescue, broomsedge, horsenettle, poke-berry, silverling, and scotch broom.
A number of sapling tree species are prevalent in this area. These include
the princess tree, redbud and river birch.
A profusion of animals and birds utilize this community for forage
and cover. During the site visit several birds were observed in the
disturbed area. Many of these birds were seen moving between each of the
described communities. Birds identified during the site visit include tufted
titmouse, yellow-rumped warbler, northern cardinal, Carolina chickadee,
eastern phoebe, mocking bird, goldfinch, Carolina wren, rufus-sided
towhee, white throated sparrow, ruby and golden crowned kinglet, hermit
thrush, song sparrow and hairy woodpecker. A turkey vulture, american
crow and red-tailed hawk were observed in the vicinity of the project area.
Disturbed roadside communities provide refuge for a myriad of
opportunistic animal species. Some of the more common mammals
inhibiting this community include: the Norway rat, white-footed mouse
and the house mouse. These species also serve as prey for red-tailed
hawks and other predators.
Oak Hickory Forest
An oak-hickory community exists immediately up slope from each
of the Piedmont alluvial forests in the project area. The most common oak
species in these communities include black oak, spanish oak, scarlet red
oak, white oak and northern red oak. The two hickories common in this
community are the pignut hickory and mockernut hickory. Blackgum,
sweetgum, and ash are also found on these upland slopes.
The understory of the oak hickory forest consists primarily of
shrubs and small trees often associated with rich woodland slopes. The
shrubs most commonly encountered in this community include maple-
leaved viburnum, redbud, ironwood, buckeye, blueberry, winged elm,
storax, witch hazel, sourwood and strawberry bush.
There are only a few plants present on the winter forest floor. The
three plants most commonly encountered during the site survey were heart
leaf, spotted pipsissewa and cranefly orchid.
13
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
The vegetation of the Piedmont Alluvial forest canopy is comprised
of a number of deciduous species. The most common species include river
birch, sweetgum, red maple, sycamore, boxeider, American elm, water oak,
blackgum and green ash. Shortleaf pine is also a prevalent canopy tree in
this community.
The prominent shrubs and saplings found in the understory include
privet, ironwood, elderberry, strawberry bush, and dogwood. A few vines
are found in this community as well. Poison ivy, and cross vine are
prevalent.
The herbaceous flora of the alluvial community encountered during
the site visit includes cornflower, wild strawberry, chickweed and
Veronica. The grass bottlebrush plant and fescue are also abundant in the
bottomlands and along the stream edges. A few species common to
piedmont bottomlands during the early spring include spring beauty,
toothwort and Catesby's trillium.
The alluvial bottomlands provide ideal breeding habitat for several
amphibian species. Among the most common species of frogs in the
piedmont are grey tree-frogs, southern cricket frogs and spring peepers. In
addition, three lined salamanders and marbled salamanders are locally
abundant and are frequently found under logs and stones in bottomlands
adjacent to creeks in the piedmont.
Pine Scrub Community

The Pine Scrub community is located in disturbed areas adjacent to
the project area. This community consists primarily of scrub pine, winged
sumac and Japanese honeysuckle.
b. Aquatic Communities
Four piedmont perennial streams and one ephemeral stream system
will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical characteristics of the
water body and condition of the water resources reflect faunal composition
of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
14
Each of the perennial streams are bordered by oak hickory upland
communities and alluvial bottomlands. Two of the sites visited had sewer
lines cut along the streams. Removal of the bottomland and vegetation
adjacent to the stream increases siltation and runoff into the stream thus
influencing water clarity and species composition.
The larger streams Long Creek, Little Long Creek and Poplin
Creek are moderately sized piedmont perennial streams. Some of the more
common fish that occur in similar streams include green sunfish, bluegill
and bluehead chub to name a few. The Natural Heritage files listed
indicates the Carolina darter has been collected in Long Creek. The
Carolina Darter is listed as a species of Special Concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
The small stream (Poplin Branch) provides habitat for crayfish and
invertebrates capable of tolerating various amounts of siltation. These
include some species of dragonflies and damselflies.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the
biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or near
these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This
section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of
area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts
are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these
biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the entire proposed right of way width of 45.7 m (150 ft).
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2 Estimated Impacts to B iotic Communities
COMMUNITY
Oak Hickory Forest 1.7 (4.1)
Maintained 6.0 14.0
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 0.3 0.74
Pine Scrub Forest 1 0.1 (0.1)
TOTAL IMPACTS 8.1 19.08
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
15
The proposed widening will eliminate and/or alter some of the existing
wildlife habitat in the project area while subsequently creating new habitat.
Portions of the roadside shoulder, agricultural lands forest will be impacted by
roadway construction. This will result in direct loss of plant species from grubbing
operations, soil compaction, and soil erosion. Consequently, subterranean and
borrowing organisms will be eliminated in the wake of highway construction.
Animals capable of migrating will seek new habitat for forage and shelter. In
summary, food and cover requirements of individual organisms will dictate the
overall impacts to wildlife utilizing the construction area.
2. Waters Impacted and Characteristics
There are six stream crossings within the proposed project area (Figure 5).
Long Creek, Little Long Creek and Poplin Creek are located within the Yadkin-
Pee Dee watersheds. Long Creek originates in Rowan County near Gold Hill and
flows south approximately 38.7 km (24 mi.) to its confluence with Rocky River.
Little Long Creek originates approximately 3.2 km (2 mi.) north of Albemarle and
flows approximately 8.0 km (5 mi.) to its confluence with Long Creek. At the
time of the site each of these creeks had a moderate to fast flow rate and heavy
siltation due to rains the previous night. Specific information on the water
resources in project area is summarized in Table 3.
Neither High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS II) nor
outstanding Resources Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1 mile) of project
study area. The eastern end of the project is located approximately 2.4 km (1.5
mile) from the Yadkin-Pee Dee watershed.
a. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Table 3 lists best usage
classifications for all water resources likely to be impacted by the proposed
project.

16
Table 3 Water Resources Characteristics
STREAM WIDTH DEPTH SUBSTRATE FLOW CLARITY CLASS
Lon Crk 15(50) 1.1(3) eb, bo mod d C
Little Long
Crk 6(20) 0.6(2) peb, bo mod gd C
Poplin Crk 3(10) 0.15 0.5 eb, co mod d C
Poplin
Branch 1.2(4) 1(3.28) A mod gd C
Tributary
1 0.91(3) 0.15 (0.5) A mod gd C
Tributary
2 >0.91 (>3) >0.15 (>0.5) A mod gd C
NOTES: Values are given in meters (feet).
Class C: Suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture.
The abbreviations int, per, ut, si, sa, peb, co, bo, mod and gd denotes
intermittent stream, perennial stream, unnamed tributary, silt, sand, pebble,
cobble, boulder, moderate, and good.
b. Summary _of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources include increased
sedimentation and siltation resulting from construction around the streams.
These impacts may result in the following adverse conditions: decreases in
the depth of light penetration, suppressing plant and algal growth which
provides a food source for some fish; increase in sediment loads which
clogs the filtration apparatus of filter feeding benthos and fish, buries
benthic organisms and isolates them from their food source and spoils
downstream spawning beds for fish. Sedimentation may additionally lead
to changes in concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff that
may occur during construction.
*1
Sedimentation and erosion control measures (Best Management
Practices) will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of this
project. Grass berms along construction areas (roadsides, bridge sites,
road medians, etc.) help decrease erosion and allow toxic substances to be
absorbed into the soil before these substances reach waterways. Poorly
managed application of sedimentation control policies will result in serious
damage to the aquatic community.
17
3. Special Topics
a. Waters of The United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 CFR 328.3, are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Approximately 0.3 acre of below headwaters wetlands are located
within the project area (Figure 5). The soil color in the wetland is 2.5 YR.
5\2. Evidence of hydrology at the time of the site visit included signs of
flow, stained the leaf litter, standing waterline oxygenated rhizospheres.
Plant species observed with wetland indicator status include green ash,
ironwood, blackgum, sweet bay, red maple and willow oak.
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has instituted a
numerical rating 0 to 100 to gauge wetland quality. This fourth version of
the rating system assesses wetlands the basis of water storage,
bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal, aquatic life, recreational and
educational values of a wetland community. The DEM rating for this
wetland is 43.
This wetland meets the National Wetlands Inventory classification
of Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded
(PFO 1 C).
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacement of existing culverts and bridge rehabilitation may
involve discharge of excavated or fill material into waters of one or all the
creeks which cross the project area. Approximately 0.3 acre of
jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted.
d. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a General Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5
is
(A) 14 will be required from the Corps of Engineers (COE) for the .
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
Nationwide Permit conditions include the following:
The width of the fill material is limited to the minimum necessary
for the actual crossing.
2. The fill placed in waters of the U. S. is limited to a fill area of no
more than 0.3 ac.
3. No more than a total of 200 linear feet of the fill for the roadway
can occur in special aquatic sites, including wetlands.
4. Crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the
restriction of, and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows
and the movement of aquatic organisms.
Fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, require a 30-day
notification to the district engineer.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state
issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of the United
States. A Section 401 water quality certification will be required from the
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources prior to
issuance of any Federal Section 404 Permit.
e. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna flora have been in the process of decline
either due to natural forces of their inability to coexist with man. Federal
law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, requires
that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected, be subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species

Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT)
are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of December 30, 1995,
the FWS lists the following federally-protected, species for Stanly County:
19
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii). A brief description of each species
characteristics and habitat follows.
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) E
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half
mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an
area, and having an open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance
can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding
season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the
major food source for bald eagles.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bald eagles usually nest near large rivers and/or lakes where they
forage for fish. Based upon extensive in-house and field investigations, it
has been determined that suitable nesting and foraging habitat does exist
within the immediate project area. Therefore, no impacts will occur to the
bald eagle as a result of the project.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows
1-2 m tall from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous above mid-stem. The
leaves are rough feeling above and resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-
hairy beneath. Leaves of the sunflower are opposite on the lower part of
the stem and usually become alternate on the upper stem. The broad
flowers are borne from September until frost. These flowers are yellow in
color and arranged in an open system upwardly arching heads. The fruit is
a smooth, gray-black achene.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to North and South Carolina.
These flowers grow best in full sunlight or light shade in clearings and
along the edges of open stands of oak-pine-hickory upland woods.
Common soils that this species is found in are moist to dryish clays, clay-
loams, or moderately podzolized. Natural fires and large herbivores are
considered to be historically important in maintaining open habitat for these
sunflowers.
20
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species was found on the crest of a slope on
the north side of the highway across from Westwood mobile home park. A
plant by plant survey of the entire project area was conducted and no
Schweinitz's sunflower were found. Therefore, no erects to this species
will result from the proposed widening of NC 24-27.
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are five (5) federal candidate (C2) species listed for Stanly
County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal protection
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, or until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined
as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data
currently exist to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act of North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal candidate species, the species state status (if
afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area. This species list is provided for information
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 4 Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species for Stanly County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME FED/NC STATUS HABITAT
Aster eor 'anus Georgia Aster C2\C es
Ju lans cinerea. Butternut C2\C es
Lotus 12urshianus var. helleri Heller's trefoil C2\C es
Nestronia umbrellula Nestroma C2\SR es
Verbena ri aria
I no common name
C2\C
es
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit,
nor were any of these species observed. A review of the data base of the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare species and unique habitats provided
records of the Carolina Darter occurring in Long Creek. The North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has listed this species as Special
Concern (SC). SC status is defined as "any species of wild animal native or
once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the Wildlife
21
Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken
under regulations adopted under the provisions of this article.
Additionally, the Natural Heritage program data base lists a basic oak-
hickory forest as a unique habitat which is located approximately 1 mi. (1.6
km) from the study area.
E. Geology and Hazardous Materials Evaluation
1. Physical Resources
Stanly County lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Providence. The
topography of Stanly County is characterized by gently rolling forested hills and
open fields. The average elevation throughout the project area is approximately
182.0 m (600 ft) above mean sea level.
2. Physiograhv
Terrain along the project corridor is undulating to steep with a relief of
54.9 meters (180 feet) along the length of the project. Four streams, Poplin
Branch, Rock Creek, Long Creek and one of its tributaries, will be crossed.
Drainage in the vicinity will be governed by these streams.
3. Geology and Soils
Subsurface lithology is from the Carolina Slate Belt, primarily the Floyd
Church Formation. It consists of obscurely bedded to well bedded, highly
fractured, tu#faceous metasikltstone. Bedrock is typically encountered at depths
from 50.8 to 101.6 centimeters (20 to 40 inches).
According to the USDA soils manuals, soils in the area are primarily from
the Badin-Goldston soils association. They are shallow, well drained soils on
uplands.
Engineering properties of the soils indicate slight erosion equipment
hazards in the area. The depth to the seasonal high water table is greater than 1.8
meters (6 feet). Shrink-swell potentials are low to moderate. Soil reactivity,
measured in pH, ranges from 3.6 to 6.5 or extremely to slightly acid. The risk of
corrosion. in concrete and uncoated steel is high. The soils are rated as poor for
use as roadfill material due to low strength. Construction of shallow excavations
and embankments is moderately restricted due to the depth to bedrock and high
clay content of the soil. Use for local roads and streets is severely limited due to
low soil strength and excessive wetness near stream crossings. AASHTO soil
classifications are given to be A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7.
22
4. Hazardous Material Inventory
a. Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities
A field reconnaissance identified seven UST facilities within the
currently defined project limits. Records from the Division of
Environmental Management's Groundwater Section were consulted to
ascertain registry information at these sites and to identify any additional,
reported sites. A location and description of the facilities are listed below.
Because of the existing right of way 45.7 meters (150 feet), it is not
anticipated that any of these UST sites will be involved with this project.
This information is included in case later design requires construction limits
to extend further than currently expected.
Section AA
Site 1.
Farmer's Used Cars
NC 24-27
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Unknown
Facility ID#: Unknown
This facility is located on the north side of NC 24/27,
approximately 15.2 meters (50 feet) east of the intersection with Mt.
Vernon Drive. It was a Shell service station at some time in the past and is
now operated as a used car dealership and inspection center. An area of
disturbed concrete is behind the abandoned pump island, possibly
corresponding to the location of a UST pit. One tank, probably from the
tank pit, was on the surface at the north edge of the property. An oil
change pit, overgrown with kudzu, is behind the station building. No
information of DEM registry is currently available.
Site 2.
Eury's Truck Stop
Highway 24-27 Bypass
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: R. I Eury (Barefoot Oil Company)
Facility ID#: Unknown
This facility is located on the south side of NC 24-27,
approximately 61 meters (200 feet) west of the intersection with NC 138
South. There are five USTs on the property, three containing gasoline, one
with diesel and one with kerosene. Information on the size, construction
23
and registry of the tanks is not available at this time. The gasoline tank pit
is located on the east side of the parking area, approximately 38.4 meters
(126 feet) from the NC 24-27 centerline.
Site 3
Friendly Mart
199 Highway 24/27 Bypass
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Still Oil Co. 1410 East Main Street Albemarle, NC
Facility ID#: 0-023433
This convenience store and restaurant is located in the northwest
quadrant of the NC 24-27/NC 138 South intersection. There are five
USTs registered with the DEM at this location, three 22, 710 liter (6,000
gallon) tanks containing gasoline, one 37,850 liter (10,000 gallon) tank
containing diesel fuel and one 2,080 liter (550 gallon) tank containing
kerosene. The diesel/kerosene tank pit is located on the east side of the
building, approximately 54.5 meters (179 feet) from the centerline. All
tanks are made of steel with no cathodic protection. Installation of the
tanks was completed during May, 1964.
Site 4.
Convenient Corner #2
Highway 52 North
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Albemarle Oil Company 300 Circle Drive Albemarle, NC
Facility ID#: 0-023433
This convenience store and restaurant is located in the northwest
quadrant of the NC 24-27/US 52 North intersection. There are three
active USTs registered with the DEM. Each tank contains gasoline and is
made of steel with no cathodic protection. The tanks have 37,850, 30,280
and 22,710 liter (10,000, 8,000 and 6,000 gallon) capacities. The UST pit
is located in front of the building, approximately 32 meters (105 feet) from
the NC 2427 centerline. According to DEM records, two steel, 1,210 liter
(4,000 gallon) tanks, one containing diesel and one with kerosene, were
permanently closed during December 1985. The location of this pit is
unknown.
24
Section AB
Site 5
Phase One Nite Spot (Formerly: Center Mart)
505 Highway 24-27
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Unknown
Facility ID#: Unknown
This facility is located on the north side of NC 24-27 at the
intersection with Spaulding Street. It is currently operated as an
entertainment center. An out-of-service pump island is in front of the
building. The undisturbed tank pit is located at the western edge of the
concrete parking area, approximately 43 meters (141 feet) from the NC 24-
27 centerline. There are fill ports and vent piping for two USTs. No DEM
registry information is currently available.
Site 6
Quick Check Exxon #8
627 Highway 24-27 East
Albemarle, NC
UST Owner: Wynn Dozier
Facility ID#: 0-033520
This convenience store is located in the northwest quadrant of the
NC 24-27/Henson Road intersection. There are two USTs registered with
the DEM at this location. Both tanks contain gasoline, are made of fiber
glass reinforced plastic with cathodic protection and have 45,420 liter
(12,000 gallon) capacities. The tank pit is located in front of the building,
approximately 25.6 meters (84 feet) from the NC 24-27 centerline.
b. Other Potential Hazards
Two other facilities with USTs were found during the
reconnaissance and document search, the City of Albemarle Service Center
and the NCDOT Maintenance yard. These sites are on either side of
NC 24-27 at the intersection with SR 1900 (Coble Avenue). Both
properties contain USTs that are outside the right of way described for this
widening project. The City of Albemarle Service Center stores
transformers on site and makes repairs on their vehicles. Due to the terrain
at this location, there is a possibility that soil and/or groundwater
contamination, if any, may creep downsiope, towards NC 24-27.
Collection of soil samples within the proposed northside right of way of
NC 24-27 may be warranted prior to construction.
25
The files of the Division of Solid Waste Management's Solid and
Hazardous Waste and Superfund Sections were consulted in order to
identify any reported contamination sources or events within project limits.
Based on the field reconnaissance and DSWM records, no additional
environmental hazards are expected to affect construction on this project.
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis
An analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening on
noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation included an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient
noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the
proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for
the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of
Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted,
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Characteristic of Noise
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range
of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA: Throughout this report, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table N1 (see Appendix page A-17).
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed
to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three
things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
26
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with
various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise
abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned
Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for
various land uses is presented in Table N2 (see Appendix page A-18). The Leq, or
equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time
period has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating
sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same
energy content.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine
the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this noise level information was to
quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. From SR 1963 (the western termini of the project) to US 52, the
existing Leq noise level along NC 24-27 was determined to be 66.6 dBA. From US 52 to
SR 1783 (the eastern termini of the project), the noise level measured 69.4 dBA. Both
measurements were taken at 15 meters from the roadway.
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the Noise
Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983).
The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108).
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. Only those
existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway
sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this
analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions made
in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the
year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
27
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour of the design year 2019, would be
exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and
those land uses predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase
Table N5 (see Appendix page 30) indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted noise level increases for
this project range from +3 to +8 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to
barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of
the sound.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within
1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in 'the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in either
category. As shown in Table, page A-29, 18 receptors along the project are predicted to
experience noise impacts.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied with
a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures to
effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass,
attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain no control of access, with the exception of full control at
the US 52 interchange, meaning most commercial establishments and residences will have
direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and all other intersections will adjoin
the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and
long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction.
Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight
distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 15 meters (50 feet) from the barrier would normally require a
barrier 120 meters (400 feet) long. An access opening of 12 meters (40 feet) (10 percent
of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
2s
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable
measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus,
would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case. -
"No-Build" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "no-build" alternative were also considered. If the
proposed widening did not occur, 6 residential receptors would experience traffic noise
impact by approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors in the
immediate vicinity of the project could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise
levels in the range of +1 to +5 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect
noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project,
can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of
construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are
not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural
elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway
traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change
develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted.
G. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of common
outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting
from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SOD, and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
29.
emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned with determining
expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
CO Analysis
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor closest to the
highway project, two concentration components must be used: local and background. The
local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the
near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the
result of emissions outside the local vicinity, that is, the concentration at the upwind edge
of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined using line source computer
modeling and the background concentration was obtained from NCDEHNR. Once the
two concentration components were resolved, they were added together to determine the
ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and to compare to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor
to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes,
vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes
are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the
CAUQHC model was the highest volume within any section. Carbon monoxide vehicle
emission factors were calculated for the year of 1999 and the design year of 2019 using
the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile
source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8
parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
30
The worst-case air quality receptor was located at a distance of 22 meters from the
proposed centerline. The "build" and "no-build" one-hour CO concentrations for the
nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 1999 and 2019 are shown in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations PPM
Nearest Sensitive Receptor Build No-Build
1999 2019 1999 2019
R-77 2.8 3.0 3.8 7.4
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period is 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period is 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard.
Other Pollutants
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere
where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive
emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient
ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to decrease as a
result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will
cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. Newer cars
with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. In the future,
lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the
sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31,
1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will
cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
The project is located in Stanly County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR, Parts 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
31
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that burning
will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will only be utilized under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust
generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process, and no additional reports are required.
H. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns
The terrain along the project is very hilly and rolling with natural streams and
draws located such that the roadway can be drained without difficulty. Table 5
summarizes the major stream crossings associated with the project and recommendations
for accommodation of the proposed widening.
Table 5
Site Stream Existing Structure Recommendation Flood lain Status
1 Poplin Branch Box Culvert Retain and Extend Not in flood hazard zone
1A Poplin Creek Box Culvert Retain and Extend ; may need Included in detailed flood
under US 52 su lementation stud ; regulated floodwa
2 Rock Creek Reinforced Retain and Extend Included in detailed flood
Concrete Arch stud ; regulated floodwa
3 Little Long Bridge # 46 Retain and Widen Included in detailed flood
Creek stud ; re fated floodwa
4 Long Creek Bridge # 39 Retain and Widen Included in detailed flood
stud ; regulated floodwa
From recent field review and preliminary hydraulics analysis, the existing drainage
structures at Poplin Branch, Rock Creek, and Long Creek were determined hydraulically
adequate and in good condition. The proposed extension of these structures can be
accommodated without any significant modification of the existing stream alignment and
channel geometry. The triple barrel culvert at the US 52 crossing of Poplin Creek
appears to be hydraulically undersized, with the detailed flood study profile indicating that
the roadway is flooded at less than a ten-year design frequency. However, from
discussions with nearby store personnel and the District Engineer for this area, there has
32
been no history of roadway overtopping at this location. Based on this information it is
recommended that the existing culvert be retained and extended; however, the need for
supplementation will be investigated in detail in final hydraulics design. Both Bridge
No. 39 and Bridge No. 45 have been evaluated on bridge scour, and both were found to
be at low risk for scour problems.
Stanly County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program.
The floodplain areas in the vicinity of Poplin Creek, Rock Creek and Long Creek
crossings are primarily undeveloped and wooded with no buildings in the vicinity of the
floor elevation below the 100-year flood level indicated in the detailed flood study.
Supplementation of the existing three-barrel culvert at this location may be considered in
final design to reduce the flood hazard in the vicinity of this stream crossing; however,
such improvement may require floodway modification at this site. The proposed roadway
widening and associated drainage accommodations will not have a significant adverse
effect on the existing floodplain areas and will not significantly increase the existing flood
hazards in the project vicinity. Hydraulics Design Unit.will coordinate with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and local authorities'to ensure compliance with
applicable floodplain ordinances.
Both bridge sites (Long Creek and Little Long Creek) are below headwaters. All
of the culvert sites (Rock Creek, Poplin Creek, Poplin Branch) are above headwaters.
The project is not in a water supply watershed nor in a high quality water zone; therefore,
erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the appropriate specification,
installation, and maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control measures.
Existing drainage patterns will be maintained and may be improved where practicable.
Ground water resources will be evaluated in final hydraulics design to ensure measures are
taken to prevent contamination. Recommendations are preliminary and subject to
change, based on information obtained from a more detailed study during the final
hydraulics design phase of the project.
I. Geodetic Markers
It is anticipated that this project will have no impact on any geodetic survey
markers.
J. Section 4(f) Resources
'No Section 4(f) properties will be involved with this project. One public park
(Roosevelt Ingram Memorial Park) is located on the south side of NC 24/27,
approximately 2400 feet east of the US 52 interchange. At, this location the proposed
widening .,gill take place within the existing NCDOT right of way. No land will be
required r°Om this park.
FIGURES
??e z
-? (7 `" u1
r x 0"u zoyy.
Z m
9 ", V nzp?? oz?
V
-? r o

r ??
? ;
?. ??,
?? ? I
?sa y e? ?

`
4 Y e 3
.....
S?
h
te
?
" ?
r ?
y „ t
A
v
t

' d?

r
R
9
y d
F . u
M
Me"
-
y ? ?.
'"
-- _ <.
-?rv1 P H31bW
?a

4
A #

F
..? .. a ?,,
gN

? ? 9
' '? ?
y}
.
} ma

w°
EXISTING CONDITIONS
?. US 52-NC 73
I
N C 24-27
NC 138 (AQUADALE RD.)
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
US 52-NC 73
SR 1645
(FIRST ST.)
BRIDGE 49
US 52
SR 1645
(FIRST ST.)
BRIDGE 49

NC 138 (AQUADALE RD.)
RAISED
MEDIAN

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
:PUNNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
• 1 BRANCH
NC 24.27 WIDENING
UC GK'S
52 PROPO SED LANE CONFIGURATION FOR
LJ I US 52-NC 731M 136 INTERSECTION
6 US 32 INTERCHANGE
R-2330A

NOT TO SCALE FW3

15
21
•
NC 24 - 27 FROM SR 1249
TO NC 740 IN ALBEMARLE
ESTIMATED 1999/2019 ADT
TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN HUNDREDS
-al
51
NC 24 - 27
LEGEND
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
PM PM PEAK
(0,0) DUALS,TTST (%)
NOTE: DHV-?D
(indicates the direction D)
!.. ® mmi
A A
O1
?o
121
196 ;
0
5
10
1C
SR 1249 149 PM I 35
?
29 60 PM 10 182
-9
y, 200 (4,5) 234
{' e? O PM 10 33 NC 138 51 "N
88 n US 52/NC 73
63 (2,1) 63 128
211
126 349
207
A 34
46
w 3
y m 34
??, 56
SR 1274
94 (2,2)
6660PMIO 35 6600P_M?0 94
(2 , 2)126

20 60 PM 10 53 US 52 SR 1645

30 ?-
(2,1)
85
\21

34

113
181 207
339
.. p
A ?
N ;

2
? a
SR 1963 O 7
k,?3
CITY STREET

1 7 60 PM10 24 9

F 7
29 11 (3,1) ) 39 15 27
208
341
1
210

6 ?t
3o 22
SR 1900
SR 1783
65 2
k", 3
HENSON ST.
4
1 i7
0 55 PM 8 36 75 9 PM 65 22 (A 60 PM 9 11
6 1 (s- - 48 101 (3 4) 30 6 (2,1) 16
184
117 309
190
a 5
1y
9
CITY STREET
NC 24-27-73 66
97 f
?84 60 PM 9
(- SR 1625
w ,
8
1 14 116
181
9 16
? 130
5 24 55PM9 15
27 180
(3, 2)
121 70
195
170
FIGU RE 4 NC 740
A A .
•'

u
\? l /-?) , x, ry.?? /r J . ' c, \ _ -?. ,?

Hcgr ?• \.?? • 1

Ilk.
\
?
~ •
X
?
_ I

t !r j -
I 576
j h / / •r
J

?? r •`

g1

_ j
?
"'
,
_
?; \
536; ..
! .J.,
/I & _ v ,
i
? .,• f , .' • J
i
? 1 , ?? •I\?. ?= Wal.•n?ut 1 \ \
.
I? -- 1 _ ^,.
l_
.?.?
L_!? ' .
stilt'-1 o.. ,
t ?f
,1
?
•
I
I
COC- ON/?
',? I r
ST /rte y9,/?
p,7? \? u-.
I?/!
A
j 1 •. /
1 DA
?
7
\\
f
?,1
?
4
i 1
\
--,Love
l p 1

?;East Slbrle ?.
`
r
,
i .- _,,...
i
?-
.
IL.
Yil
ou 14_Ji
warT sr li 11;. P \-? J I ?\\ -I
?
F
•
1
?i' ?'?
\ L?-
?? 33,
I D(
( DP
?
y

ti

?tlI
,?> may. i
??.//,? ??
?`r ?. m?.2 ?
?y
.r ?r
\ 7 h )
\ r .I , ? , ,iz,! J ?, , Rad(o hover
'. ^'BM 40 , ?V/ / I?? DKIN y /.STREET\VI I YI/ 1 y W KY)_-`
YI I
41 I . r l?.1
?' 3

i
: '?. ?
??•? \

?`'`.\?1??'•. .?' may.

`.

tl .
, it
CANNON' t • 5 $ -'
blta
k
l
/ \
?, /
? -??
/ ?
?

Par
r1 e ?
??? ??
eti
ield'? ?': ? ` i! /r ONSGOM RYI
\
\
I _
, 98 •
1 \ I
?
I o°_ (?r
1 1 74
•? \ V`J
,

} mill%

/ I i 1 i' t i? F'" / i C . C'? I v li /
?
•
ho
C
Aft
1. ' •i

1
-? 041 1 all ?? /?(/ 1 '' ?/ :/(
° ?1 i
?i?
rl^? w °. I? o y -_ r
\ \
`
fan
s-
\ ,
_
' (' •? (EAST
?
o ,
w
. !
..

a . •SOl/rH
r `,, r`? > I
I
r' W
.
.
(
-• `)
^
, I.?'? .
?
??'? ? ,y
579
??j/? ^?? I
l
1
•
'?'
Ce J' 1
?
` .`
?.
?N
y
,
} y
i A•
c
s p .__
.
?
r/? ? ti Y I 'o d + ! + I r l? n? ' - .
` 565 i
pop ?'' r w SITE
\\ _ 1 /..
X
??
?.
55

=- ?IPark,
-
; ; `?
\
?`
1
? /
p
-
-
•
.; :
-=
.
1- s
el 1. Ch,
Ab
u 1138 NIS" Airpor
, 0
t
?TI !Fk= ` / oc. r k\\ 470 '? \' l / ?` !?/ I' ! ??
t e Hope v
?-\
I\? \, .\ ' 548\ (`, v I \ r t I? ?, \'!
I,I
^? ) '
NI 1 1:
5 y ( `-?\
% i \J \\ \i

;1

+,, \ i• ./
\\ •.
! /
i (? . \ ?

i I Bethesda \ '"--7 ji
Cem

J,1
t '`15 - ',??? 1 11 `~i, `•`'
)\
r r"
761P ,
, -? 53? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
TRANSPORTATION

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTA
BRANCH OF

L

APPROXIMA
+ ! 100-YEAR FL
S
\

TE LMTS OF
OODPLAIN
?11 .
`'-\•?.%"
ptNO.S'
?

FLOODPLAIN AREAS IN THE PROJECTVICINITV r/?
\ \

?
IN

?..?
r
\ ? ? '1 - / \\\ ?? TIP PROJECT R-2530A
'

' 'firms ???
?' ( \ 1 . i r
FIG
S B?
' I '596 r
5
City of Albemarle
AREA NOT INCLUDED
i
?, p STREET
LZ HEARNE
1
i
N
?r
Q ?/
1
i
i
/ i
LIMIT Or
DETAILE=D
STUDY
I '
/ s
/
L SOUTH
,!} 111 SToc-
LEGEND
w
0
y
EAST
ZO
9?
00
1 O
P?
Qo
100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
SITE to
OF
52

SITE 2
C
500-YEAR FLOOD
CONTAINED IN
" ? CULVERT p
0
ROCK CREEK q
-PARK DRIVE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
.. BRANCH
FLOOOP.LAIN AREAS
IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
TIP PROJECT R-2S30A

Bridge ,t?.?? \.?M\?$
I CiO?PO?r`
z LL
F_. co
Cf) Z
.??•c??\i:.•1:"',? ?; :ill () ?I'2 .J?
W
g
W
--
'I ZQO,?
P / lj "' r S )`tx / r 0a F W Q' W U OC
? ?
,? ?•?. y„ ° -• - / r ?r J. ?+11}( '"? ?..?y. ir. ,?jp0V' ?WJ
'• •N-? 'I? .a V - l\ ??? i •}i'a? r ,t;'':.;?r rF O aw QZ
OE? 04 CA cc
-- - )..
,
J co
Q' U?' 1 :• ?• •? mom? _--
? O •?•? ill, .r(^\\• .y ?-\v- o? t _ I s_ ' Y`+ ?(_ ?Li ?I , ?. ??? ?.yk't
F-+ ri?•• ui ??••}}-- :??•/? Cis `?i,.^\a.•1 { } ?" ?. t Nye +7 wtik ' CA
,_„Hf.? r r f•r!<, ` I..t , t,Y• j. 2i? F 2' ?i g S. ? Z;;?? ? V]
^4 J' JGl ?L•? ?? l `? - u?1 - SIX-??•';•QQQ???,
!J ••? ?_' ? ?: ? _ • ?? r"???" •. `e\' P V eGI r ? ?r +?x r =w F•,a+ i'? r <? W ?•! '
r rti . a
..?v`_:r ?j' ' ?. 1 y ti .2hc. •P k >> _r?? ? l 2? `? \ 1 ??7= I , i
? 'C+ i G n ••) .., Lt p>7 ,, e- - t Y' ?' - :.Ff}d' y+ f?,i ?f,?tK
7' : ,._ ! ,;`vJ':. ?, FJr fy: ?..q.r:lP" ',i .f. • _ \ +S`. "._w ean.pt M1• ? ?
•? `. , ?• Cs_ t.? Fri, ('. - } :?1?+ --?= 1 ?" 1 ly ,? ??' .n .?
Ir Y• f • ?.L% /J? . i . .r .?{ aA •+/ i ??`7 \ ??Sl ?. ,, rt * q 7L f • r17f ?' -11t I`°
1r ?/" r .t ? s?•':!Ja !y?'^ ? JiJ 1 . - , \ ? r d ? ??\. f _L ? t} ' i'E: 1 l?- 'kt•.' `,:H
1 + .C • kr ? /? iprta}Y?) ?`tn, si• ' ::. v t7< , .%??-t ! ii; ?' /j
_ , r.'6 `!' ::ate t? ? "/' + f 1, u,.. e ? { J' n a ? •?'{ ? 4. ? r.
Y b? t F ?. Y'\ ?• •?q \
i,? 'l'. ??, S J? ,Tij.' +vpf/{?t,S+• d -1 ? S ,\ t• ?1 ////,???1 -11 , .ie .,Y: • s .'d?.: F .
1 ?•'',. 5. • r' `.1- /• yet ";f: ?i.`':'ti' (\'`-+_J W? P__ ,i. J? •+'J r\ N? ?. '• ?. ••i1't rJ / ;; \ \
:,• ,J.i K'' ty' 'y '•ryie.- ?=.2.51 (?,JI? ;. ? 1r •d!, ?` .,?, , 'f} r,,y''i ` I ? QQ ,..tr •? ,
'?•, :? O ,1 • •.t+•.Art + :$n:,.. tWy.?;.p !`? 4- yQ •' _ - t, o. ) ti' .,? \ `
•t P ti: vFM ? I. ?,t?rt,'y'?.? ... • a s? ,?y?' ar's??1 a4 ?1iJ'?+? ? ,•'? • ;.rr O ,
r?, '? ? .•uC? ? •' s.?'1?i4-?? ;f}fy r??j. +/.., S` -} j?? •%-. r it _ \.., •r ?1;}z? t +
I:V
e u° c•"ytd' X:• r,, N ;?"d} tn, 4.ta +? r, } w r \
_ ?, ! ? W iZ t' t" ? ... •' ? 6 += 'zP ? _"`? t t .} rer - • ;i'.
e .I< r_: _ °''- > CY W ? ••^+ t ??rt<. y; _ _ _'? ?_ { 'rll? 1 I. 1 'rJ+ .. .-p?yy? x .?`?. ?•' 1 :?
, ? ?? k1 ' M r'•- lr.• •'Y.-i °S?. 1 + J -?: ? IF! I?.` 1 fir: y •:.r ?J -i ?-
? p a . YL u I?1 1' • _ . , ,r . t• .? J,1 1n8 ?• L3, u_.t, '? ' ? J??_r '? 1^p,j1 '+?• ?? ? ? ? ` C
r?ill •?} 4 '
:. i' •s+lw. "k Y9,fF ?? J?2?1.??? 9... tur r? •1n fR' ., W •'i?i.u ?, ?• ihll ?.?++"?t • ? (?

°' J

1
- v?
{

y

a• tit

? S
tv
r
--- ? w ,2-.s• u --,.
- s• V.11
t
?' a1 a1

S.-
0 1C
1
4
ti ' ?. ?, Wl y1 ? ,''•.
OA )-
M •
• )o
00
0.'m. ??• ? .. _ ? -? • . ? .?"?+ ? ?L' \ ' r ? I.X{::47,Ip_ \??1?..
All -Av
,•
43
CL) La
)Wfsd +. H 11 .y
+•
:. CM
/ S
APPENDIX
? SoA?o
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 18, 1995
MEMORANDUM
,JAN 31995
)urc
Z DiViSiC^J OF
Division ?`Zi§iry
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 24-27 from SR 1249 to NC 740,
Stanly County, R-2530A, Federal Aid Project No.
STP-24(2), State Project No. 8.T680301, CH 95-E-
4220-0296
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
Donna Dodenhoff conducted a comprehensive survey of historic architectural
resources in Stanly County in 1990. We have conducted a search of our maps
and files and have located the following structures of historical or architectural
importance within the general area of the project:
Former Catholic Church (ST 547)
We recommend that an architectural historian with the North Carolina Department
of Transportation evaluate this property for National Register eligibility. No further
historic structures survey is necessary.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
. Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:siw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A_1
:s .
North Carolina Department of Cultural.Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary
June 21, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for NC 24-27
from east of SR 1963 to east of SR 1783,
Albemarle, Stanly County, R-2530A, Federal Aid
Project STP-24(2), State Project 8.T680301, 'ER
95-9081
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr.. Director

JUN 2 6 1995
Thank you for your letter of May 10, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Scott Owen concerning the above project.
We concur that the following property is not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places:
Former Catholic Church (ST 547). This property was moved from its original
location in 1970, and lacks sufficient architectural significance to overcome
the effects of the move.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
A-2
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
d,.. STATF
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 15, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook 44-t-4 la
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: NC 24-27 from SR 1249 (Canton Road) to
NC 740, R-2530A, Stanly County, 95-E-
4220-0296
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
r 41P
19 1995
,Gy
i=i?CtA? p'
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-3'
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • 0
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E3 FE " P4
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 30, 1994
tim
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0296; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 24-27, TIP No. R-2530A
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O.' Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employe 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A w
Melba McGee
November 30, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCD05'f utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10776er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

'1RC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone]
Dec 07'94 7:59 No.001 P.06
Mort, axolinaResources Commission 0
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919.733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 6, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for NC 24-27, from SR 1249
(Canton Road) to NC 740 in Albemarle, Stanly
County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-2530A, SCH
Project No. 95-0296.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen existing NC 24-27 from SR 1249
to NC 740 in Albemarle. Two alternatives are being
considered; a five lane curb and gutter section throughout
or a four lane shoulder section with a raised median from
the western terminus to the US 52 interchange with a five
lane curb and gutter section along the remaining portion of
the project.
At this time the NCWRC has no specific recommendations
or concerns regarding the subject project. However, to help
facilfnate document preparation and the review process, our
general informational needs are outlined below:
A-6
.ICP,FRLLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 07'94 7:59 No.001 P.07
Memo Page 2 December 6, 1994
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project construction
should be included in the inventories. A listing
-of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project. The need for channelizir_g or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the Ti. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the environmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
A-7
-,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 07'94 8:00 No.001 P.08
r,
Memo
Page. 3
December 6, 1994
this individual project to environmental
degradation..
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary
development facilitated by the improved road
access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be
coordinated with other state, municipal, or
private development projects, a description of
these projects should be included in the
environmental document, and all project sponsors
should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please contact David Cox, Highway
Project Coordinator, at [phone].
CC: Wayne Chapman, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Ken Knight, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

- A-8
State of North Carolina d 1994
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural odrees
Division of Land Resources e_
mes C Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMI rS Charm H. Gardner
11111am W. Cobey, Jr, Secretary Director
Project Number: County:
Project Name: C) 2'F 6
Geodetic Survev
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
? Ae R• 11
Reviewer
Erosion and Sedimentation.Control
No comment
Date
This projecl+t will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land =disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
yt_JG2Gwo?' li'?2ca(' !J?/ 4j ? 5 5L
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 - Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 - Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aff anatty< Q - E.rnployer
CHAIRMAN. CAROLYN CARPENTER CENTRALINA COUNCIL OF -GOVERNMENTS
?ICECHAIRMAN: CLAYTON LOFUN POST OFFICE BOX 35008 ONE CHARLOTTETOWN CENTER
aECRETARY-HOYLE MARTIN CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28235 1300 BAXTER STREET
7tE4SURER: ROBERT RANDALL 704/372-2416 FAX [phone]
TO: Stanly County Manager N 6789V
Albemarle City Manager ?,L3 4 Qljr?
MC Intergovernmental Review Proem c a
Received m
Review and Comment Form
100 a" mss. Ms.
ro`'
This office has received the attached information about a proposal ?L et
your jurisdiction.
If you need more information, contact the applicant directly. If you need an extension
of time for review, contact Hilda Threatt immediately.
If you wish to comment on this proposal action, complete this form with comments and
return to this office by January _1 1 , 1995
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no comments
regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier Number 95-0296
Commenter's Name Raymond I. Allen Title City Manager
Representing City of Albemarle
(Jurisdiction)
Address P. 0. Box 190
Albemarle, North Carolina 28002-0190
Phone [phone]
Date November 23, 1994
sARRUS COUNTY concord harnsburg kannapolis mount pleasant GASTON COUNTY belmont bessemer city cherryville cramerton daltas
stonia high shoais lowell mcadenville mount holly ranlo spencer mountain stanley IREDELL COUNTY harmony mooresville statesville
.itman LINCOLN COUNTY lincolnton MECKLENBURG COUNTY charlotte comelius davidson huntersville matthews mint hill pinevdie
ROWAN COUNTY china grove cleveland faith granite quarry lands rockwell salisbury spencer STANLY COUNTY albemarle badin
locust new lon Son norwood oakboro nchfield stanheld UNION C_ UNlY indian trail marshville monroe stalhngs wingate
A 1 7
City of Albemarle
North Carolina
Office of
City Manager November 23, 1994
[phone]
Ms. Hilda Threatt
Centralina Council of Governments
Post Office Box 35008
Charlotte, North Carolina 28235
Re: Intergovernmental Review Process - State I.D. #95-0296
(Widening of N.C. 24-27)
Mailing Address
P. O. Box 190
Albemarle. N. C.
28002-0190
Dear Ms. Threatt:
This is in response to the request for comments from the City of Albemarle
regarding the above-styled project. The Albemarle City Council reviewed
this request at its November 21 meeting.
The City Council voted unanimously to endorse the proposed widening of
N.C. 24-27, and expressed the opinion that this is a critical transpor-
tation need for the City. The City is unaware of any specific environmental
impacts that should be considered in design and construction of the project.
The City Council also voted to endorse the alternative of a five lane curb
and gutter section for the length of this project. It is the City's
opinion that this design will best serve the City's needs now and in the
future.
If you need any additional information or clarification, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
Raymond I. Allen
City Manager
RIA:pwt
cc: James R. Jensen, City Engineer
Benton Payne, 10th Division Engineer
A-11
United States Department of the In
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE` ?¦
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 1 JAN 0 Qi 1995
January 5, 1995
OIVISIC OF
?4HIGHWAYS
ONNI?
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your October, 28, 1994 letter requesting U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) comments on the proposed widening of NC 24-27 from SR
1249 to NC 740 in Albemarle, Stanly County, North Carolina. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
To assist you in your preparation of the biological assessment, this office
maintains a list of Federally-listed species by county within North Carolina.
Habitat requirements for the Federally-listed species in the project area should
be compared with the available habitat at the project site. If appropriate
habitat is present, surveys for the species should be performed, and survey
methodologies and results should be forwarded to this office for review and
comment.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and candidate
(C) species that are known to occur in Stanly County. Candidate species refers
to any species being considered by the Service for listing as endangered or
threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed rule. These species are not
legally protected under the Act or subject to its provisions, including Section
7, until formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. Although
._ndi•d-te species have no legal status and are accorded no protection under the
Act, their inclusion will alert you of potential proposals or listing.
Therefore, it would be prudent for you to avoid any adverse impacts to candidate
species or their habitat.
The Federally-listed endangered Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
is known to occur in Stanly County along NC 24-27. This sunflower frequently
occurs in road rights-of-way, in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to
dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams that often have a high gravel
content. This species is known to occur in areas with full sunlight or light
shade, and is dependent on periodic disturbances to reduce the shade and
competition of woody plants, such as maintained road rights-of-way. If
appropriate habitat for the Schweinitz' sunflower is available in the project
area, we recommend that surveys be conducted. If surveys indicate that
Schweinitz' sunflower are located within the project area, the project has the
potential to adversely affect this plant species, and you should contact our
office for further information before proceeding.
The Service's review and comment on any biological assessment could be expedited
if it contained the following information:
A-14
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of
the associated habitat that may be affected by the action;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed
action and are later in time but are still reasonably certain
to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of
Federal, State, and private activities in the project and
cumulative effects area;
C. Interrelated actions are those., that are part of a larger
action and depend on the larger action for their
justification;
d. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent
utility apart from the action under consideration;
e. Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered
as part of future Section 7 consultation);
5. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any
listed species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
6. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential
effects;
7. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria;
Additionally, if any of the proposed work may impact wetland habitats, we
recommend that you consult the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the need
for Department of the Army permits to perform work in wetlands for which they may
have regulatory responsibility. The Corps' contact person in this regard is Mr.
Robert Johnson, Room 75, Grove Arcade Building, 37 Battery Park Avenue,
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-2714
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments early in the planing
process. If we may be of further assistance, please contact biologist Kate
Looney at 856-4520 (ext. 16).
Sincerely,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
A-15
REVISED NOVEMBER 30, 1994
Stanly County
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - E
Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate" (C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - C2
Georgia aster (Aster oeorQianus) - C2
Butternut (Juclans cinerea) - C2
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) - C2*
no common name (Verbena riAaria) - C2
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.

TABLE NS
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
t
t.
A-17
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
Y.
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
sn
TABLE N3.1 1/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
Alternative 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road)
1 Business C NC24-27 43.0 L 59 NC24-27 43.0 L - - 65 + 6
2 Business C " 81.0 L 53 to 87.0 L --------------------N/A-------------
3 Church E of 71.0 R 55/<40 It 67.0 R - - 61/<40 + 6/0
4 Residence B to 92.0 R 52 it 85.4 R - - 58 + 6
5 Residence B " 36.0 R 61 It 29.4 R` - - 68 + 7
6 Residence B " 94.0 R 52 of 87.4 R - - 58 + 6
7 Residence B " 44.0 R 59 it 37.4 R - - to 66 + 7
8 Residence B " 58.0 R 57 to 51.4 R - - 63 + 6
9 Residence B " 83.0 R 53 It 76.4 R - - 59 + 6
9A Residence B to 102.0 R 51 to 95.4 R - - 57 + 6
10 Residence B " 110.0 L 50 to 116.6 L - - 54 + 4
11 Residence B to 53.0 L 57 " 59.6 L - - 62 + 5
12 Residence B " 33.0 L 61 " 39.6 L - - to 66 + 5
13 Residence B to 40.0 L 60 " 46.6 L - - 64 + 4
14 Residence B q 82.0 L 53 " 88.6 L - - 58 + 5
15 Residence B " 43.0 L 59 '• 49.6 L - - 63 + 4
16 Church E " 27.0 L 63/<40 " 33.6 L - - 67/42 + 4/2
16A Residence B " 37.0 L 60 " 43.6 L - - 65 + 5
17 Residence B " 74.0 L 54 to 80.6 L - - 59 + 5
18 Residence B " 63.0 L 56 " 69.6 L - - 60 + 4
19 Residence B " 57.0 L 57 " 63.6 L - - 61 + 4
20 Residence B to 58.0 L 57 to 64.6 L - - 61 + 4
21 Residence B " 58.0 L 57 " 64.6 L - - 61 + 4
22 Residence B " 48.0 L 58 " 54.6 L - - 63 + 5
23 Residence B to 35.0 L 61 to 41.6 L - - 65 + 4
24' Residence B " 106.0 L 50 it 112.6 L - - 55 + 5
25 Residence B " 99.0 L 51 to 105.6 L - - 56 + 5
26 Residence B " 95.0 L 51 to 101.6 L - - 56 + 5
27 Residence B " 94.0 L 52 is 100.6 L - - 56 + 4
y8 Residence B to 85.0 L 53 It 91.6 L - - 57 + 4
L9 Residence B of 83.0 L 53 to 89.6 L - - 57 + 4
30 Residence B " 77.0 L 54 to 83.6 L - - 58 + 4
SOA Residence B " 69.0 L 55 " 75.6 L - - 59 + 4
:09 Residence B ° 87.0 R 52 It 80.4 R - - 59 + 7
31 Apts. (4) B of 104.0 R 50 It 97.4 R - - 56 + 6
0= : Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). to _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A_1n
TABLE N3.1 2/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
Alternative 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION ZAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road) Cont'd
32 Apts. (4) B NC24-27 60.0 R 56 NC24-27 53.4 R - - 63 + 7
33 Apts. (4) B 61.0 R 56 It 54.4 R - - 63 + 7
34 Business C " 50.0 R 58 to 43.4 R - - 65 + 7
35 Business C " 53.0 R 57 •' 53.0 R - - 63 + 6
36 Business C to 39.0 L 60 of 43.0 L' - - 65 + 5
:?A Business C to 45.0 L 59 It 52.0 L - - 63 + 4
17 Residence B '• 75.0 L 54 " 82.0 L - - 58 + 4
8 Residence H 88.0 L 52 95.0 L - - 57 + 5
9 Residence B " 105.0 L 50 110.0 L - - 55 + 5
40 Residence B '• 130.0 L 48 " 136.0 L - - 53 + 5
SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138
i1 Business C NC24-27 38.0 R 60 NC24-27 36.0 R --------------------N/A------ ---- ---
,2 Business C it 56.0 L 57 It 62.6 L - - 61 + 4
s3 Residence B It 37.0 L 60 " 43.6 L - - 65 + 5
14 Residence H It 86.0 L 53 " 92.6 L - - 57 + 4
5 Residence B '• 89.0 L 52 to 95.6 L - - 57 + 5
6 Residence B " 91.0 L 52 " 97.6 L - - 56 + 4'
7 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 " 46.6 L - - 64 + 4
3 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 " 46.6 L - - 64 + 4
Residence B to 92.0 L 52 " 98.6 L - - 56 + 4
Residence B '• 90.0 L 52 to 96.6 L - - 57 + 5
Residence B " 40.0 L 60 if 46.6 L - - 64 + 4
Residence B °• 92.0 L 52 it 98.6 L - - 56 + 4
Residence H " 95.0 L 51 It 101.6 L - - 56 + 5
Residence B " 95.0 L 51 " 101.6 L - - 56 + 5
Residence B " 94.0 L 52 " 100.6 L - - 56 + 4
Residence B to 88.0 L 52 it 94.6 L - - 57 + 5
Residence B 39.0 L 60 '. 45.6 L - - 64 + 4
Residence H " 82.0 L 53 " 88.6 L - - 58 + 5
Residence B " 75.0 L 54 " 81.6 L - - 58 + 4
Residence a " 30.0 L 62 36.6 L - - It 66 + 4
Residence a It 25.0 L 63 00 31.6 L - - It 68 + 5
Residence B 00 46.0 R 59 to
39.4
R
- - * 66
+
7
Residence B It 46.0 R 59 " 39.4 R - - It 66 + 7
Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ in terior (58/48). " _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
w
TABLE N3.1 3/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
Alternative 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y MAXIMUM INCREASE
SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138 (Cont'd)
64 Residence B NC24-27 76.0 L 54 NC24-27 69.4 L - - 60 + 6
65 Residence B It 82.0 L 53 " 75.4 L - - 59 + 6
66 Residence B to 76.0 L 54 " 69.4 L - - 60 + 6
67 Residence B " 37.0 L 60 " 30.4 L - - to 68 + 8
68 Residence B " 73.0 L 54 '• 66.4 L - - 61 + 7
69 Residence B it 38.0 L 60 " 31.4 L - - * 68 + 8
70 Residence B it 79.0 L 53 " 72.4 L - - 60 + 7
71 Residence B to 26.0 L 63 " 32.6 L - - * 67 + 4
72 Residence B " 27.0 L 63 " 33.6 L - - * 67 + 4
73 Residence B " 91.0 L 52 '• 97.6 L - - 56 + 4
73A Business C " 18.0 L 66 " 24.6 L - - 70 + 4
74 Business C " 50.0 R 58 " 43.4 R - - 65 + 7
75 Business C ^ 47.0 R 58 " 40.4 R - - 65 + 7
76 Business C to 92.0 R 52 of 85.4 R - - 58 + 6
77 Business C of 17.0 R 66 to 23.6 R - - 70 + 4
NC 138 to US 52
78 Business C NC24-27 55.0 R 60 NC24-27 48.4 R - - 68 + 8
79 Residence B '. 95.0 R 54 " 88.4 R - - 61 + 7
80 Residence B to 80.0 R 56 " 73.4 R - - 64 + 8
81 Residence B 61.0 R 59 " 54.4 R - - * 66 + 7
82 Residence B " 41.0 R 62 '• 34.4 R - - * 71 + 9
83 Residence B " 63.0 R 59 " 56.4 R - - * 66 + 7
84 Business C " 47.0 R 61 to 40.4 R - - 69 + 8
A Church E " 143.0 R 50/00 of 136.4 R - - 56/00 + 6/0
86 Business C " 48.0 L 61 " 54.6 L - - 66 + 5
87 Business C ^ 83.0 L 56 " 89.6 L - - 61 + 5
US 52 to 600 Meters East of US 52
88 Church E NC24-27 90.0 R 55/00 NC24-27 83.4 R - - 60/<40 + 5/0
89 Residence B " 156.0 R 48 to 149.4 R - - 53 + 5
90 Residence B " 147.0 R 49 It 140.4 R - - 54 + 5
91 Residence B " 142.0 R 50 '. 135.4 R - - 54 + 4
92 Residence B " 138.0 R 50 to 131.4 R - - 55 + 5
hmm Distances are from center of the existing
t? or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted no ise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior / interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-21
TABLE N3.1
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
Alternative 1
4/5
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
US 52 to 600 Meters East of US 52 (Cont'd)
93 Business C NC24-27 155.0 L. 49 NC24-27 161.6 L - - 52 + 3
94 Residence B " 133.0 L 51 1° 139.6 L - - 54 + 3
95 Apartments B " 128.0 L 51 of 134.6 L - - 54 + 3
96 Apartments B " 127.0 L 51 It 133.6 L - - 54 + 3
97 Residence B " 148.0 L 49 It 154.6 L. - - 52 + 3
98 Residence B " 156.0 L 48 " 162.6 L - - 52 + 4
49 Business C " 40.0 L 63 " 46.6 L -------------------- N/A--- ----------
600 Meters East of US 52 to End of Project
.40 Business C NC24-27 63.0 R 59 NC24-27 57.6 R - - 63 + 4
:,OOA Park B " 75.0 R 57 " 69.6 R - - 62 + 5
,01 Residence B 54.0 L 60 59.4 L - - 63 + 3
,02 Residence B " 40.0 L 63 ^ 45.4 L - - to 66 + 3
3 Residence B " 116.0 L 52 to
121.4
L
- - 55
+
3
"4 Residence H to 97.0 L 54 if 102.4 L - - 57 + 3
w5 Residence B of 87.0 L 55 1. 92.4 L - - 58 + 3
,.•6 Residence B it 42.0 L 62 " 47.4 L - - 65 + 3
7 Residence B to 86.0 L 55 " 91.4 L - - 59 + 4
:8 Residence B to 50.0 L 61 55.4 L - - 64 + 3
:9 Residence a " 55.0 L 60 " 60.4 L - - 63 + 3
0 Residence B " 58.0 L 60 " 63.4 L - - 63 + 3
;.1 Residence B ^ 71.0 L 57 76.4 L - - 61 + 4
Residence B " 49.0 L 63 " 45.4 L - - * 66 + 3
Residence B " 81.0 L 56 " 86.4 L - - 59 + 3
Residence e to 41.0 L 62 46.4 L - - 65 + 3
Residence B " 72.0 L 57 " 77.4 L - - 60 + 3
Residence B 97.0 L 54 " 102.4 L - - 57 + 3
Residence B 86.0 L 55 " 91.4 L - - 59 + 4
Business C " 52.0 R 60 " 46.6 R - - 65 + 5
Business C " 47.0 R 61 ^ 41.6 R - - 67 + 6
Business C to 54.0 L 60 " 59.4 L - - 63 + 3
Business C It 19.0 L 68 " 24.4 L - - * 71 + 3
Business C It 94.0 R 54 " 88.6 R - - 59 + 5
Business C It 99.0 R 54 °f 93.6 R --------------------N/A-------------
Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).

A '1'1
TABLE N3.1 5/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
f Alternative 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE

RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
D # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
600 Meters East of US 52 to End of Project (Cont'd)
35 Business C NC24-27 53.0 R 60 NC24- 27 53.0 R - - 64 + 4
36 Business C '• 27.0 L 66 to 32.4 L - - 69 + 3
37 Residence B " 117.0 L 52 " 117.0 L - - 56 + 4
38 Apartments B 93.0 L 55 of 93.0 L - - 58 + 3
.39 Apartments a " 94.0 L 54 It 94.0 L' - - 58 + 4
.39A Business C " 31.0 L 65 of 31.0 L - - 69 + 4
.40 Business C " 43.0 R 62 to 43.0 R - - 66 + 4
.41 Business C to 34.0 R 64 " 34.0 R - - 68 + 4
.42 Business C to 54.0 L 60 to 54.0 L - - 64 + 4
.43 Business C " 50.0 L 61 to 50.0 L - - 65 + 4
.44 Business C •' 33.0 L 64 " , 33.0 L - - 68 + 4
45 Business C " 45.0 R 62 to 45.0 R - - 66 + 4
.46 Business C ^ 48.0 R 61 of 48.0 R - - 65 + 4
.47 Business C " 48.0 R 61 to 48.0 R - - 65 + 4
.48 Business C 33.0 L 64 " 33.0 L - - 68 + 4
.49 Business C " 30.0 L 65 30.0 L - - 69 + 4
.50 Business C of 65.0 L 58 of 65.0 L - - 62 + 4
.51 Business C " 77.0 R 57 to 77.0 R - - 61 + 4

40TE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). " -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-11
TABLE N3.2 1/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
Alternative 2
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
# LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road)
1 Business C NC24-27 43.0 L 59 NC24-27 43.0 L - - 65 + 6
2 Business C " 81.0 L 53 to 86.0 L --------------------N/A-------------
3 Church E " 71.0 R 55/<40 to 70.0 R - - 60/<40 + 5/0
4 Residence B " 92.0 R 52 of 90.0 R - - 57 + 5
5 Residence B " 36.0 R 61 it 36.0 R ` - - * 66 + 5
6 Residence B " 94.0 R 52 It 95.0 R - - 57 + 5
7 Residence B 1t 44.0 R 59 It 44.0 R - - 64 + 5
3 Residence a '• 58.0 R 57 It 59.0 R - - 62 + 5
9 Residence B " 83.0 R 53 of 84.0 R - - 58 + 5
A Residence B '• 102.0 R 51 It 103.0 R - - 56 + 5
`3 Residence B to 110.0 L 50 111.0 L - - 55 + 5
1 Residence B of 53.0 L 57 It 55.0 L - - 62 + 5
Residence a It 33.0 L 61 " 26.0 L - - 69 + 8
3 Residence B It 40.0 L 60 '• 40.0 L - - 65 + 5
Residence B to 82.0 L 53 " 82.0 L - - 58 + 5
i Residence B ^ 43.0 L 59 '• 41.0 L -. - 65 + 6
s Church E '• 27.0 L 63/<40 26.0 L - - 69/44 + 6/4
Residence B " 37.0 L 60 " 35.0 L - - • 67 + 7
Residence B " 74.0 L 54 " 73.0 L - - 60 + 6
Residence B " 63.0 L 56 " 65.0 L - - 61 + 5
Residence B " 57.0 L 57 ^ 61.0 L - - 61 + 4
a Residence B " 58.0 L 57 ^ 58.0 L - - 62 + 5
Residence B " 58.0 L 57 " 58.0 L - - 62 + 5
Residence B to 48.0 L 58 to 50.0 L - - 63 + 5
Residence B f° 35.0 L 61 " 35.0 L - - At 67 + 6
Residence a 106.0 L 50 ^ 106.0 L - - 55 + 5
Residence B to 99.0 L 51 to 98.0 L - - 56 + 5
Residence B
11

95.0

L

51

to

94.0

L

- - 57

+

6
Residence B " 94.0 L 52 It 94.0 L - - 57 + 5
Residence B " 85.0 L 53 to 86.0 L - - 58 + 5
Residence B fP 83.0 L 53 of 83.0 L - - 58 + 5
Residence B " 77.0 L 54 " 77.0 L - - 59 + 5
Residence B 69.0 L 55 " 70.0 L - - 60 + 5
1,msidence a t0 87.0 R 52 ^ 87.0 R - - 58 + 6
',.rts. (4) B '0 104.0 R 50 " 102.0 R - - 56 + 6
Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels sha.4n as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFA Part 772).

A nA
TABLE N3.2 2/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
Alternative 2
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
CD # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road) Cont'd
32 Apts. (4) B NC24-27 60.0 R 56 NC24-27 59.0 R - - 62 + 6
33 Apts. (4) B " 61.0 R 56 " 60.0 R - - 62 + 6
34 Business C " 50.0 R 58 " 47.0 R - - 64 + 6
35 Business C ° 53.0 R 57 " 55.0 R - - 62 + 5
36 Business C " 39.0 L 60 " 40.0 L - - 65 + 5
36A Business C " 45.0 L 59 " 50.0 L - - 63 + 4
37 Residence B " 75.0 L 54 " 80.0 L - - 59 + 5
38 Residence B '• 88.0 L 52 " 93.0 L - - 57 + 5
39 Residence B " 105.0 L 50 108.0 L - - 55 + 5
40 Residence S to 130.0 L 48 " 134.0 L - - 53 + 5
SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138
41 Business C NC24-27 38.0 R 60 NC24-27 34.0 R --------------------N/A-------------
42 Business C it 56.0 L 57 " 60.0 L - - 62 + 5
43 Residence B " 37.0 L 60 " 43.0 L - - 65 + 5
44 Residence B " 86.0 L 53 " 92.0 L - - 57 + 4
45 Residence B " 89.0 L 52 93.0 L - - 57 + 5
46 Residence B ° 91.0 L 52 ^ 96.0 L - - 57 + 5
47 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 " 45.0 L - - 64 + 4
48 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 to 45.0 L - - 64 + 4
49 Residence B " 92.0 L 52 to 97.0 L - - 56 + 4
50 Residence B " 90.0 L 52 " 95.0 L - - 57 + 5
51 Residence B " 40.0 L 60 " 45.0 L - - 64 + 4
52 Residence B to 92.0 L 52 it 97.0 L - - 56 + 4
53' Residence B to 95.0 L 51 to 101.0 L - - 56 + 5
54 Residence B ^ 95.0 L 51 " 101.0 L - - 56 + 5
55 Residence B " 94.0 L 52 " 100.0 L - - 56 + 4
56 Residence B " 88.0 L 52 " 94.0 L - - 57 + 5
57 Residence B " 39.0 L 60 to 45.0 L - - 64 + 4
58 Residence B to 82.0 L 53 " 89.0 L - - 57 + 4
59 Residence B it 75.0 L 54 " 81.0 L - - 58 + 4
60 Residence B to 30.0 L 62 to 35.0 L - - " 67 + 5
61 Residence B to 25.0 L 63 " 30.0 L - - ' 68 + 5
32 Residence B " 46.0 R 59 39.0 R - - " 66 + 7
63 Residence B It 46.0 R 59 " 39.0 R - - " 66 + 7
i.'OTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted no ise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributi ng roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior /interior (58/48). x -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
- e_?s
TABLE N3.2
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
Alternative 2
3/5
-4. AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
I) # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138 (Cont 'd)
54 Residence B NC24-27 76.0 L 54 NC24-27 70.0 L - - 60 + 6
55 Residence B " 82.0 L 53 of 75.0 L - - 59 + 6
5 Residence B '• 76.0 L 54 '• 70.0 L - - 60 + 6
Residence B " 37.0 L 60 to 31.0 L - - * 67 + 7
Residence B " 73.0 L 54 of 67.0 L - - 61 + 7
Residence B '• 38.0 L 60 •• 32.0 L - - * 67 + 7
?esidence B " 79.0 L 53 '• 73.0 L - - 60 + 7
Residence H " 26.0 L 63 " 31.0 L - - * 67 + 4
Residence B " 27.0 L 63 '• 32.0 L - - * 67 + 4
3 Residence B '• 91.0 L 52 " 97.0 L - - 56 + 4
Business C " 18.0 L 66 '• 25.0 L - - 69 + 3
Business C of 50.0 R 58 to 48.0 R - - 64 + 6
Business C to 47.0 R 58 it 42.0 R - - 65 + 7
Business C to 92.0 R 52 " 86.0 R - - 58 + 6
Business C 17.0 R 66 22.0 R - - 70 + 4
NC 138 to US 52
Business C NC24-27 55.0 R 60 NC24-27 49.0 R - - 67 + 7
Residence B " 95.0 R 54 to 88.0 R - - 61 + 7
Residence B " 80.0 R 56 to 74.0 R - - 63 + 7
Residence B " 61.0 A 59 1. 55.0 R - - * 66 + 7
esidence H 41.0 R 62 it 35.0 R - - * 70 + 8
residence B " 63.0 R 59 to 57.0 R - - * 66 + 7
,Lsiness C " 47.0 R 61 to 41.0 R - - 69 + S
:kaurch E to 143.0 R 50/<40 it 137.0 R - - 56/<40 + 6/0
3usiness C 48.0 L 61 N 54.0 L - - 66 + 5
7rusiness C to 83.0 L 56 it 89.0 L - - 61 + 5
`S 52 to 600 Meters East of US 52
zureh E NC24-27 90.0 R 55/<40 NC24-27 84.0 R - - 60/<40 + 5/0
esidence B 156.0 R 48 " 151.0 R - - 53 + 5
V.sidence B it 147.0 R 49 " 142.0 R - - 54 + 5
zsidence B •' 142.0 R 50 " 136.0 R - - 54 + 4
:sidence B '• 138.0 R 50 " 133.0 R - - 54 + 4
?Astances are from center of the existing or proposed roadwa ys. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels . -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
r'ategory E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * - Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR P art 772).
i `
-A n r,

^

TABLE N3.2 3
4/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES }

NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to 'NC 740,
Stanly County, Proj ect # 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
?.
w Alternative 2
.?. AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEV EL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- M AXIMUM INCREASE

US 52 to 600 Meters East of US 52 (Cont'd)
93 Business C NC24-27 155.0 L 49 NC24-27 160.0 L - - 52 + 3
94 Residence B " 133.0 L 51 It 138.0 L - - 54 + 3
95 Apartments B `• 128.0 L 51 It 133.0 L - - 54 + 3
96 Apartments B " 127.0 L 51 to 132.0 L - - 55 + 4
97 Residence B " 148.0 L 49 " 152.0 L - - 53 + 4
96 Residence B " 156.0 L 48 " 161.0 L - - 52 + 4
99 Business C ^ 40.0 L 63 " 46.0 L --------------------N/A---------- ---
600 Meters East of US 52 to End of Project
100 Business C NC24-27 63.0 R 59 NC24-27 57.6 R - - 63 + 4
100A Park B " 75.0 R 57 ^ 69.6 R - - 62 + 5
101 Residence B to 54.0 L 60 it 59.4 L - - 63 + 3
102 Residence H 11
40.0 L 63 .9
45.4
L - -
• 66
+
3
103 Residence B '• 116.0 L 52 to 121.4 L - - 55 + 3
104 Residence B '• 97.0 L 54 '• 102.4 L - - 57 + 3
105 Residence B " 87.0 L 55 to 92.4 L - - 58 + 3
106 Residence B " 42.0 L 62 It 47.4 L - - 65 + 3
107 Residence B " 86.0 L 55 to 91.4 L - - 59 + 4
108 Residence B '• 50.0 L 61 " 55.4 L - - 64 + 3
109 Residence B " 55.0 L 60 " 60.4 L - - 63 + 3
110 Residence B '• 58.0 L 60 It 63.4 L - - 63 + 3
ill Residence B to 71.0 L 57 to 76.4 L - - 61 + 4
.12 Residence B '. 40.0 L 63 11
45.4
L - -
to 66
+
3
13 Residence B " 81.0 L 56 of 86.4 L - - 59 + 3
i.14 Residence B " 41.0 L 62 it 46.4 L - - 65 + 3
115 Residence B " 72.0 L 57 " 77.4 L - - 60 + 3
:lb Residence B to 97.0 L 54 " 102.4 L - - 57 + 3
117 Residence B " 86.0 L 55 91.4 L - - 59 + 4
L22 Business C " 52.0 R 60 " 46.6 R - - 65 + 5
::23 Business C " 47.0 R 61 " 41.6 R - - 67 + 6
3,24 Business C " 54.0 L 60 59.4 L - - 63 + 3
.Z9 Business C to 19.0 L 68 " 24.4 L - - * 71 + 3
132 Business C 94.0 R 54 " 88.6 R - - 59 + 5
134 Business C " 99.0 R 54 " 93.6 R --------------------N/A-- -----------
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). It _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-27
}
TABLE N3.2 5/5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
Alternative 2
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEV EL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
600 Meters East of US 52 to End of Project (Cont'd)
135 Business C NC24-27 53.0 R 60 NC24- 27 53.0 R - - 64 + 4
:.36 Business C " 27.0 L 66 to 32.4 L - - 69 + 3
,37 Residence B " 117.0 L 52 " 117.0 L - - 56 + 4
38 Apartments B 93.0 L 55 " 93.0 L - - 58 + 3
39 Apartments B " 94.0 L 54 " 94.0 L' - - 58 + 4
.39A Business C " 31.0 L 65 " 31.0 L - - 69 + 4
40 Business C " 43.0 R 62 to 43.0 R - - 66 + 4
;41 Business C ^ 34.0 R 64 it 34.0 R - - 68 + 4
:.42 Business C " 54.0 L 60 It 54.0 L - - 64 + 4
iA3 Business C 50.0 L 61 If 50.0 L - - 65 + 4
5.44 Business C ^ 33.0 L 64 It 33.0 L - - 68 + 4
445 Business C " 45.0 R 62 " 45.0 R - - 66 + 4
46 Business C to 46.0 R 61 of 48.0 R - - 65 + 4
17 Business C " 48.0 R 61 " 48.0 R - - 65 + 4
e8 Business C '• 33.0 L 64 11 33.0 L - - 68 + 4
49 Business C 30.0 L 65 It 30.0 L - - 69 + 4
50 Business C " 65.0 L 58 " 65.0 L - - 62 + 4
1 Business C 77.0 R 57 " 77.0 R - - 61 + 4
e Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772)..
a
TABLE N4
FEWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITE RIA SUMMARY
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680302, TIP # R-2530A
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
Description 15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

Alternative # 1 - 4-Lanes/6m median
'. Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road) 71 67 61 18.6m 35.9m 0 3 0 0 0
:. SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138 71 67 61 18.6m 35.9m 0 8 0 0 0
1. NC 138 to US 52 75 70 65 31.3m 54.4m 0 3 0 0 0
1. US 52 to 600 m East of US 52 72 68 62 23.7m 42.4m 0 0 0 0 0
5. 600 m East of US 52 to End 72 68 63 22.7m 41.6m 0 2 1 0 0
TOTALS 0 - 16 1 0 0
Alternative # 2 - 5-Lanes
1. Beginning to SR 1900 (Coble Road) 71 67 61 17.6m 35.2m 0 4 0 0 0
2. SR 1900 (Coble Road) to NC 138 71 67 61 17.6m 35.2m 0 8 0 0 0
3. NC 138 to US 52 75 70 65 30.4m 53.8m 0 3 0 0 0
,s. 41S 52 to 600 m East of US 52 72 68 63 22.7m 41.6m 0 0 0 0 0
5. 600 m East of US 52 to End 72 68 63 22.7m 41.6m 0 2 1 0 0
T OTALS 0 17 1 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
A 7n
TABLE N5
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 24-27 From Multi-Lanes West of Albemarle to NC 740,
Stanly County, Project # 8.T680301, TIP # R-2530A
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
section <-0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)

Alternative # 1 - 4-Lanes/6 m medi an
Beginning to SR 1900 0 16 28 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1900 to NC 138 0 17 20 0 0 .0 0 0 0
NC 138 to US 52 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
us 52 to 600m E. of US 52 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
600m E. of US 52 to End 0 38 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 0 78 66 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alternative # 2 - 5-Lanes
Beginning to SR 1900 0 2 42 0
5R 1900 to NC 138 0 15 22 0
NC 138 to US 52 0 0 10 0
S 52 to 600m E. of US 52 0 8 3 0
-30m E. of US 52 to End 0 38 4 0
TOTALS 0 63 81 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
As defined by only a substantial Increase (See bottom of Table N2).
;a defined by both criteria in Table N2.
A 2n
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
n
ToB: R-253OA: NC24-27, Stanly Co.
)ATE: 06/20/95 TIME: 08:34#6,
J
SITE s METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-----------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: NC24-27,Year 1999, Build
ZO = 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES
MIXH - 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
PAGE 1
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH-" BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ ----- - ------------------------ --------- --------------------- -------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1029. 14.8 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1029. 14.8 0.0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
•---------------- -----*-------------------------------------*
1. R77, 22.0 m RCL BUS * -16.6 0.0 1.8
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co. RUN: NC24-27,Year 1999, Build
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WyND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REM
MAX * 2.8
DEGR. * 4
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.80 PPM AT 4 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-31
TABLE A2
CAL3QSC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
:OH: R-253OA: NC24-27, Stanly Co.
DATE: 06/20/95 TIME: 08:3.,
RUN: NC24-27,Year 2020, Build
PAGE 2
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
--------
-----------------------
VS = 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES M IXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
-:SINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH 'BRG TYPE VBH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Yl X2 Y2 * (M)' (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
----------------------- ---------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------- ---------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1648. 10.7 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1648. 10.7 0.0 13.2
jECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
---------- --- -*-------------------------------------*
R77, 22.0 m RCL BUS * -16.6 0.0 1.8 *
3: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co. RUN: NC24-27,Year 2020, Build
.DEL RESULTS
-------------
ia4m KS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
7'ND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
:D * CONCENTRATION
!ALE * (PPM)
3GR)* REC1
* 3.0
* 5
HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.00 PPM AT 5 DEGREES FROM REC1 .

TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
f
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co.
BATE: 06/20/95 TIME: 08:33-,
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
RUN: NC24-27,Yr 1999, No-Build
ZO 108. CM
ATIM 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
PAGE 3
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BEG TYPE vrn Et n w V/?vvuua
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ *---------------------------------------- *-- ------°°--------- -------------- ---------------------
1. Par Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1029. 25.9 0.0 9.6
2 Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. ISO. AG 1029. 25.9 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------------------- *-------------------------------------*
1. R77, 17.0 m RCL BUS * -15.2 0.0 1.8
JOB: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co.
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
RUN: NC24-27,Yr 1999, No-Build
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
• WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX * 3.8
DEGR. * 7
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.80 PPM AT 7 DEGREES FROM RECI .
A-33
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
.OB: R-253OA: NC24-27, Stanly Co.
SATE: 06/20/95 TIME: 08:336.
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
RUN: NC24-27,Yx 2020, No-Build
PAGE 4
vs - 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
--------------
LINK DESCRIPTION
* LINK COORDINATES (M) *
LENGTH
ERG TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) ' (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------ ---------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------------
1. Far Lane Link * 3.6 -805.0 3.6 805.0 * 1610. 360. AG 1648. 44.6 0.0 9.6
2. Near Lane Link * 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 * 1610. 180. AG 1648. 44.6 0.0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
--------- -------- -*---------------------_------_--------*
R77, 17.0 m RCL BUS * -15.2 0.0 1.8
'B: R-2530A: NC24-27, Stanly Co. RUN: NC24-27,Yr 2020, No-Build
`ODEL RESULTS
aZ4ARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
?:ND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
ND * CONCENTRATION
;?X * (PPM)
%'e=)* RECI
sX * 7.4
R. * 9
S HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 7.40 PPM AT 9 DEGREES FROM RECI .
A-34
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
XM E.I.S. M CORRIDOR . r__1 DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.T680301 COUNTY STANLY
I.D. NO.: R-2530 A F.A. PROJECT STP-24 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 24-27 from SR 1249 (Canton Road) to NC 740, Albemarle

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES > <INCOME LEVEL
WType of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF r u iNG ass aW£wNG AVAnAStI:
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M $ 0460 0-20M $ 0450
ANSWE RALL QUESTIONS 20.40M 150-250 20.40M 160-250
Yes No Explain all 'YES' answers. 40-70M 260.400 40-70M 250-400
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70400m 400-600 70-100M 400-600
2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 100 UP 600 uP
displacement? TOTAL
3. Will business services still be available after REmARKs Res and b Number
Project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so, _

?4.??,t t
indicate size, type, estimated number of
rr--+ ;-
employees, minorities, etc. This project has no relocal?on displa si
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?

,
6. Source for available housing (list).
?t_„ ( 995
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
T,
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. H4 DEPT. 'in; - _iY:s'zn n,- ,Fi
T itltE ir,
'y
!Ei
r
J
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
- Rra.ocATM?

13, . McCallum, Area Relocation Agent Date A roved b Date
Forth 15A Revised OZ/95 d
vngmai li 1 %.y. owe mewcauun -u-n
2 Copy Area Relocation Office

NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR PROPOSED WIDENING/IMPROVEMENTS OF NC 24/NC 27
FROM CANTON ROAD (SR 1249) TO NC 740
Project 8.T680301 R-2530A Stanly County
A citizens informational workshop will.be held on
Wednesday, May 17 , 1995 in the Stanly County Agri-Civic
Center located on NC 24/NC 27 - entrance on Newt Road - in
Albemarle. This will be an informal open house workshop
conducted in the Extension Education Center between the hours
of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Those wishing to attend may do so
at their convenience during these hours.
The purpose of this informational workshop is to present
information, answer questions, and receive comments during
the early design stages of the proposed widening/improvements
of NC 24/NC 27 from Canton Road to NC 740. The proposed
project consists of widening the existing roadway to a multi-
lane facility.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will
be available to discuss the proposed project with those
attending. Anyone desiring additional information about the
workshop may contact Ms. Beverly Grate, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental
Branch, P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or by telephone at
[phone] - Extension 247.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for
disabled persons who wish to participate in the workshop. To
receive special services, please call Ms. Grate at the above
number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the
workshop.
qp RFcF??F?
%, '?6!
?s
00
1 tfS, 7
?`.- STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WETLANDS GROU,
WATER aLiTY SEC`s i' i`
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATIOI\T_ _
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 RET RY ??
August 31, 1994 c?--
A? Z© ,?
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Albemarle, NC 24-27, from
SR 1249 (Canton Road) to NC 740, Stanly County,
Federal-Aid Project STP-24(2), State Project 8.T680301,
TIP Project R-2530A
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A Scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for October 11, 1994 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us -?
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date. _
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there aran ,...q uestions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call B' 0!0 in Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842. • 07/3
03
Attachment I

t vk;C .
CL

l3 -1 1-3/
13-17- 31-Y
13_ I?- 3i-f-3
ljd?t) n q61., 4-&V) ovfl-

kk -
v30

J, l..aV? nil' ? CFms's?cT

e ??, 20 ? ?S
l ?
1
h
N
C.
C
4-
A

C
G

( M
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date: August 30, 1994
Revision Date:
TIP Number R-2530 A
Project Number 8.T680301?
F.A. Project Number STP - 24(2)
Division Tenth
County Stanly
Route(s) NC 24-27
Length 4.0 miles
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning XXX
Design
Functional Classification Urban Principal Arterial
Purpose of Project: To improve safety and traffic flow along the major
east-west thouroughfare in the southern section of the city of
Albermarle.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements
of work: Widen NC 24-27 from east of SR 1963 to east of SR 1783 to a
five lane curb and gutter facility. Included will be four bridges which
will have to be rehabilitated and widened.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA and FONSI
Environmental Study Schedule: EA to be completed - Sept. 1995-'**"
FONSI to be completed - May 1996
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No XXX
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)
, or M
How and when will this-be paid?

R-2530 A _
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Access Control: Full
Partial
None XXX
Number of: Interchanges ONE Grade Separations ONE
Stream Crossings TWO
Typical Section: Existing 2 lane shoulder and 3 lane shoulder sections
Proposed 5 lane curb and gutter
Traffic Projections: (not available at this time)
Construction Year (19_)
Design Year (20_) vpd
Design Standards Applicable:
vpd % TTST % DUAL
% TTST % DUAL
AASHTO XXX 3R
Design Speed: 50 mph
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9,650,000
(including engineering and contingencies)
Right of Way Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,500,000
(includi.ng rel., util., and acquisition)
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering . . . . . . . . . $ 300,000
TOTAL PLANNING COST ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . $ 12,450,000
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7 ,900, 000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2 ,500, 000
TOTAL TIP COST ESTIMATE. . . . . . . . . . . $ 10 ,400, 000
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could
affect cost-or schedule of project: One of the four bridges on the
nro.iect is a grade severation over the Winston-Salem South Bound
Railroad. One of the bridges is in an interchange which may need some
redesign to meet current design standards.
r

R-2530 A
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Construction: COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement:
X Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,282, 120
Base . . . . $
Milling & Recyc ling $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders:
Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,370,250
Subsurface Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Subgrade and Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 259.508
X Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . . . . . $ 480, 000
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Structures: Width'x Length
4 Bridge Rehabilitation x . . . $ 401, 680
New Bridge x $
4 Widen Bridge x $ 1,771, 560
Remove Bridge x . . . $
New Culvert: Size Length . . . . $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. ft $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures . . . . . . . . . $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 270, 080
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 62 , 000
Fencing: W.W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
C.L. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . $
X Erosion Cont ro 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.000
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 170, 000
Signing:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Signals:
1 New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 40 , 000
1 Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 25, 000
RR Signals:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms . . . . . . . . . . . . $
If 3R:
Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . . . . . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . . . . . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade . . . . . . . $
X Pavement Markings:
Paint . . . . . . . . $
X Thermo . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . • $ 78 ,440
Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . $
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
V
l
R-2530 A
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
X Other:
X clearing and grubbing. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 168,000
X mobilization & misc . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,936,363
other . . $
Contract Cost: $ 8,390,000
Engineering & Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,260,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs . . . . . . . . . . . $ 300,000
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
CONSTRUCTION' Subtotal:$ 9,950.000
* Includes Preliminary Engineering Costs
Right of Way:
Will Exist Right of Way contain Improvements?
Yes No
Existing Right of Way Width: 150 feet
New Right of Way Needed: Width . . . . . . . $
Easements: Type Width . . . . . . . $
utilities: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RIGHT OF WAY* Subtotal:$ 2,500,000
* TIP right of way estimate
Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 12,450,000
Prepared By: Bill Goodwin Date: August 30, 1994
The above scoping information has been reviewed and approved by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Others
Board of Tran. Member
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precon
Chief Engineer-Oper.
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Others
INIT. DATE

R-2530 A _

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for
handling.
If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your
proposed revisions in below and initial and date after comments.
,
'i

4 - r

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
RECEIVED
',10V C Ire' 1994
ENVJIt TWENI'A.I, SCbEAICFS
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
October 28, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Beverly Grate, Project Planning Enginee-rq
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Albemarle, NC 24-27, from SR 1249 (Canton Road) to
NC 740, Stanly County, Federal Aid Project STP-24(2),
State Project 8.T680301, TIP Project R-2530A
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room on October 11, 1994. The following
persons were in attendance: -
David Cox North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
James B. Jensen City of Albemarle Engineer
John Wadsworth Federal Highway Administration
Eric Galamb Department of Environmental Management
Glenda Gibson Roadway Design
Roy Girolami Structure Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
Don Idol Bridge Maintenance
Charles Mullen Traffic Control
Steve Johnson Signals & Geometrics
Jack Matthews Photogrammetry
John Taylor Location & Surveys
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Rick Baucom Statewide Planning
Danny Rogers Program Development
Don Sellers Right of Way
Rob Hanson Planning and Environmental
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
Beverly Grate Planning and Environmental
Tracy Turner Planning and Environmental
The following is a summary of comments made at the meeting and through
written correspondence.
9
October 28, 1994
Page 2
The purpose of this project is to widen the existing NC 24-27 roadway.
The subject project will be constructed in two sections. Currently, Part AA
will begin at the end of the multi-lane section approximately 300 meters
(984 feet) east of the intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1963 (St. Martin Road)
and continue east to the interchange with NC 24-27, US 52, and SR 1645 (First
Street). Part AB will pick up at the interchange and continue to the
beginning of the multi-lane section approximately 250 meters (820 feet) west
of the intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1783 (Grove Avenue Extension).
Right of way acquisition is scheduled for FY 1998. However, part
AA is the only section currently funded for construction; therefore, part AA
will be built first. The City of Albemarle has requested that the AB section
be scheduled for construction first in the next TIP. The Program Development
branch is investigating the change. If this happens, the limits will
probably be altered as follows: Part AA will begin at the same location and
end at the intersection of NC 24-27 and NC 138; Part AB will begin at this
intersection and end at approximately 250 meters (820 feet) west of the
intersection of NC 24-27 and SR 1783.
Alignment
The proposed widening will be asymmetrical on the southern side of the
existing roadway due to the offset of the existing right of way. On the south
side of NC 24-27, there are two parks located in the project vicinity.
Construction limits must avoid these parks if at all possible.
Typical Section
Several typical sections were discussed. The existing roadway has two
lanes-on part AA and three lanes on part AB. The following two alternatives
are being studied for the proposed project:
(a) a four lane shoulder section with a 6 meter (20 foot) raised median
for part AA and a five lane curb and gutter section for part AB
(due to high development). The Division 10 engineer recommended a
median section be built for section AA since the project termini
end with median sections;
(b) a five lane curb and gutter section throughout the entire length of
the project. Statewide Planning recommended in the Albemarle
Thoroughfare Plan that a five lane structure be built.
A four lane facility with a 14 meter (46 foot) depressed grass median
was also discussed for part AA. Due to right of way constraints and due to
the existing 9 meter (30 foot) median adjoining the project to the west, a 14
meter (46 foot) median is not considered appropriate.
The channelization at the eastern terminus of the project will be
retained.
The City of Albemarle did not request sidewalks for the project.

October 28, 1994
Page 3
The Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation sent written
comments. There does not appear to be any special need for bicycle
accommodations on this project. This section of NC 24-27 is Stanly County
does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is it a designated bicycle
route. At present there is no indication that there is an unusual number of
bicyclists on this roadway.
Intersections
To meet today's standards the US 52 interchange will require revision.
One new signal may be needed at the intersection with SR 1900 (Coble
Avenue).
Right of Way
A 45 meter (150 foot) right of way for this project was purchased when
the project was built. This should be adequate for either alternative;
however, some construction easements may be required.
Design Speed
A 80 km/h (50 mph) design speed was determined to be appropriate for
this project.
Structures
Four bridges are located on the project. All of the structures have a
minimum of 19-20 years of remaining life; therefore, the structural work will
consist of minor rehabilitation and widening or construction of a new
parallel structure at the bridge locations. The structure at the US 52
interchange, however, has several nicks in the girders; therefore, it is
suggested that this structure be raised to a height of 4.9 meters (16.1 feet)
or 5 meters (16.4 feet). The appropriate height will be investigated during
project planning. Bridge number 48 over the Winston Salem Southbound Railroad
(WSSB) tracks has a current clearance of 6.7 meters (22.1 feet). Two trains
per day pass under this structure. Winston Salem Southbound Railroad
recommends a clearance of 7 meters (23 feet). If the bridge at the US 52
interchange is raised, due to the proximity the rail road bridge will also
have to be raised and traffic will need to be detoured. The other two
bridges cross streams. Both of these structures will need to be checked for
scour.
Cultural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has commented by phone
concerning this project. There are no National Register properties or study
list properties in the immediate project vicinity. A 1990 comprehensive
historical survey exists for Stanly County. One property, a Catholic Church
located on the south side of NC 24-27 just west of the WSSB Railroad, was
listed as a potential historical site. A survey will be conducted for this
structure. There are no known archaeological sites in the project area and
no survey is needed. Written comments will be sent by the State Historic
Preservation Office.
October 28, 1994
Page 4
Natural Resources
The Wildlife Resource Commission has identified three wetland locations:
immediately west of Bowers Implement Company; immediately west of Oakwood
Homes Dealership, and at an impounded drainage ditch near the Wal-Mart
parking area. Wetland impacts will be surveyed by NCDOT biologists. The
guidelines for stream relocation and Best Management Practices will be used
during construction. In Long Creek and Little Long Creek, there should be no
in-stream work in April or May to avoid damage to the fish population.
The Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources has
identified seven stream crossings. All streams are classified as "C". Normal
erosion control procedures should be used.
Utilities
Location and Surveys provided written comments at the scoping meeting.
Underground utilities include a 300 millimeter (12 inch) waterline suspended
under the north side of the two stream crossing bridges and a 100 millimeter
(4 inch) utility line suspended under the north side of the railroad
overpass. Several sanitary sewer lines cross the project including lines
along both streams. An underground gas substation was noted on US 52 just
south of the project. No underground telephone was noted along the project.
Along most of the project a three phase, distribution voltage, power line
runs on the north side. Aerial telephone and TV cables were found on the
east and west ends of the project. The utility impact of the proposed
project is "medium" with the most significant impacts occurring in part AB of
the project.
Miscellaneous
The City of Albemarle has expressed possible long range plans to
relocate Roosevelt Ingram Memorial Park due to its low usage.
A water supply watershed protection area is located in approximately the
last 91 meters (100 yards) on the east end of the project.
Schedule
The traffic projections are due by November 11, 1994. Other milestones
have been established as follows:
Functional Design
Citizen's Info. Workshop
Environmental Assessment
Public Hearing
FONSI
Right of Way Acquisition
Construction
January 1995
March 1995
September 1995
November 1995
May 1996
October 1997, Parts
April 1999, Part AA
December 2001, Part
AA and AB
AB
BJG/plr
cc: Scoping participants
US 401
From US 1 to Mitchell Mill Road (SR 2224)/
Ligon Mill Road (SR 2044)
Raleigh, Wake County
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-401(1)
State Project No. 8.1402103
R-2425
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes improvements to a 5.4 mile section of US 401 from US 1
to north of Mitchell Mill Road (SR 2224)/Ligon Mill Road (SR 2044) in
Raleigh, Wake County (see Figures 1A, 1B, and 2 for project location).
The recommended improvements include widening the existing two-lane,
24-foot section to a six-lane, grass median divided section and replacing
the flyover bridge at US 1 (see Figure 3 for a sketch of the proposed
typical cross section).. A 26-foot median is proposed from US 1 to the
Northern Wake Expressway and a 30-foot median is proposed from the
Northern Wake Expressway to the project terminus. Median crossovers will
be located at all major roadway intersections and at other selected
locations. Mitchell Mill Road (SR 2224) is proposed to be realigned with
Ligon Mill Road (SR 2044) as a part,of :this project.
US 401 is classified as an urban minor arterial in the statewide
classification system, and is a part of the Federal-Aid System
[STP-401(1)].
The City of Raleigh recently extended New Hope Road east of US 401.
This new section implements a critical link in the Raleigh Thoroughfare
Plan (see Figure 4).
The proposed widening will be accomplished symmetrically about the
centerline where practicable and asymmetrically at other locations to
minimize right of way damages. Proposed right of way is 142 feet from
US 1 to New Hope Road (SR 2108) and 130 feet throughout the remainder of
the project. The proposed cross-section at New Hope Road will accommodate
the proposed 8-lane section. Temporary construction easements may be
necessary at some locations in addition to the proposed right of way.
The subject project is included in tke 1994-2000 TIP with the total
cost estimated at $11,877,000. This estimate includes $3,502,000 for
right of way, $7,900,000 for construction, and $475,000 for prior funding.
The current estimated cost for the recommended improvement is $ 25,416,000
which includes $ 16,800,000 for construction and $ 8,616,000 for right of
way acquisition.: The project is scheduled in the TIP for right of way
acquisition in federal fiscal year 1995 (FFY 1995) and construction in
FFY 1996.
,.moo
STATE OF NORTH &ROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. . DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 28, 1994
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager //
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Albemarle, NC 24-27, from SR 1249 (Canton Road) to
NC 740, Stanly County, Federal-Aid Project STP-24(2),
State Project 8.T680301, TIP Project R-2530A
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to NC 24-27. The project is
included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1998 and construction in
fiscal year 1999.
The referenced project will consist of widening the existing two and
three lane roadway of NC 24-27. Two alternatives are being considered:
(1) a five lane curb and gutter section throughout the project; (2) a four
lane shoulder section with a 6 m (20 feet) raised median from the western
project terminus to the NC 24-27/US 52 interchange with a five lane curb and
gutter section along the remainder of the project. The existing 43 m
(150 feet) right of way should be adequate for either alternative; however,
some construction easements may be required.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency
respond by January 14, 1995 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Beverly
Grate, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment
0
cg_ 10 11994

k
.i '
November 30, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0296; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 24-27, TIP No. R-2530A
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
r
Melba McGee
November 30, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion,management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10776er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
RECEIVED
NOV 3 U im
F"p"ONMr:NTAL SCiE-VCES