19960553 Ver 1_Complete File_19960429

1

t

FHWA-NC-EIS-90-07-F

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION \
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
West Charlotte Outer Loop, from I-77 South
near Westinghouse Boulevard to NC 27,
approximately 13 miles, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
A

1
u
1
r
A
Federal Aid Proj. F-117-1(5)
State Proj. No. 8.U672204
TIP No. R-2248(A)
Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
Cooperating A en
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
qTDn7-
q?O0This report documents the need for transportation improvements in west Charlotte and the planning process

leading to the selection of viable alternative corridor locations. Existing and projected conditions in the study
area are described and alternatives are evaluated in terms of vironmental cons uences, socio-economic
impacts, compatibility with local planning g als, public op' n.
•
.00?*
Date U. Ward, P.E.
Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
or Carolina artment of Transportation
??2¢f92.
Date Regional Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
The following persons may be contacted for
additional information concerning this document:
Nicholas Graf, P.E.
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
[phone]
L. J. Ward, P.E.
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
V. r _S

FHWA-NC-EIS-90-07-F
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
West Charlotte Outer Loop, from I-77 South
near Westinghouse Boulevard to NC 27,
approximately 13 miles, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Proj. F-117-1(5)
State Proj. No. 8.U672204
TIP No. R-2248(A)
Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
Cooperating; Agency
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
This report documents the need for transportation improvements in west Charlotte and the planning process
leading to the selection of viable alternative corridor locations. Existing and projected conditions in the study
area are described and alternatives are evaluated in terms of vironmental cons uences, socio-economic
impacts, compatibility with local planning g als, public op' n.
Date L.J. Ward, P.E.
Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
' or Carolina artment of Transportation
Date Regional Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
The following persons may be contacted for
additional information concerning this document:
Nicholas Graf, P.E. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Federal Highway Administration N.C. Department of Transportation
l?. 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone] [phone]

1
1
1
1
Oa L4??,-
B/
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
from
I-77 South near Westinghouse Boulevard
to
NC 27
TIP No. R-2248 (A)
State Project 8.U672204
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Documentation Prepared By.
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
??aA?rrrnrrpi
:,?QpFESSIpNq.?Z ??••
? Z? i
t
r
i
SUMMARY
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Administrative Action Environmental Statement
() Draft (x) Final
CONTACTS
The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this Proposal and
Statement:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Post Office Box 26806
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Research Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is the construction of a multi-lane freeway, on new location, for the West
Charlotte Outer Loop from I-77 South to NC 27, a distance of approximately 13 miles. The project
is located in a largely rural portion of Mecklenburg County between the Catawba River and
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport. The southern project terminus will be at the interchange
planned for the South Charlotte Outer Loop, between the existing Arrowood Road and
Westinghouse Boulevard interchanges. The northern terminus will be on NC 27 (Mt. Holly Road)
at a location to be determined, generally between the Catawba River and Little Rock Road.
i
4.
S.
6.
ACTION PROPOSED BY OTHERS
Actions proposed by others include the interchange located at I-77, which is included in the South
Charlotte Outer Loop from US 74 east to I-77 south, and the proposed North Charlotte Outer Loop
from NC 27 west to I-85 north. Because the North Charlotte Outer Loop will share a terminus with
this project at NC 27, the projects are being performed in coordination with one another. The draft
documents were circulated concurrently, the public hearings were held during the same month, and
decisions on corridors were made with consideration of both projects.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR ALTERNATIVES.
This report documents that approximately 18 study alignments, consisting of 40 segments, were
investigated within the study area and that those study alignments were subsequently refined to
include three reasonable and feasible "build" alternatives. The "build" alternatives are described as
the East Corridor, the West Corridor, and the Middle Corridor. The preferred alternative, the
Middle Corridor, generally follows the conceptual location shown in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
County thoroughfare plan except for a more western alignment south of Byrum Drive (see Figure II-
2). The East Corridor also generally follows the thoroughfare location except for a shift to the east
south of Byrum Drive. The West Corridor is least compatible with the thoroughfare plan location
and crosses portions of Lake Wylie lying on the western edges of the study area. Three crossovers
have been considered which allow the possibility of transitions between the three "build" alternatives.
The consequences of "no-build," mass transit, and transportation system management alternatives
were also considered.
This report addresses the feasibility and potential environmental impacts of each of the alternatives
that were selected for more detailed study. In addition, this report addresses the potential for
mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the preferred alternative.
SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The primary benefits of the proposed action are economic gains resulting from the improvement in
highway transportation. Safety benefits will be realized by the road users transferring from more
congested and hazardous existing highways. The proposed action should also reduce the volume of
traffic currently traveling within the City of Charlotte and lead to reductions in travel time, fuel
consumption, and vehicle operating costs.
ii

fl

Adverse impacts of the preferred alternative include the displacement of 115 residences and 3
businesses. In addition, there will be an increase in the noise levels in some areas adjacent to the
project. While no noise barriers are currently planned, their use will continue to be considered
during the design process. An ' "g0 S acr of w ands and 32 acres of floodplain will be
affected, and mitigation is proposed at Paw Creek and at Beaverdam Creek. near the I-85
interchange. Approximately 109 acres of prime farmland will be taken for right-of-way. Some
negative impact to air quality will occur, but air quality standards in the vicinity of the project will
not be exceeded. Temporary adverse impacts during construction will consist of erosion and
siltation, construction noise, and public inconvenience.
The preferred alternative follows the conceptual location shown on the approved thoroughfare plan
except for a change in the portion between York Road and Dixie River Road. This change reduces
the impact on historical structures and problem areas near Steele Creek Road at Shopton Road (see
Chapter H.E.2).
Land west of the preferred alternative in the vicinity of the airport is planned for residential uses,
while the area east of the alignment (toward the airport) is planned for commercial and industrial
uses. This alignment thus provides a good demarcation line for the land use control and does not
conflict with the master plan of the airport.
The preferred alternative will provide adequate traffic service and the desired level of service for the
loop facility. By more closely paralleling existing NC 160 and Steele Creek Road, it should defer or
postpone their need for improvement. This should in turn lessen the potential for affecting the
numerous historical structures located near the existing highway system.
The preferred alternative passes close to Olympic High School. It will disrupt scattered residences
and businesses to some degree and is anticipated to cause relocation of a substantial number of
residences in the subdivision within the proposed interchange area at NC 160 and at the Field Ridge
Acres mobile home park on Tuckaseegee Road. Five holes at the privately-owned Pawtuckett Golf
Course will be displaced, but vacant land adjacent to the golf course could be used to relocate the
holes. As an alternative, the course could be redesigned with shorter and/or more narrow holes.
Another major consideration is the involvement with historical structures found throughout the
project area. The alignment of the proposed corridor has been adjusted to minimize the impact on
historical structures as much as possible. Four structures and one historic district within the Area of
Potential Effect are eligible for the National Register for Historic Places. The preferred alternative
will have no effect on the four structures. There will be no adverse effect on the Shopton Rural
Historic District, based on construction of the freeway in a depressed section and widening of Steele
iii

Creek Road on the side opposite the district. There is no Section 4(f) involvement with the
preferred alternative.
Of the two corridors not recommended as the preferred alternative, the East Corridor has fewer
impacts. It would split the Steeleberry Acres community, displacing six homes, and would also
impact the Eagle Lake Community. Approximately 6.2 acres of forested wetlands would be affected.
The impact of the East Corridor on the VOR radar south of the airport would be acceptable but
would require additional coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration. Like the preferred
alternative, the East Corridor would closely parallel existing NC 160 and Steele Creek Road,
deferring or postponing their need for improvement. However, this corridor would have Section 4(f)
involvement and adverse effect on the Brown Farmstead.
The West Corridor would be a major shift of alignment from the Thoroughfare Plan, and it would
not conform with area land use goals. This corridor would sever access to three properties near
Lake Wylie. A recently constructed weigh station would have to be eliminated near this corridor's
proposed interchange with I-85. In addition, two large industries would be displaced, and the Duke
Power Training Center would be impacted. Wetland impacts would consist of 10 acres of forested
wetlands and 5 acres of open water, including high quality wetlands at Little Paw Creek and
Beaverdam Creek. The West Corridor would also affect Berryhill Elementary School, taking some
right-of-way from the school property.
Tables S-1 and S-2 summarize the impact of the preferred alternative and other alternatives.
IV

Length (miles)
Displacements
Residences (minority)
Businesses
Acreage Required
Farmland/Field
Woodland
Developed
Open Water
Total
Acres of Prime
Farmland
Acres of Wetland, not
including Open Water
Acres of Open Water
Wetland
Acres of Floodplain
Stream Crossings
Receptors Exceeding
Noise Abatement
Criteria Or With
Substantial Increase
Historic Structures
Affected Adversely
TABLE S-1
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Alt ernative C rossover
East Middle West EW 1 EW-2 EW 3
;referred)
12.1 12.4 14.1 33 3.4 32
99(21) 115(28) 62(2) 16(0) 8(0) 24(0)
7 3 9 0 0 0
82 95 115 0 0 6
471 534 451 54 62 15
98 115 124 22 23 35
4 3 5 0 6 0
655 747 695 76 91 56
79 109 42 0 0 0
6.2 5.1 10.0 0.8 0 2.0
0 0 5.0 0 6.3 0
31.8 31.8 18.4 1.6 11.8 12.5
21 .22 25 9 8 4
16 6 7 7 3 3
1 0 0 0 0 1
v
TABLE S-2
ENGINEERING COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Length (miles)
Connecting Roads
Required (miles)
Interchanges
Other Structures
Railroad
Drainage
Grade Separation
Traffic (High/Low)
Level-of-Service
Construction Cost
(millions)
Right-of-Way Cost
(millions)
Total Cost
(millions)
Alternative
East Middle West
(Preferred)
12.1 12.4 14.0
Crossover
EW-1 EW 2 EW-3
33 3.4 3.2
2.4 1.5 15 --- --- ---
7 8 7 0 0 0
3 3 2
7 7 8
6 5 7
34,000/ 34,000/ 25,000/
18,000 18,000 17,000
C C B
0 0 0
3 2 3
3 3 3
24,000 20,000 20,000
B B - B
$1235 $128.9 $127.2
$51.4 $52.4 $56.6
$174.9 $181.3 $183.8
7. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
$21.4 $24.1 $20.8
$7.8 $7.2 $8.1
$29.2 $313 $28.9
The alternatives have been presented to the public and public agencies and officials during the A-95
process. Controversial environmental issues that have been raised include impact on various historic
properties, the endangered Schweinitz's sunflower, the Moores Chapel area, the Wildwood
subdivision, the Steeleberry Acres community, the Paw Creek Cove area, Eagle Lake and the
surrounding community, the Pawtuckett Golf Course, and the Field Ridge Acres mobile home park.
The above issues have all been considered during the selection of the preferred alternative.
& OTHER FEDERAL ACTIONS REQUIRED
A permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is anticipated to be required for this project under
the provisions of Section 404 of the Federal Water' Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
vi

a ,
? ,a
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MEASURES TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The selected corridor will be designed to minimize impacts to the natural and human environment
by use of appropriate alignment and design features. While some relocation of residences and
businesses are unavoidable, relocation assistance and payments will be made available to relocatees.
Best management practices will be used during construction for erosion control and to minimize
impact to resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Environmental commitments for the proposed action include the following:
A. It is established policy that the North Carolina Department of Transportation provides for
necessary relocations within the guidelines of the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance &
Real Property Policies Act of 1970 as amended. In brief, this policy provides that
construction not commence until comparable replacement housing meeting Decent, Safe &
Sanitary (DSS) requirements has been made available to those displaced by the project.
B. Noise abatement measures will continue to be considered throughout the design process.
C. The design of any necessary drainage structures at greenways will be coordinated with the
County Parks and Recreation Department.
D. Any underground storage tanks discovered during construction will be reported to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management.
E. The final designs will be coordinated with appropriate state and local officials and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assure compliance with FEMA, state,
and local floodway regulations.
F. The project will be developed in conformance with federal and state floodplain regulations.
G. Best management practices for standard road and bridge construction will be used to
minimize wetland impacts. Wetland mitigation will be accomplished within the proposed
right-of-way where feasible. (See 10.Q, page ix for detail regarding wetland mitigation
sites.)
A
H. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right-of-way and provided by
the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special provisions or unless
disposal within the right-of-way is permitted by the engineer. Disposal of water or debris in
active public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by the
engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution. In addition, a large amount of waste would
decrease the anticipated life of a municipal or county landfill.
I. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to reduce breeding areas for
mosquitoes.
J. An extensive rodent control program will be established where structures are to be removed
or demolished.
K. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
L. There will be strict adherence to the erosion plan by the contractor, including limiting areas
and duration of exposed earth and the stabilizing exposed areas as quickly as possible.
Careful attention to erosion control will be concentrated at the numerous stream crossings
required by the West Charlotte Outer Loop.
M. Techniques to suppress dust during earth-moving operations will be employed.
N. The contractor will salvage merchantable trees for pulpwood or sawtimber where feasible.
0. NCDOT has agreed to take all precautions to protect trees outside the required right-of-
way.
P. Traffic on connecting or crossing roads will be maintained, except for brief periods, through
staging of construction and/or construction or development of detour roads. The traffic
control plan for the project will ensure safe operations during construction. Before
construction is started, a preconstruction conference involving the contractor, pertinent local
officials, and the Division of Highways will be held to discuss various construction
procedures, including precautionary steps to be taken during the time of construction that
will minimize interruption of public utility services and traffic. Public utility officials will be
involved in the preconstruction process.
viii

Q. Mitigation for wetland loss will be provided through creation of Bottomland Hardwood
Forest habitat adjacent to Paw Creek near the I-85 interchange. Mitigation acreage will be
evaluated based on the quality and size of impacted wetland areas.
R. Widening of Steele Creek Road near the proposed interchange will be performed only on
the side opposite the Shopton Rural Historic District, and the crossing of Steele Creek Road
over the freeway will remain at essentially the same level as at present.
S. Geodetic survey control monuments will be located during design, and the U.S. Coast and
Geodetic Survey and North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be notified of their location.
T. Bridges will be considered during the design phase at major waterway and floodplain
crossings.
U. A field investigation on the preferred corridor will be conducted to determine the presence
of Schweinitz's sunflower prior to acquisition of right-of-way.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY i
TABLE OF CONTENTS x
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
LIST OF TABLES xv
1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION I-1
A. GENERAL I-1
B. PROJECT SETTING _ 1-1
C. SYSTEM LINKAGE I-1
D. TRAFFIC OPERATION AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE 1-4
E. MODAL INTER-RELATIONSHIPS 1-6
F. ACCIDENT DATA AND SAFETY I-7
G. SUMMARY OF NEED FOR ACTION 1-8
II. ALTERNATIVES 11-1
A. NO-ACTION II-1
B. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT I1-1
C. MASS TRANSIT SYSTEMS II-2
D. WIDEN EXISTING HIGHWAYS II-2
E. CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES II-3
1. Preliminary Alternatives II-3
2. Alternatives Considered But Not Recommended
For Further Study II-4
3. Alternatives Selected For More Detailed Study II-5
4. Recommended Type of Facility For Construction II-7
5. Traffic Operations and Level-Of-Service II-10
6. Cost Effectiveness Analysis II-11
F. SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE II-13
1. Basis for Selection II-13
2. Crossover considerations II-15
x

P--j
J

III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
1. Population and Demographics
2. Housing
3. Transportation
4. Parks, Recreational Facilities, and Greenways
5. Neighborhoods and Community Facilities
6. Cultural Features
a. Schools
b. Churches and Cemeteries
C. Historic Structures
d. Archaeological Resources
I TV.

B. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
1. Land Use and Planning
2. Income
3. Labor Force
4. Development Enterprise Areas
5. Utilities and Services
a. Electricity
b. Water and Sewer
C. Telephone
d. Railroads
e. Natural Gas
f. Cable Television
6. Hazardous Waste Sites
7. Mines and Quarries
C. NATURAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
1. Topography
2. Geology, Groundwater, and Mineral Resources
3. Soils
4. Meteorology and Climatology
5. Water Resources
6. Floodplains
7. Vegetation and Wildlife
8. Protected Species
9. Wetlands
10. Prime, Unique, and Important Farmlands
11. Ambient Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. URBAN AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS
1. Impact on Communities
2. Land Use Impact
Id
An
III-1
III-1
III-1
111-2
III-2
III-5
III-6
III-7
III-7
III-7
III-8
III-10
III-12
III-12
III-13
III-13
11I-13
III-14
III-14
III-15
III-15
III-15
11I-15
III-15
III-15
III-16
III-16
III-17
III-17
III-18
I11-18
III-18
III-20
III-20
III-25
11I-27
III-28
III-29
IV-1
IV-1
IV-1
IV-2

P
B. NATURAL AND PHYSICAL IMPACTS IV-3
1. Air Quality IV-3
2. Noise IV-7
3. Water Quality IV-14
4. Hydrology and Floodplain Management IV-18
5. Natural Systems/Protected Species IV-22
6. Farmland IV-25
7. Wetlands IV-26
8. Relocation IV-30
9. Hazardous Waste Sites IV-33
10. Mineral Resources IV-33
11. Pedestrians and Bicyclists IV-34
12. Visual IV-34
13. Utilities and Services IV-35
14. Schools IV-36
C. CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS IV-36
1. Parks and Recreation IV-36
2. Historic Structures IV-37
3. Archaeological Sites IV-37
D. ENERGY IMPACTS IV-38
E. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS IV-38
F. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM IMPACTS
AND LONG-TERM BENEFITS IV-40
G. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES IV-40
V. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS
TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS ARE SENT V-1
VI. COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT VI-1
VII. LIST OF PREPARERS VII-1
VIII. INDEX VIII-1
IX. REFERENCES IX-1
xii

I
YAO
X. APPENDICES X-1
APPENDIX A - Biotic Communities A-1
APPENDIX B - Agency Responses B-1
APPENDIX C - Relocation Study Reports C-1
APPENDIX D - Public Involvement D-1

xlii
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Flare No. Title Following Page No.
Figure I-1 Vicinity Map I-1
Figure I-2 Project Study Area I-1
Figure I-3 Eidsting Average Daily Traffic Volumes I-1
Figure I4 1988 Thoroughfare Plan 1-2
Figure II-1 Preliminary Study Lines II-3
Figure II-2 Refined Alternatives II.6
Figure II-3 Typical Sections - Roadway I1-8
Figure II4 Typical Sections -- Interchange II-8
Figure II-SA Projected Year 2010 Traffic Volumes -- II-10
Eastern Corridor
Figure II-511 Projected Year 2010 Traffic Volumes -- II-10
Middle Corridor (Proposed Action)
Figure II-5C Projected Year 2010 Traffic Volumes -- II-10
Western Corridor
Figure III-1 Parks, Recreation Facilities, and Greenways III.5
Figure III-2 Schools, Churches, Cemeteries,
and Community Facilities III-6
Figure III-3 Potential Cultural Resource Sites III-9
Figure III4 Eidsting Land Use III-12
Figure III-5 Future Land Use III-13
Figure III-6 Development Enterprise Areas III-13
Figure III-7 Utilities and Services III-14
Figure III-8 Potential Hazardous Waste Sites III-15
Figure III-9 Streams, Lakes, And Floodplains III-20
Figure III-10 Prime Farmland 111 -29
Figure IV -1 Noise Monitoring Locations IV-9
Figure A-4A-E Biotic Communities
xiv

t

A

t

LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
Table I-1 Chronology of Significant Events for
West Charlotte Outer Loop I.3
Table I-2 Traffic and Capacity Analysis of Affected Major
Arterials in Project Area I-5
Table I-3 Impact of West Charlotte Outer Loop on Traffic I.6
Table I4 Accident Rate Comparison 1-8
Table II-1 Comparison of Alternatives II-7
Table II-2 Roadway Design Criteria II-9
Table II-3 Summary of Capacity Analyses II-10
Table 114 Benefit/Cost Ratios 11-12
Table III-1 Historic Population III-1
Table III-2 Population Projections III-1
Table III-3 Number of Households and Persons Per Household
1960, 1970, 1980, 1985 111.2
Table III4 Per Capita Personal Income III-13
Table III-5 Civilian Labor Force by Sex and Race III-14
Table III-6 Water Resources and Classification III-19
Table III-7 Farmland in Mecklenburg County III-29
Table III-8 Summary of National and North Carolina Ambient
Air Quality Standards III-30
Table IV-1 Air Quality Analysis IV-6
Table IV-2 Hydrocarbon Emissions Inventory IV-6
Table IV-3 Typical Sound Levels IV-8
Table IV4 Noise Abatement Criteria IV-9
Table IV-5 Existing Ambient and Projected 2010 Noise Levels IV-10
Table IV-6 Summary of Noise Impact IV 12
Table IV-7 Stream and Floodplain Crossings IV 19
Table IV-8 Total Acreage Required IV 23
xv

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table No. Title
Table I V-9 Farmland Involvement
Table IV 10 Summary of Wetland Involvement by Alternative
Table IV-11 Number of Displacements for the Construction
Alternatives
Table VI-1 Public Hearing Comments
EM No.
IV 25
IV 27
IV 30
VI48
xvi
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

is
CHAPTER I
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
A. GENERAL
This report documents the need for construction of the 13-mile western portion of the Charlotte
Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to NC 27, hereafter referred to as the West Charlotte Outer Loop (see.
Figures I-1 and 1-2). The current and projected traffic is evaluated in relation to the existing and
proposed transportation system in the western area of Charlotte. Alternatives were developed to
respond to the social, economic, and environmental consequences that are anticipated in introducing a
major freeway corridor through the study area. In order to respond adequately to the environmental,
engineering, and planning issues associated with the West Charlotte Outer Loop, this environmental
impact statement has been prepared.
B. PROJECT SETTING
The City of Charlotte is the largest city in North Carolina and provides a large employment base for
nearby counties in both North and South Carolina. The City of Charlotte in Mecklenburg County is
an area experiencing considerable growth, particularly in its southern outlying areas. The project
location is generally a rural area with gently rolling terrain. The southern portion includes industrial
and commercial areas near I-77, with residential uses and a large school complex along Sandy Porter
Road. Scattered housing developments, single rural houses, mobile homes, and churches characterize
the rest of the area, with the exception of industrial uses along the railroads and the western portion
of I-85. The existing network of highways is being called upon to handle increasingly heavy traffic
demands. More detailed information on population, employment, and traffic appears in Chapter III
of this report. Existing highways and 1988 average daily traffic volumes within the project area are
I shown on Figure I-3.
I C. SYSTEM LINKAGE
The Charlotte region is served by two major interstate highways. I-85 provides connections to the
Piedmont Triad area (Greensboro, Winston-Salem, High Point) and the Research Triangle area
(Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill) to the northeast and to the Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina
area to the southwest. I-77 connects with Statesville to the north and to Rock Hill and Columbia,
South Carolina to the south. I-277 is a loop to the east of I-77 around Charlotte's central business
district. Major U.S. routes include US 29, US 74, US 21, and US 521. US 29 parallels I-85 through
' Charlotte. US 74 follows US 29 as Wilkinson Boulevard west of Charlotte and follows Independence
I I-1

Boulevard to the southeast. US 21 parallels I-77, while US 521 parallels I-77 to the south.
In the study area, the major mode of transportation is the automobile. Bus service provided by
Charlotte Transit basically includes the City of Charlotte plus service to Charlotte/Douglas
International Airport and to Arrowood Road. The majority of the study area lies outside of the city
limits and is not served by public transportation.
There are no designated bicycle facilities in the study area; however, all greenways will have at least
one multi-use trail which can be used by bicycles and/or pedestrians (see Chapter HA.4.)
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport is located just east of the study area. This airport currently
has three active runways and is a major hub for US Air. An 8,000-foot runway is planned just west of
the existing runway 36L/18R. Due to the proximity to the airport, close coordination will be needed
during all phases of this project.
The concept of a freeway around the City of Charlotte is included in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure I-4), which has been adopted by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in November 1988. The West Charlotte Outer Loop is
also in conformance with the 2005 Generalized Land Plan for the Charlotte area (adopted November
1985) as well as the Steele Creek Small Area Plan (not adopted) and the Dixie-Berryhill Small Area
Plan (adopted February 1989). Both of these plans will be superceded by the Southwest District Plan,
which is expected to be adopted in late 1991. This plan includes the adopted alignment for the outer
loop. Funding for the loop was included in the 1989 State Highway Bill (HB 299).
A 16.6-mile portion of the outer loop, referred to as the South Charlotte Outer Loop, from I-77 south
to US 74 east, has a recommended alignment as part of a Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) that was approved in 1981. Right-of-way for the South Charlotte Outer Loop is being
protected through provisions of the subdivision ordinances of Mecklenburg County, the City of
Charlotte, and the Town of Matthews. Advance right-of-way acquisition is also being implemented by
NCDOT as necessary. Construction on the South Charlotte Outer Loop began in fiscal year 1989.
A recommended alignment has also been developed for an 18.8-mile portion of the Outer Loop,
referred to as the East Charlotte Outer Loop, from US 74 east to I-85 north. The FEIS for this
project was approved in 1989. The 1991-1997 State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls
for right-of-way purchase to begin in fiscal year 1992 for this portion of the Outer Loop (R-2123).
The remaining 28-mile portion of the outer loop extends from I-77 south to I-85 north, to the west
and north of Charlotte, of which the subject 13-mile portion (R-2248(A)) from I-77 to NC 27 is a
I-2
L?,
1

5 ?. `

• ? O Davrd? n?
ornelwi 19
r , aldwell '
1 3 5 i 16 • 73
k ?? fluntef file
ounta, 1 '0
nJ
ke 11
7
`c 5 10 3
ll
H
o unt
o
y
2
4 A
INewe
- ,, ? 1 k
Chotte
Alien
73 "<'` `::511 ?
Mill ill 8

3 ECKLE
-
??
5 •
?,
511
CO/ r? ! y? ? K 4-
04
49 '°. 5 Matthew O
STUDY ineville Inds n
AREA 5 6 Trail
y
`? e
?- 5 -N-
3 1 Arvin

NOT TO SCALE
Lisp Source: NCDOT
FIGiE
WEST CHARLOTTE VICINITY MAP
OUTER LOOP I-?

1

1

1
t
GRAPHIC SCALE
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000
(IN FEET)
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
PROJECT STUDY AREA
FIGURE
I-2

J

1
F?

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GRAPHIC SCALE
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000
(IN FEET)
1968 TRAFFIC
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE
I-3

F Li

t

J

t

WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
1988 THOROUGHFARE PLAN
FIGURE
1-4
MINOR THOROUGHFARE •--------
GRAPHIC SCALE
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000 PLAN AS ADOPTED BY THE CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
(IN FEET)

F_j

n

part. Concurrent with this study of the West Charlotte Outer Loop, NCDOT is conducting a study of
the North Charlotte Outer Loop from NC 27 to I-85 (R-2248(B)). The 1991-1997 State TIP includes
authorization of funds for planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction.
As indicated above, the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, other municipalities in the area,
NCDOT, and the public have expended a great deal of time, effort, and cost in developing the Outer
Loop with the ultimate goal of completely encircling the City of Charlotte with a freeway facility.
Therefore, any of the above loop portions, if not completed, would result in a missing link or gap in
an outer loop around the City. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg area would not receive the maximum
economic and road-user benefits associated with an improved transportation system if such a gap were
allowed to occur.
A chronology of significant events leading to the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the West Charlotte Outer Loop is shown in Table I-1.
TABLE I-1
CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
FOR
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
Date Event
October 1974 Charlotte Outer Loop between Interstate 77 south and US 74 east
included on the NCDOT's Highway Improvement Program.
1977 Formally adopted Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Thoroughfare Plan
includes concept of Outer Loop around Charlotte.
August 1981 Final Environmental Impact Statement completed on South Charlotte
Outer Loop from I-77 to US 74.
October 1985 "Western Outer Belt Location Study" completed by Sasaki Associates,
Inc. for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO)•
January 1986 "Western Outer Belt Location Study" prepared by the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC).
August 1987 Draft Environmental Impact Statement completed for the East
Charlotte Outer Loop, from US 74 to US 29 Connector. (Final En-
vironmental Impact Statement on East Charlotte Outer Loop approved
in 1989.)
November 1987 North (Part B - from I-85 to NC 27) and West Charlotte Outer Loop
(Part A - from NC 27 to I-77 South) included in the NCDOT's
Transportation Improvement Program for environmental studies and
right-of-way protection.
I-3

September 1988 Environmental Impact Studies are initiated for the West Charlotte
Outer Loop.
October 1988 Public meeting held for the West Charlotte Outer Loop.
January 1989 MPO approves the alternatives for further detailed studies on the West
Charlotte Outer Loop.
July 1989 Charlotte Outer Loop approved as a project to be funded by the 1989
State Highway Bill (HB 399).
July 1990 Draft Environmental Impact Statement completed for the West
Charlotte Outer Loop.
August 1990 Public Hearing held for the West Charlotte Outer Loop.
November 1990 Middle Corridor designated as preferred alternative.
D. TRAFFIC OPERATION AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE
The ability of the roadway system to accommodate daily and peak period traffic flow is measured by
comparing traffic volumes (V) with the roadway link capacity (C). This. V/C comparison or ratio is
used to determine the level at which a given link is accommodating traffic. This measurement is
referred to as "level-of-service.-
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) has defined levels-of-service (LOS) in categories from A
to F. LOS A represents ideal, free-flow conditions, while LOS F represents forced or breakdown flow
with stop and go conditions. Generally, LOS D is considered the lowest limit at which traffic flow is
acceptable during peak periods in urban areas. Traffic flow on roadway links at LOS D is considered
stable, but becoming susceptible to congestion and unstable flow. Therefore, any roadway links with
traffic volumes that exceed LOS D (E or F) are considered to be exceeding the capacity at which they
can operate safely and satisfactorily.
Capacity analyses were performed on the affected major arterials in the project study area. The
results of these analyses are summarized in Table I-2. The level-of-service was computed for the year
2010, including 29 segments for both no-build and build alternatives for the proposed West Charlotte
Outer Loop. The table shows that many segments of the existing street system are approaching
capacity or operating at an unacceptable level-of-service. Based on this analysis, 52 percent of the
affected major arterials segments will have an improved level-of-service if the project is constructed,
while only 7 percent of the segments would have a reduced level-of-service. Improvements needed to
the existing road network without the project include the following.
o widen Sam Wilson Road to four lanes
o widen Wallace Neel Road to four lanes
o widen Shopton Road to four lanes
I-4

u

fl

1 N.

1

w
N N
b O
•
M O %k
P ?O Ik lk
h
?O %k
h ?D en
VI P
1n N?
- N f? '1 d/ N O a
?p
?
1'A f? O 1? C ee b
p
?i f N N - - N - - `O h Yf - -'N h „

Fa g 8
8 88 .$8 $ 3888$

?b3
?
O i ......777111 mU «V trW UV mm mom m<- <mG D V 4.O tJ<OOUm

A
?
y .?
p, p
rf ?O
w y?
N N
1?1 -
.• O
N '-
CD
M r
f N
? N
f?
N •
n p?
r 1?f P
V1
? VNI b 1? ? .f. P ? b Y?f
5

C7 ?
O O
O C O
- 0 O
C O O
0
C C O
C a
C
C C O
66 N O O O O O C O

a V w V 0u 4.u. mm V V mm V mm mU0 Y.411aCV <41CGm;
['
m r
?O O
? M Vf
A O
„ A h f
r4 ?n M
f? b a n
h of r a
? ?D P r n f r y? n N ?'
O O ?i P f ? P• ?O
' C- C O O -- O O O O C C C G O G O O N- fV C C C- 0 0 0 O
8 QX 8 Q `Q? `QQ? 8 ?
i 7
}}}
???
?+ g8
? O gg gg
i i ?v g
O g8
? O g g g
'i i i g g
i i g g
„„ g g g
„
O p p o O„
in A en to r r O o w? N N en N en en en en to m
to w? M

? N f f f b b • OD f N f f f f f f f? N N N N N f' N N f? y
< Z o c o 96 W o c w m u Q a C o m m m u v m m o m o u v m ?
ep
N ? pp ??yy pp
P 1C P v?
N ? ?p
00 P ?
? r r
? b ?O r r
w 00 w? .?pp ??pp
f O ?O N w+ - ? w+ ? h
vt N w1 ? ? ? h ? ?
' C Z O C C; - - O
C; - O O C O cc - -- 06 O
O C O G C O
O
• g
?T R g
J? df O o O O O O
? g
J? R J? g
g
0 0 0 0 0& 0 Jf
n • M
? ? ? ? ? „ „ s s • • m m w w P • r r s • A s a ? ?
I
Z a ? g g 8g 1

f N f?? ?? f f N N N N N N N N N N r4 N N N N f !V N f

?
0 0
fL
G!
-
pp i D
S p r Q
CQ Fm o z??+jLg "Q
?
?? v Z
C p y?
> ? ? =y < M p
?
>
Iq C i
? d ?
U
tl z
? O
r S ? p
?t'?r itt ?t Y p
?i W <'tl
y
s o
? u?. V S a Z
? <
$
p
Q 3 0 ? g 0 0 ? V ?
? °4
y <; S C O 4,
r y r

? of ^ 00 O S
O $
Z
?ou
Vm
?
Zz s
a ?Z a?? z z
Za_CZ?
a

d6 d6 d6 d6d6? 10

Z
coo ???
a8
a
03

0

???

??

^•W

g $$$

uuu

zU

zzz a
qq

a s ?
m z z z Z z z z y y
I-5
41
0
V Z
X50 <?
F y {?.
? ? < Z S
= Z
vi
z
G ? o K .qi
V
Z
?yyyy
The positive impact of the Outer Loop on other facilities, such as Steele Creek Road, could postpone
future widening on those facilities. Table I-3 summarizes the impact of construction on the West
Charlotte Outer Loop versus the no-build alternative.
TABLE I-3
IMPACT OF WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP ON TRAFFIC
Reduction on Links Percent Reduction on Links
Reduction In Percent Percentage Percent Average Reduction
An. Daily Traffic of Links Reduction of Links by Facifi Tvce
Greater than 10,000 3
vehicles per day (VPD)
5,000 to 10,000 VPD 28
arterial
1,000 to 5,000 VPD 45
1,000 reduction to 1,000
increase VPD 18
1,000 to 5,000 VPD
increase 3
5,000 to 10,000 VPD
increase 3
100
Greater than 50% 10
25% to 50% 21
10% to 25% 41
5% to 10% 7
0% to 5% reduction 7
0% to 5% increase 7
5% to 25% increase 7
100
Facility Average
_TW Reduction

Freeway 1,150 VPD
4-lane 3,600 VPD
2-lane 3,150 VPD
arterial
As shown above, the impact of the proposed facility on reducing traffic would be greatest for
four-lane roads, next greatest for two-lane roads, and least for freeways. The proposed outer
loop would reduce traffic by at least 10 percent on more than 70 percent of the links evaluated,
and by at least 25 percent on more than 30 percent of the links.
E. MODAL INTER-RELATIONSHIPS
Available modes of transportation in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County include the private
automobile, bus and rideshare service, rail service, and air service.
I-6

' Bus service, provided by the City of Charlotte, does not extend into the study area. However,
bus service is provided to Charlotte-Douglas International Airport and to Arrowood Road.
t Park-and-ride lots are available for transit users and participants in the rideshare program; none
of these lots are located in the study area. The proposed facility could serve as a distributor to
I future radial transit lines and park-and-ride lots. It is not expected to compete with transit, as it
does not parallel existing or planned transit facilities.
Three railroad lines owned by Norfolk Southern Railway and CSX Transportation cross the
study area as shown in Figure I-2. All rail crossings will be grade-separated.
' The study area is bound on the east by Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. The Airport
Master Plan calls for construction of a runway parallel to and 1,200 feet west of Runway 18R-
36L. (See Appendix B.) This project is being developed in coordination with airport officials
and does not conflict with the Airport Master Plan. It will significantly enhance access to the
airport from western Mecklenburg County.
F. ACCIDENT DATA AND SAFETY
A traffic accident analysis was prepared for various selected travel routes which will be affected
by this project. The analysis, shown in Table I-4, covers the period from January 1, 1986
through March 31, 1989, and represents a statistical overview of actual accident rates on the
selected routes compared with the average statewide accident rates for similar roadway facilities.
As shown in the table, accident rates for three of the six road segments significantly exceed the
state averages. Two of the three segments with lower rates than statewide averages have
accident rates very close to the statewide average rates, so that five of the six segments either
approach or exceed statewide average accident rates. This shows that some of the routes in the
study area have experienced a significant accident situation when compared to other similar
statewide routes. It should also be noted that the statewide average rates for urban freeways are
lower than for other facilities.
With the addition of a newly-designed freeway facility in this portion of Mecklenburg County,
many motorists may use this corridor, which will improve traffic situations in this area and
thereby seduce the existing and future accident potential in this area.

1 I-7
[I
Roadway
Classification Facility
Urban I-85
Interstate
I-77
Statewide Average
Urban U.S. US 521-
Route (4-In Billy Graham
divided) Pkwy.
US521-
Billy Graham
Pkwy.
Statewide Average
Rural NC NC 160
Route (2 Ln)
Statewide Average
TABLE I-4
ACCIDENT RATE COMPARISON
Accidents Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles

Total Fatal Non-Fatal
Between Accidents Accidents Accidents
Billy Graham Pkwy. 288.1 2.8 106.2
and Freedom Drive
Westinghouse Blvd. 1525 03 55.9
and Billy Graham Pkwy.
(1533) (1.0) (62.2)
Morris Field Rd. 393.6 15 167.8
and I-85
NC 160 - 1252 0.7 47.9
Westinghouse Blvd.
and I-77
(181.4) (9) (72.7)
US 521 and SC Line 2055 2.62 95.6
Urban NC NC 27 Catawba River and
Route (2 Ln) I-85
Statewide Average
Source: NCDOT, January 1, 1986 - March 31, 1989
G. SUMMARY OF NEED FOR ACTION
(214.2) (3.7) (101.5)
435.1 2.24 190.2
(2855) (1.6) (113.0)
The need for the proposed action is compatible with the local, regional, and statewide transportation
and land use goals established for the greater Charlotte-Mecklenburg area. These goals include the
construction of a freeway facility that will completely encircle the City of Charlotte. As a 13-mile
segment of this freeway, the proposed action is a vital and integral part of the overall goal.
The proposed segment is also essential for the orderly and planned redirection of growth in the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg area, which now lacks an efficient circumferential system of e)dsting highways
to adequately fulfill this objective. The proposed action is thus needed to provide economic benefits
to this region.
I-8

' The project will provide better traffic flow in the Western Mecklenburg area, relieving congestion on
existing two-lane roads such as Steele Creek Road, Wallace Neel Road, and Brown Grier Road, as
well as major facilities such as I-77 and Billy Graham Parkway.
Because of the inherently safer design of limited access facilities, the total number of traffic accidents
in the area is expected to be lower with than without the project.
[l

11

L

u

I-9

'J

1

J
11

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
' CHAPTER II
ALTERNATIVES
This chapter describes various alternative courses of action and inaction. The decision on the proposed
' action was made after the public hearing transcript and comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement were evaluated. The following alternatives were considered:
' A. No Action
B. Transportation System Management
' C. Mass Transit Systems
D. Construction Alternatives
I A. NO ACTION
The No Action Alternative would result in a 13-mile gap in the proposed Charlotte Outer Loop
freeway system and, therefore, does not meet the purpose of the proposed action. No Action would
not be compatible with the transportation, land use, and planning goals established by the state,
t region, county, and city. Traffic generated by growth in this portion of the County would have to find
alternative existing routes. Since there are no existing direct or contiguous routes within the corridor
between I-77 and NC 27 that are not already congested, transportation service would be adversely
impacted if no action is taken to complete this portion of the Outer Loop freeway system. As was
shown in Table I-2, unsatisfactory levels-of-service would be provided on several major arterials in the
project area, specifically Brown-Grier Road, Old Dowd Road, Sam Wilson Road, and Shopton Road.
No Action would avoid the adverse impact associated with constructing a freeway on new location.
The consequences of the proposed action (included in Chapter III of this report) include the
relocation of homes and businesses within the proposed right-of-way, the introduction of additional
highway noise into this traffic corridor, temporary construction noise impacts, inconvenience to the
traveling public during construction, and the conversion of wetlands, farmland, wildlife habitat, and
' other existing land uses to transportation use.
B. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Transportation System Management (TSM) alternatives consist of improving existing highways to
allow traffic to flow smoothly and efficiently. TSM consists of improving signals and signal
progression, installing a computerized signal system, adding high occupancy vehicle lanes, adding
turning lanes, and making other similar improvemetits.
II-1

However, there are no reasonably contiguous or direct routes within the corridor between NC 27 and
I-77 that can be adequately improved with such measures to handle the added traffic demand created
by the missing gap in the Charlotte Outer Loop Freeway system.
TSM would not meet the long-term purpose of the proposed action. ISM is not considered a viable
alternative to substitute for the construction of the West Charlotte Outer Loop. Such improvements
would only defer the need for completing the Outer Loop while development within this corridor is
expected to intensify. Therefore, implementing the proposed action later would make the adverse
impacts identified in Chapter IV even greater. Increased development would offer even less flexibility
in strategically locating and mitigating any adverse impacts associated with the proposed action.
C. MASS TRANSIT SYSTEMS
Transit service is provided within the Charlotte urban area by Charlotte Transit. Transit service is
essentially not available in the study area, nor is it likely to be provided in the foreseeable future,
because of the lack of concentrated trip origins and destinations. It does not appear reasonable to
view transit service as a viable alternative to completing this 13-mile portion of the Charlotte Outer
Loop freeway system. Charlotte has an active ride-sharing program that can reduce commuter work-
trip traffic to some extent. However, such programs are most effective for radial trips to the central
business district and long-distance trips to major employers. Such trips comprise only a small portion
of the trips expected to use this route.
D. WIDEN EXISTING HIGHWAYS
Figure I-2 shows no good direct or contiguous routes between the study termini of I-77 and NC 27.
(I-77 and Billy Graham Parkway can be used for part of the routing, but these routes stop at 1-85.
They also do not serve the portion of the study area west of the airport.) NC 160 crosses the study
area between I-77 and the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. Secondary roads consisting of
segments of Steele Creek Road, Shopton Road, Wallace Neel Road, Little Rock Road, Sam Wilson
Road, and Rhyne Road can. be eventually negotiated to reach the termini. These segments are
narrow two-lane highways with considerable congestion during the peak hours, particularly in the
vicinity of the airport. The above existing highways have narrow right-of-way widths, generally
confined to widths that are currently being maintained by the NCDOT and that are insufficient for
any major widening. Roadside development is moderate to heavy, including residential and
commercial development, historical structures, churches, and schools. It is concluded that major
widening of these existing routes to serve the existing and projected traffic demand will cause greater
adverse impact on the existing development than the following construction alternatives; therefore, it is
not a viable alternative.
H-2

1 E.

CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Preliminary Alternatives
The proposed action begins at I-77 where the South Charlotte Outer Loop terminates and ends
at NC 27 where the terminus was coordinated with an adjacent study currently underway. The
preferred alternative follows the general conceptual location of the Charlotte Outer Loop as
shown on the Charlotte/Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure I-4). The study area was
examined to identify possible alignments for locating a freeway facility.
' As denoted in Figure 1-2, there are considerable physical constraints to major shifts of the
proposed freeway either in a westerly or easterly direction. Lake Wylie is located on the west
side and the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport is located on the east side of this corridor.
Accordingly, preliminary alternatives that were developed are situated between the designated
termini and within the area between Lake Wylie and the airport.
Other major physical features were then identified within the study corridor to determine areas
where a freeway facility could be located with minimum impacts to these areas. Preliminary
study lines were strategically located to stay within these areas as much as possible. The
feasibility of these study alignments was reviewed on the basis of providing acceptable design,
engineering, geometrics, and costs, and minimizing adverse environmental impacts.
These preliminary alignments or study lines are shown in Figure II-1. The designated segments
' were developed into alternatives contiguous between the studied termini. The alternatives were
then compared based on equivalent north-south combinations of segments.
Additional evaluation of the study lines indicated that some segments were not feasible or
practical; those segments were eliminated from further study. The elimination of segments was
based on the following criteria:
' o Adverse impacts identified including impacts on known developments; communities;
archaeological and historic sites; threatened or endangered species; parks and greenways;
' and natural systems
o Adverse economic impacts
o Significant disruption of established communities
o Use of Section 4(0 resources when other prudent and feasible alternatives were available
o Significant conflict with state or local transportation system planning
o Recognized geological instability
o Undesirable traffic operational characteristics
II-3

o Substantial environmental impacts
2.
Alternatives Considered But Not Recommended for Further Studv
1
Several segments developed early in the study were rejected at this point as not being feasible or
practical. These alignments (see Figure U-1) and the reasons for removing them from
consideration are described below:
The far southwest alignment (Wl) extends west from York Road between Oakhaven
Drive/Merriweather Drive and Westinghouse Boulevard, continuing northwest across Steele
Creek Road and Shopton Road to Dixie River Road. It has been dropped from further study
because of the impact on the Southbourne/ Taragate Farms area, the industrial area on the
north side of Westinghouse Boulevard, the proposed Steele Creek greenway, the Westlake office
park, Braddock Green, and the Ramoth AME Zion Church.
The middle southwest alignment (MW1, MW2) was dropped due to conflicts with a potential
historic property, the John Grier House and surrounding farmland. Because of the size of the
tract, it was not feasible to shift this line to avoid the property. In addition, this line is very
close to Kennedy Junior High School and would divide the school from the Taragate North
community with an interchange.
The far southeast alignment (El, E2) extends north from York Road to just north of Eagle
Lake, where it turns to the northwest to intersect Paul Brown Boulevard Extension just west of
Steele Creek Road. It has been dropped because of its impact on the Coffey Creek floodplain
and wetlands, the proposed and existing Coffey Creek greenway, Johnson Lake, Eagle Lake
(including its dam), the Spruce Forest community, and the airport landing instruments
(TVOR/DME) near the intersection of Byrum Drive and Steele Creek Road.
The far east alignment (E3, E4, E5) has been dropped because of its proximity to potential
airport expansion, impact on residential and industrial areas, and impact on land use (acting as a
barrier to expansion of airport-related and compatible uses). This alignment also received
strong objections from the Airport Authority after its initial endorsement by the TCC as part of
an earlier study.
The middle alignment near Shopton Road (M2, M3) was revised to avoid the Shopton Road
Baptist Church, a small chemical plant (potential hazardous waste), a construction landfill site
(poor soils, potential hazardous waste), the potentially historic William Grier House, and the
intersection of Steele Creek Road and Shopton Road.
II-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

PHLLIMINAKT 51UUT LIM
0 PRELIMINARY INTERCHANGE LOCATION
GRAPHIC SCALE
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000
(IN FEET)
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
PRELIMINARY STUDY LINES
FIGURE
?I

1
1
?I

1

Ll

L

u

L

The mid-west alignment north of Wilkinson Boulevard (WE1) has several major drawbacks
related to an undesirable interchange location between Moores Chapel Road and Sam Wilson
Road. This area for the interchange includes several developed industrial sites, featuring a large
printing plant with chemical storage tanks and a settling pond, a private sewage treatment plant,
and a church and cemetery. A freeway-to-freeway interchange in this area would have serious
environmental consequences. Because it is not feasible to shift from this western alignment to
another interchange location, this alignment will not be pursued further.
In addition, several cross-overs and connecting links have been eliminated due to the above
segments being dropped from further studies.
3. Alternatives Selected For More Detailed Studv
Three alternative corridors have been evaluated in detail: a west corridor, an east corridor, and
a middle corridor. The corridors are approximately 1,000-feet in width. The centerline for the
proposed roadway may be shifted within the corridor while keeping the right-of-way contained
in the corridor. The actual road centerline will be determined during the design process. A
design hearing will be held after the preliminary design has been completed. The Middle
Alternative has been designated as the preferred alternative based on the environmental process,
including a public hearing and public review of this document. These corridors, shown on
Figure II-2, are described below.
East Corridor
The East Corridor begins at the Southern Outer Loop at I-77, where an interchange is currently
designed. The East Corridor then proceeds northwest, with an interchange at York Road (NC
49), approximately mid-way between Westinghouse Boulevard and Coffey Creek. This
alignment continues northwest to an interchange with proposed Arrowood Road extension,
approximately 2,000 feet east of Sandy Porter Road. The alignment continues to the north,
crossing Shopton Road east of Shopton Road Baptist Church and passing west of Eagle Lake,
then crossing Douglas Drive and passing east of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church and
Cemetery. The route continues northwest to an interchange proposed at NC 160. The
alignment then continues northward, approximately 2,000 feet west of Wallace Neel Road, to
interchange at Wilkinson Boulevard (US 29-74), I-85, proposed Moores Chapel Road relocation,
and Mt. Holly Road (NC 27) just west of Woodlea Road.
II-5

Middle Corridor (Preferred Alternative)
The Middle Corridor is common to the east corridor from I-77 to Arrowood Road extension.
From this point, the corridor leaves the east alignment and crosses Sandy Porter Road north of
Olympic High School, interchanges with Steele Creek Road between Shopton Road and
Shopton Road West, and crosses Dixie River Road (south), proposed Paul Brown Boulevard
Extension at Garrison Road, and Dixie River Road (north). The corridor then joins the east
corridor near Walkers Ferry Road and follows the east corridor to the terminus at NC 27.
West Corridor
The West Corridor follows a common segment of the east and middle corridors from I-77 to
just north of the Steele Creek Road interchange, where it swings to the northwest with an
interchange at the proposed Paul Brown Boulevard at Garrison Road, passes just west of
Berryhill Elementary School, then turns to the northeast to a proposed interchange with I-85 at
existing Moores Chapel Road. The alignment continues to the southeast of the Cedarvale Road
Trailer Park and continues north, generally paralleling the power line, crossing the CSX tracks
and terminating at a proposed interchange with Mt. Holly Road west of Mt. Holly-Huntersville
Road.
Crossovers
Crossover segments are included at several locations to facilitate transitioning between the east,
west, and middle corridors. These crossovers were considered as secondary alternatives which
could be used in case of major environmental or engineering obstacles along portions of the
primary alternatives. The environmental consequences of these segments are included in this
document. The crossovers are shown on Figure 1I-2 and described as follows:
Crossover EWI allows a transition between the west corridor (south) and the east corridor
(north). This crossover begins just north of Dixie River Road, crosses Mount Olive Church
Road and Walkers Ferry Road, and then connects with the east corridor near the crossing of
Old Dowd Road.
Crossover EW2 allows for a transition between the east corridor (south) and the west corridor
(north). This crossover begins just north of the proposed interchange at NC 160 and extends in
a northwesterly direction, crossing Dixie River Road and Walkers Ferry Road, and then joins
the west corridor near the Norfolk Southern Railway crossing.
II-6

cl
.. GAe Ch r
I krY
WYijk; V Ceps","
t.iVR(1RrC?CO',rMiy . ..,..? ,J"(y _._,/'? ?/?. c? ? •\ `?
00 NWN -5
_ \^
co 74
?! a W5 2
"C?`C
2 9 4p? S 7
DO?l?F(F' ? ? ??iSp 29
rk R()qJ M2
E3 E4
TIE TO PROPOSED
ft,
w / 5 NORTHERN OUTER LOOP
L..ACE ?
0.O lj
?lj
u Q `C o ? ? 4? O?
El E 2 o CIitRLlll-L- JG.A..
c2A d. ??'CRNi 71`?Nr; s;? v
?G AIRPORT
a
L1TILE ROCK ROAD u
e,lli?pp ((11 ? {(tT•
VP?D
1
0 40?C ?
O?
21
Q 521
77 U? BILLY GR AN'.. : WY
p &9 e ?
TIE TO ti $<) } lv?l
PROPOSED
SOUTHERN ?
OUTER LOOP
Y"
LEGEND
RED ALTERNATIVE
NATIONS
f. QlJi}
q PROPOSED ALTERNATE CORRIDOR
21 O PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
?7
OTHER PLANNED ROAD EXTENSIONS (IN PROJECT)
------------ OTHER PLANNED ROAD EXTENSIONS (NOT IN PROJECT)
GRAPHIC SCALE
EAST CORRIDOR AI+EI+E2+E3+E4+E5
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000 (PREFERRED) MIDDLE CORRIDOR AI+EI+MI+M2+E3+E4+E5
(IN FEET) WEST CORRIDOR AI+EI+MI+W2+W3+W4+W5
CROSSOVERS EWI,EW2,EW3
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
REFINED ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE
11- 2

u

fl

C
1

0
0

Crossover EW3 allows a transition between the east (south) to west (north) corridors at the
west terminus. This crossover begins just north of I-85 and extends in a north-westerly
direction, crossing Sam Wilson Road, interchanging with Moores Chapel Road, and connecting
with the west corridor south of the Norfolk Southern Railway crossing.
The major characteristics of the above alternatives are summarized in Table II-1.

n

I

n

7
TABLE II-1
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Alte rnative Crossover
East Middle West EW-1 EW-2 EW-3
(wed
Length (miles) 12.1 12.4 14.0 33 3.4 3.2
Interchanges 7 8 7 0 0 0
Other Structures
Railroad 3 3 2 0 0 0
Drainage 7 7 8 3 2 3
Grade Separation 6 5 7 3 3 3
Stream Crossings 21 22 25 9 8 4
Construction Cost $123.5 $128.9 $127.2 $21.4 $24.1 $20.8
(millions)
Right-of-Way Cost $51.4 $52.4 $56.6 $7.8 $7.2 $8.1
(millions)
Total Cost $174.9 $181.3 $183.8 $29.2 $31.3 $28.9
Consideration was given to a crossover to allow a transition from the west corridor (south) to
the east (north) corridor near the northern terminus. However, due to the impact on the
Moores Chapel Road area and undesirable roadway geometry, this crossover was determined to
be unfeasible.
Land has been reserved for this facility through rezoning action in two locations. The approved
Whitehall rezoning shows a corridor east of Sandy Porter Road between York Road and
Shopton Road. This development is currently inactive. A rezoning of a parcel for UPS south of
I-85 near the airport also shows reservation of right-of-way along the western edge of the
property. These reservations of right-of-way have not influenced the selection of the alternative.
4. Recommended Type of Facility for Construction Alternatives
Estimated traffic projections based on existing and anticipated land use and socioeconomic data
II-7
1
were made for the design year (year 2010) to assist in determining the type of facility and
number of traffic lanes. It was concluded that a four-lane freeway was needed to provide an
acceptable level-of-service for the design year, based upon the projected traffic demand on the
existing and proposed highway network. The freeway facility also would be compatible with the
adjacent sections of the Charlotte Outer Loop, which are proposed to consist of multi-lane
freeway facilities.
The proposed construction alternatives are based upon the following criteria. Typical cross-
sections are shown in Figures II-3 and 114.
a. Type of Facility - freeway
b. Access Control - full
c. Right-of-Way - full control of access, adequate right-of-way width to contain the
recommended cross-section (typically 350 feet)
d. Intersecting Road Treatment - all intersecting roads are to be either interchanged,
grade separated with no contact, terminated, or closure (land access) roads provided
e. Roadway Design Criteria (see Table II-2)
f. Railroad Crossings - all railroad crossings are to be grade separated
II-8

MY MM.
u' 35
VARIES 17 24' 12' 12' 24' 14' VARIES
10' r I9' 10' 4' 4' 10' 3w
IMRIE RRA'A:
I
?-« t t
Fl. -- C , r , r 1/4-/FT ._y P
* 8! 8
21 R) 41
it I8" MINIMUM
24' DESIRABLE OANAIYi CROVII
MAINLINE AT GRADE
1?
3w 3w
1.25' -10* 24' 4' 4' 10' 1.25'
1.25' 1.23'
tt
ITT
MAINLINE OVER WATER
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
TYPICAL SECTIONS -- ROADWAY
FIGURE
1I-3

r

0
I
I I
u
n

e
i
12' 16' 12'
4' 4'

AAMP
f
91'
rr 24' 12' 112' 24'
10' 4' I 4' 10'
?? tt
• Et
S.B. M9NUNE N.B. MAINLINE
MAINLINE DEPRESSED
i
VARIES
12' 16' 12'
4' 4'
t
RAMP
GROUND
W 35
16' 12' 12' 24' 12' 12' 24' Iz
4' 10' 4' I 4' 10'
I I ? ? I t t
S.B. MAINLINE N.B. MAINUNE
4:1 (O
4:1 TO 6:1
RANP
12' 1 16'
I I ??
RAMP
MAINLINE ELEVATED GROUND
O
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
TYPICAL SECTIONS -- INTERCHAN
FIGURE
]I-4

F

I

r_

TABLE II-2
ROADWAY DESIGN CRITERIA
Design Elements Recommended Standards
Design Speeds o Freeway - 70 mph desirable
o Ramps - 50 mph desirable/45 mph minimum
o Loops - 30 mph desirable/25 mph minimum
o Cross streets - 40-50 mph
Horizontal Alignment o Degree of curve: Freeway - 3°-00' maximum (70 mph)
Ramps - 7° - 30' maximum (50 mph)
Loops - 150' minimum radius (25 mph)
o Minimum length of curve - 500'
o Tangents midlength between reversed curves should be
adequate to facilitate superelevation transition. Spirals to be
included.
o Ramp terminal design - 1984 AASHTO Standards or
NCDOT Roadway Standards
Vertical Alignment o Rates of grade - Freeway 3% maximum; ramps - 5%
o Stopping sight distance - Freeway - 850' minimum; Ramps -
475' minimum
o Length of crest vertical curves - k= 540', unless
circumstances dictate otherwise
o Length of sag vertical curves - k= 220' minimum, unless
circumstances dictate otherwise
Pavement Widths o Freeway - 12' standard lane width
o Ramps - Single lane 16' minimum
o Cross streets - 12' standard lane width desirable, 11'
minimum
Shoulder Widths o Freeway roadway section - outside shoulder 12' in cut, 14' in
fill (10' paved); 12' inside shoulder (4' paved)
o Bridge section - 10' outside, 4' inside
o Ramps - 12' left (4' paved), 12' right except 14' with guard
rail (4' paved)
Median Widths o Freeway roadway section - 70' desirable, 46' minimum
Cross Slopes - Tangent o
0
0
Vertical Clearances o
0
0
Sources: "A Policy on Design of Highway.4
of Transportation Roadway Desi?
Freeway and ramps - 1/4"/ft.
Embankment Slopes - NCDOT Roadway Standards,
Interstate
Median slopes: 70' median - 6:1 minimum slope
Local and collector streets: 15'0" to 15'6"; arterials and
interstates 16'6" to ITO"
Railroads: 23'0" to 23'6"
Stream Crossings: 2'0" above design high water level
and Streets," AASHTO, 1984 and North Carolina Department
m Manual.
II-9

5. Traffic Operations and Level-of-Service
Traffic operations, including level-of-service, were evaluated for the three alternatives based
upon 2010 traffic projections developed from the Charlotte Urban Area transportation model.
Analyses included level-of-service for basic lane sections; merge, diverge, and weave analyses for
freeway ramps; and planning capacity analyses for ramp termini at interchanges. Assumptions
included balanced daily traffic flow by direction, 12 percent peak-hour/average daily traffic, and
60/40 peak-hour directional split. These assumptions are conservative to provide a design that
allows for future growth.
Figures H-5A, B, and C show projected 2010 traffic volumes for the east, middle, and west
alignments,, respectively. Traffic volumes on the east and middle alignments range from about
18,000 ADT north of York Road to about 34,000 be tween Wilkinson Boulevard and Moores
Chapel Road. Traffic volumes on the west alignment range from about 17,000 ADT north of
York Road to about 25,000 south of York Road. Volumes on the west alignment are generally
3,000 to 5,000 ADT lower than the east or middle alignments, except around the I-85
interchange, where they differ by as much as 17,000 ADT.
Capacity analyses of the mainline freeway section using procedures in Chapter 3 of the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) showed that a four-lane basic freeway section will provide a
level-of-service C or better for all locations except in the vicinity of the I-85 interchange for the
east/middle alignments. At that location, two collector-distributor roads would be needed
between I-85 and Wilkinson Boulevard. Results of these capacity analyses are summarized in
Table II-4.
TABLE II-3
SUMMARY OF CAPACITY ANALYSES
Location Level of S ervice
I Middle ' I
(Preferred)
I-77 to NC 49 B B B
NC 49 to Arrowood B B B
Arrowood to NC 160 B B A
NC 160 to US 29-74 C C B
US 29-74 to I-85 B B B
I-85 to Moores Chapel Road C C B
Moores Chapel Road to NC 27 B B B
II-10

F-
U
F- L1J
w O
O -
Q_
Q_ A9 NOT TO SCALE Z
z 0, m
LJ 0?
0
p s o o?
0 Lo
(if
03
N D
> ?FCF v
z w I m n (?'p C ° o U
_ 0 CD ?so/ o } z
N
U Z to x
V) J , Q
1.1 O
O
% DHV = 12%
% DIR = 60%
ALL VOLUMES ARE AVERAGE
DAILY TRAFFIC
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP

°

ati

°

°n,
n

0

°

d

0
O
N

o;
!e
?`?
O
o

? O

°
?
ri

°0
W
N

S
O

+

O
O

°0
0
O
Vl

34,
0
m
O

300
0
m
<
0
vI
$
O
N 0

S n0
t
? ?
?

m

C1

?

M
o
M
20,600
26,600 19,100

O
21,000
p
M N

O
r

°
m 34,100

O
N

i

O
d'
0 ,°?
N
p
N

rR
o 23,900

M
O
O
n
h r
O

N O
N

O O

e? S
°

N O
A
M
FlGURE
EASTERN CORRIDOR
:[[-5A
PROJECTED YEAR 2010 TRAFFIC VOLUMES

H
U
W
U z -?
Ld O O
O z Of
cr-
0- W NOT TO SCALE
Z
Z W
W m m
F-
1n
o
p „ n
04 0_ 00 It w Q I
U J I -J Y^ yV
z W mn 25 o oz
z rn 00 }.,
U Z (/) W z O
W ?v w" Ir
O N Q
O
DHV = 12%
% DIR = 60%
ALL VOLUMES ARE AVERAGE
DAILY TRAFFIC
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP

JL MIDDLE CORRIDOR
MES riUunc
H-5B
PROJECTED YEAR 2010 TRAFFIC VOLU
- o °

0

O
N
0
o

N
^ p
0
n

N
,p °o

rn

G
N °o

?

N °0

06 0

c
O
O

M
O

? pp
d D
O O

0! Oi
d O
34400
. p

O Q
n ?j
N ° p

ppj t0
d' Cj ° O

N m
?; ^ p

p°p O
N ?
M O

O O
<.j ?0 O

O
<
28,400 19,900 18,100

ri
21,000
o "

? g
" m 34,100

g 8 28,300

8 ?

o °

S g 24,000
N ' ? N n n

f

W
?

N
N
y-
m
O
o
M
N O
p
d
N O
O
a; O
O
M

F-
U W
O
O a
a-
NOT TO SCALE Z
0 (?
Ld m
0
0
In
C3 0
00 0 in an CL
N O O ^ f?
N
Z m r m y
V1 O
NN cn ?^ O OZ
Z_in
? JV O
F Q
% DHV = 12%
% DIR = 60%
ALL VOLUMES ARE AVERAGE
DAILY TRAFFIC
I 0
° BELMEADE RD.
0
o ?

ro uri
0

N
ai

a

?
0

o
ao'
°

m°
r"

N
o
M

°
r
° ?
m °
$
a 22.600
g ?
? o o °
n o o
a n 0
d
20,900 14900 14900

n
17,100
o m
N

g 18,900

o

o

°

° 20500

o
°o 0
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
WESTERN CORRIDOR
PROJECTED YEAR 2010 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FlGURE
II-5C
1

1

fl
1

it

t
6.
Ramp junction capacity analyses using procedures in Chapter 5 of the HCM also showed that a
four-lane basic freeway section is adequate for level-of-service B or C at all interchanges except
at the eastern I-85 location, where collector-distributor roads are required. Level-of-service C
or better is provided at all merge locations within that interchange system.
Weave analyses conducted using procedures in Chapter 4 of the HCM yielded level-of-service A
or B for non-weaving vehicles and level-of-service B or C for weaving volumes, except for the
southbound collector-distributor, which provides level-of-service C for non-weaving vehicles and
level-of-service D for weaving vehicles.
Intersection capacity analyses using the planning analysis procedures in Chapter 9 of the HCM
were conducted at proposed interchanges to determine laneage on ramps and at intersections
with surface arterials. Loop ramps will be required at some interchanges.
In general, fewer loops and fewer multiple turn lanes are required for the west alignment, due
to lower traffic volumes. However, the difference in traffic volumes would have to be served on
the existing local street system, with lower levels-of-service on those streets.
Cost Effectiveness Analyci
A cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted for the proposed West Charlotte Outer Loop
to determine which alignment, if any, would be an economically sound investment. The three
alignments, East, Middle (Preferred), and West, as well as a no-build scenario, were studied as
the four possible scenarios for the analysis.
The basis for this analysis is contained in the 1977 publication of the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of
HighwU and Bus-Transit Improvements. A computer program, developed by the Florida
Department of Transportation, which incorporated the methodology outlined in the Manual, was
used to conduct the analysis for the West Charlotte Outer Loop project.
The method involves a comparison of the estimated costs of implementing and maintaining each
alternative project for the period of analysis, against the economic benefits that are expected to
be realized from it over the same period. The estimated costs consist of engineering, right-of-
way, construction, and maintenance costs. Maintenance costs are incurred annually over the
analysis period for activities such as pavement patching, landscaping, drainage cleanouts, and
repairs.
II-11

The economic benefits realized from the proposed project are any reduction in road user costs
predicted to occur as a result of drivers operating their vehicles on a safer, more efficient, and
less congested transportation facility. Such benefits are determined by computing the total road
user costs with and without the project, and then calculating the difference for each alternative.
If road user costs are reduced, this is considered an economic benefit for that project
alternative.
Total road user costs for any given condition include the following: owning and operating costs
(fuel, motor oil, tire wear, auto maintenance, repairs, and depreciation), travel time costs
(cumulative dollar value of the vehicle occupants' time), vehicle accident costs (based on historic
average accident costs for various types of highway facilities), discomfort and inconvenience
costs (a dollar value of discomfort and inconvenience suffered on a congested road by the
occupants), and the additional operating costs incurred due to speed changes. The AASHTO
Manual prescribes the procedures for calculating such costs and updating them using the
consumer price indices for the year of the data and the year 1988 (the latest available). Cost
data obtained from NCDOT and other sources were used to supplement data included in the
Manual and software. A relatively high road user cost was used in these calculations.
Table II-4 summarizes the findings of the CEA for the discount rates of 4%, 7%, and 10%.
Costs and benefits estimated for future years were discounted to 1989 monetary values by using
discount rates. More than one discount rate was used to examine the sensitivity of the analysis
to changes in these rates. From the table, it appears that the west alternative would be the most
cost-effective investment.
The financial viability of a project is determined by the benefit/cost (B/C) ratio. An investment
is said to be desirable if the B/C ratio is greater than 1.00. For all three alignments, the B/C
ratios were far greater than 1.00, and appear to be very good investments of public funds.
Though the West alignment has a slightly higher B/C value, these values are very close for all
three alignments, such that in actual application the differences may be found to be insignificant.
TABLE II-4
BENEFIT/COST RATIOS
(Compared with No-Build)
Alternative
East
Middle (Preferred)
West
Interest Rate
4% 10%
14.9 10.1 7.1
14.5 9.8 6.8
15.0 10.2 7.1
II-12

I F. SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative is the Middle Corridor, specifically segments Al, El, Ml, M2, E3, E4, and
E5, as shown in Figure II-2. Three other associated improvements are included in the proposed
action:
o construction of Arrowood Road extension from the Outer Loop to Sandy Porter Road;
' o extension of Paul Brown Boulevard from Dixie Road to the Outer Loop; and
o construction of relocated Moores Chapel Road from a point north of Wildlife Road to
Kendall Drive.
' 1. Basis for Selection
This alignment was selected as the environmentally preferred alternative following analyses of
' technical information; consideration of public input as expressed at the public hearing,
workshop, and in written form; and consideration of input from public agencies (federal, state,
and local). The Charlotte City Council and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Metropolitan Planning
' Organization (MPO) endorsed this alignment, with the exception of the portion north of I-85.
The selection of the preferred alternative was developed in coordination with the
recommendation for the North Charlotte Outer Loop. Reasons for the recommendation
included the following:
Traffic. The Middle and East Corridors would serve a greater traffic demand than would the
West Corridor. The Middle Corridor will provide superior service in the Steele Creek Road
' area and will provide a route for through traffic to bypass historic communities and sites on
Steele Creek Road. The Middle and West Corridors would allow an interchange with Paul
Brown Boulevard extension, as shown in the adopted thoroughfare plan. This extension could
be tied into a future Lake Wylie crossing to Gaston County. The West Corridor would create
adverse traffic impact on Garrison Road.
Thoroughfare Plan The Middle Corridor conforms most closely to the thoroughfare plan. It is
' virtually identical to the thoroughfare plan from I-77 to Arrowood Road extension and from
south of Paul Brown Boulevard to NC 27. The section where this alternative deviates from the
thoroughfare plan was necessary due to the Shopton Rural Historic District, a potential
hazardous waste site, and traffic considerations. The East Corridor is also similar to the
thoroughfare plan, but it deviates to the east where the Middle Corridor moves to the west, and
does not provide for Paul Brown Boulevard extension. The West Corridor represents a
substantial change from the thoroughfare plan.
1 11-13

AlrQort. The Middle Corridor is compatible with future airport expansion plans and, unlike the
East Corridor, does not pose a potential conflict with the VOR/DME radar location.
Cultural Resources. The Middle and West Corridors have no 4(f) involvement and no adverse
effect on historic structures. The East Corridor has 4(f) involvement and adverse effect on one
Section 106 property. The Middle and West Corridors also do not affect any archaeological
resources, while the East Corridor would require additional archaeological studies for one site.
Wetlands. The Middle Corridor affects the least acreage of forested wetlands and no open
water. It affects less high quality wetlands than the East Corridor. The West Corridor impacts
the greatest wetland acreage, both forested and open water.
Noise. The Middle Corridor impacts the fewest noise receptors, while the East Corridor
impacts the greatest number.
Land Use Planning. The Middle Corridor provides for a demarcation between airport-related
industrial land east of the corridor and residential development west of the corridor. The
Middle and East Corridors west and north of the airport conform with the alignment shown in
the 2005 Land Use Plan. The Middle Corridor was also endorsed by the Southwest District
Plan for the area south of I-85. The West Corridor does not provide for this land use planning
objective and conflicts with land use goals.
Recreation. The Middle Corridor does not affect planned parks near Lake Wylie, as does the
West Corridor. It avoids the proposed airport area golf course south of Steeleberry Acres that
would be impacted by the East Corridor. The Middle and East Corridors impact the privately-
owned Pawtuckett Golf Course, but vacant land exists that could be used to replace the
impacted area.
Public Input. The portions of the alternatives that have generated the most controversy are the
portions of the West Corridor near Lake Wylie and the East Corridor near Eagle Lake and
through Steeleberry Acres. The Middle Corridor has generated little public comment other
than those concerning the northern portion.
Costs, The Middle Corridor costs $2.5 million less than the West Corridor. It costs $6.4
million more than the East Corridor, but provides an additional interchange.
II-14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Community Facilities. The Middle Corridor does not require school property, as does the West
Corridor, and does not adversely impact other community facilities.
Hazardous Waste Sites. None of the corridors impact any known or suspected hazardous waste
generators or storage facilities. The West Corridor is close to the Sodyeco superfund site, but
does not pass through it.
Business Relocations. The West Corridor has the greatest impact on businesses (nine
relocations), while the Middle Corridor has the least impact (three relocations). In addition, the
West Corridor would require the elimination of a large truck weigh station on I-85. Replacing
this weigh station would involve additional cost (not included in the cost estimate), additional
acquisition of lane, and the environmental impact of constructing a new weight station. The
West Corridor also impacts the Duke Power Training Center.
2. Crossover Considerations
While the previous discussion focused on comparing the primary corridors, it was also necessary
to compare Segment E5 of the Middle and East Corridors with segments EW3 and W5 (the
EW3 crossover) between I-85 and the western terminus at NC 27. Much of the discussion on
the route has centered on these alternatives and the corresponding segments on the north side
of NC 27, part of the North Outer Loop.
Traffic. Segment E5 would serve more traffic, because it provides a more direct route between
I-77 north and I-85. It also allows for an interchange at Moores Chapel Road.
Thoroughfare Plan. Segment E5 conforms to the adopted thoroughfare plan.
Cultural Resources. The EW3 crossover is in proximity to the Moore-Sadler House, which is
viewed as an Adverse Effect by the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources.
Noise. Noise impacts are similar for the two corridors south of NC 27.
Public Ind The Moores Chapel community opposes the EW3 crossover. The Wildwood and
Pawtuckett Communities, and the Coulwood community north of NC 27 oppose Segment E5.
Relocations. The EW3 crossover takes 13 more houses than does Segment E5.
Length, The EW3 crossover is 1.1 miles longer than Segment E5.
II-15
Cost. The EW3 crossover costs $6.5 million more than Segment E5.
Roadway Geometry. The EW3 crossover requires a curve immediately north of the I-85
interchange, which is not desirable.
Based on the above considerations, and on similar evaluations for the North Charlotte Outer
Loop, the segment E5 of the Middle and East Corridors north of I-85 was selected over the
EW3 crossover.
II-16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

CHAPTER III
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter provides a description of the existing social, economic, and natural environmental setting for the
' West Charlotte Outer Loop study area. Evaluation of these parameters is necessary to assess the
environmental consequences of the proposed project contained in Chapter IV.
A. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
1. Population and Dem,42,r
Mecklenburg County is among the fastest growing counties in North Carolina. Population
estimates for Mecklenburg County and North Carolina are shown in Table III-1. As shown in
Table III-2, the projected growth rate for Mecklenburg County is considerably higher than that
for the state as a whole.
TABLE III-1
' HISTORIC POPULATION (THOUSANDS)
1960 -1985
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
' Mecklenburg Co. 272.1 317.3 354.6 377.4 4043 4433
North Carolina 4,556.2 4,864.0 5,084.4 5,538.2 5,880.4 6,260.7
Source: North Carolina Census
TABLE III.2
POPULATION PROJECTIONS (THOUSANDS).
1990- 2005
Percent
' Increase
1990 1995 2000 2005 1985-2005
Mecklenburg Co. (a) 490.0 530.7 5693 604.2 36.3%
Mecklenburg Co. (b) 478.5 513.6 543.1 573.9 28.8%
North Carolina (a) 6,613.4 6,949.8 7,260.7 7,524.7 20.2%
' Source: (a) North Carolina Census
(b) 2005 Generalized Land Use Plan Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission
According to the 1980 census, the median age in Mecklenburg County is 29.5 years with 31% of
the county's population between the ages of 25 to 44 years. Also, 72% of Mecklenburg's
population is classified as "white," versus 28% which is classified as "non-white."
I III-1

k6
Of special concern is the location of Title VI groups. The only concentration of elderly persons '
is the rest home on Wilkinson Boulevard. There are no known concentrations of handicapped
persons in the study area. Three concentrations of minorities were identified. They are located
near Garrison Road, Dixie River Road, and Rhyne Station Road.
2. Housing
In Mecklenburg County, the number of households increased 42.5% between 1960 and 1970, and
34.2% between 1970 and 1980. The average statewide increase during these periods was 253% and
35.4%, respectively. The number of households in Mecklenburg County and in North Carolina is
shown in Table III-3.
Since the population in Mecklenburg County is expected to increase by 29% between 1985 and 2005,
the number of households will likewise increase. However, with trends toward smaller households,
the number of households is anticipated to grow 43% during that period, thus requiring the
construction of housing units at a faster rate than the population growth. This growth in number of
housing units could be expected to be reflected in increased travel demand.
Approximately 60% of the housing in Mecklenburg County is owner-occupied. This characteristic is
expected to continue through the year 2005 planning period. Approximately 40 percent of households '
in Mecklenburg County reside in multi-family units.
TABLE I11-3
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS AND PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD
1960,1970,1980,1985
North Carolina Mecklenburg County
Number of Persons per Number of Persons per
Households Household Households Household '
1960 1,204,715 3.66 76,877 3.47
1970 1,509,564 3.24 109,532 3.17
1980 2,043,291 2.78 146,967 2.69
1985 2,294,000 2.64 170,300 2.54
Source: North Carolina State Government Statistical Abstract, 5th Ed., 1984

3. Transportation
The Charlotte region is served by two major interstate highways. I-85 provides connections to the '
111-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Piedmont Triad area (Greensboro, Winston-Salem, High Point) and the Research Triangle area
(Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill) to the northeast and to the Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina
area to the southwest. I-77 connects with Statesville to the north and to Rock Hill and Columbia,
South Carolina to the south. I-277 is a loop to the east of I-77 around Charlotte's central business
district. Major U.S. routes include US 29, US 74, US 21, and US 521. US 29 parallels I-85 through
Charlotte. US 74 follows US 29 as Wilkinson Boulevard west of Charlotte and as Independence
Boulevard to the southeast. US 21 parallels I-77, while US 521 parallels I-77 to the south. As
discussed in Chapter I, a freeway loop is planned to encircle Charlotte. This freeway would be a
logical candidate for future interstate designation. In fact, a portion of the Charlotte Outer Loop Q-
77 South to I-85 North) has already been approved as an interstate highway (I-485).
Existing thoroughfares in the study area, as designated in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare
Plan (see Figure I-4), include the following:
Freeways
I-85
I-77
Airport Freeway
West Outer Loop (proposed)
Major Toroug hfares
Westinghouse Boulevard (east of NC 49)
York Road (NC 49)
Steele Creek Road (NC 160)
Arrowood Road
Brown-Grier Road
Paul Brown Boulevard (NC 160)
Wilkinson Boulevard (US 29-74)
Little Rock Road
Mt. Holly Road (NC 27)
Billy Graham Parkway (US 521)
Minor Thoroughfares
Westinghouse Boulevard (west of NC 49)
Shopton Road West
Shopton Road
Beam Road
Dixie Road
III-3

'
Wallace Neel Road
Tuckaseegee Road
Old Dowd Road
Sam Wilson Road
Moores Chapel Road '
Bellemeade Road (new section)
Mount Holly-Huntersville Road
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for
1991-1997 includes the following proposed major construction projects related to this project with '
dates for beginning and ending construction:
I-1023 Modify I-77 interchange with Arrowood Road (under construction, complete FY
1992)
I-2401 Widen I-77 to six lanes from I-85 to South Carolina
state line (construction FY 1992-96)
I-2506 Tyvola Road Interchange, modify existing interchange (construction post FY 1997)
I-301 Widen I-85 to eight lanes (under construction, complete FY 1995)
I-501 I-277 (complete)
R-49 West Boulevard relocation, Wilmont Road to New Dixie Road (ROW protection
only)
R-58 Widen NC 16 to four lanes (under construction, complete FY 1992)
R-211 Charlotte South Outer Loop, I-77 to US 74 (under construction, complete post FY
1997)
R-2123 Charlotte East Outer Loop, US 74 to I-85 (start FY 1997, complete post FY 1997)
R-2248 Charlotte West and North Outer Loop, I-77 south to I-85 north (start FY 1994,
complete FY 1996)
R-2424 Charlotte Outer - Outer Loop (feasibility study and environmental screening)
U-209 Independence Boulevard Freeway (part under construction, part complete FY 1994,
remainder complete post FY 1997)
U-203 Airport Access Road to I-85 (ROW protection only)
U-2512 NC 49 (York Road), Tyvola Road extension to Carowinds Boulevard (start FY
1993, complete remainder post FY 1997)
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Surface Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for Fiscal Years
1990-1994 includes the following major construction projects related to this project. These projects
are proposed but not currently funded.
III-4
' o Westinghouse Boulevard widening and extension, NC 49 to Southern Outer Loop
o Freedom Drive widening to four lanes, I-85 to Mt. Holly Road
o York Road widening to four lanes, South Carolina state line to Tyvola Road extension
o Northwest Circumferential, Little Road to Reames Road
' o Billy Graham Parkway/West Boulevard Interchange
o Arrowood Road Extension, York Road to Brown-Grier Road
I The local TIP also includes those projects in the NCDOT TIP.
' In the study area, the major mode of transportation is the automobile. Bus service provided by
Charlotte Transit basically includes the City of Charlotte plus service to Charlotte/Douglas
International Airport and to Arrowood Road. The majority of the study area lies outside of the city
' limits and is not served by public transportation.
' There are no designated bicycle facilities in the study area; however, all greenways will have at least
one multi-use trail which can be used by bicycles and/or pedestrians (see Chapter IIIA.4).
' Charlotte/Douglas International Airport is located just east of the study area. This airport currently
has three active runways and is a major hub for US Air. An 8,000-foot runway is planned just west of
' the existing runway 36L/18R. Due to the proximity to the airport, close coordination will be needed
during all phases of this project.
' The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is a forum for transportation planning policy. The
MPO is assisted by the technical coordinating committee (TCC) and is comprised of both voting and
' non-voting members. The voting members are: the City of Charlotte; the Towns of Cornelius,
Davidson, Huntersville, Matthews, Pineville, and Mint Hill; Mecklenburg County; and the North
Carolina Board of Transportation. Non-voting members include the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning
' Commission, the Federal Highway Administration, and other local, state, and federal agencies. The
proposed West Charlotte Outer Loop is being coordinated with the MPO as well as other federal,
state, and local agencies.
' 4. Parks Recreational Facilities and Greenwavs
Figure III-1 shows existing and proposed parks, greenways, and recreational facilities. Steele Creek
' Community Park is a 5-acre playground area located just west of Steele Creek Elementary School. A
county park at Berryhill District Park is proposed along the Catawba River. The site has been
' acquired using park funds for the portion of the park outside the proposed corridors and corridor
protection funds for the area within the corridors. Catawba Riverfront Community Park is planned
III-5
1
and will also incorporate corridor protection.
Greenways are presently located or proposed along Coffey Creek, Walker Branch, Paw Creek, Long '
Creek, and Gum Branch. The greenways will parallel water routes and provide paths for pedestrians
and cyclists. The only greenways in the study area currently under public ownership are portions of
Coffey Creek and Steele Creek Greenways. Two short (1,000-feet.±) segments exist on either side of '
NC 49, while a one-mile segment exists south of Douglas Drive. The portion of Steele Creek
Greenway lies within a subdivision south of Brown-Grier Road. None of these greenway segments
have been developed.
5.
Privately operated recreational facilities in the area include the Suttle Swim Club and the '
Mecklenburg Wildlife Club. In addition, the Pawtuckett Golf Course is located in the study area and
the Pine Island Country Club is located just north of the study area. These facilities are privately '
owned and administered. A private golf course is also proposed south of Charlotte/Douglas
International Airport. '
Neighborhoods and Community Facilities
Several neighborhood organizations are active in West Charlotte. Neighborhoods within the study
area include the following: 1
Harbor House Twelve Oaks
Sam Wilson Road Area Hillstone '
Tuckaseegee Road Taragate Farms
Tuckaseegee Road West Southbourne '
Westmoreland Olympic Woods
Lower Steele Creek
Parkwood Steeleberry Acres
Lebanon Heights
'
Huntlin Acres Westwood Forest
Catawba Colony Wildwood ,
Arlington
Also included in the area is scattered, rural-type development. Steele Creek Volunteer Fire ,
Department, West Mecklenburg Volunteer Fire Department, Moore's Chapel Volunteer Fire
Department, Steele Creek Community House, Steele Creek Masonic Temple, Dixie Mission Center, ,
and Steele Creek American Legion are within the affected study environment. These facilities are
shown in Figure III-2. '
as ?

i
i

WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES,AND GREENWAYS
L FIGURE
-I
GRAPHIC SCALE OTHER RECREATION FACILITIES
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000 % PAEfED ALTEtgiMTIVE
(IN FEET)

CI

1
0
1
J

E

GRAPHIC SCALE
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000
MEMEL-
(IN FEET)
9 STEELE CREEK VOL FIRE DEPT.
10. STEELE CREEK MASONIC LODGE
IL STEEL CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH
12 RAMOTH AWE ZION CHURCH
f3 DWE MISSION CENTER
14 STEELE CREEK AMER LEGION POST 227
5 STEELE CREEK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH B CEMETERY
IG MOUNT OLIVE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
17 BERRYHLL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
I
CH
25 WEST NECKLEN13URG HGH SCHOOL
26 WILSON MIDDLE SCHOOL
27 SHADY BROOK BAPTIST CHURCH
2B WOODLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH USA
29 JOHNS CHAPEL PF"TIVE BAPTIST CHURCH
30 WOODLAND SCHOOL
31 WEST MECKLENBURG VOL FIRE DEPT.
32 RDGEVEW CHURCH
33 STEELE CREEK VOL FIRE DEPT.
34 CHARLOTTE POLICE/FIRE TRAINING ACADEMY
35 CHARLOTTE COLISEUM
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, CEMETERIES, AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
FIGURE
X-2
1-1

6. Cultural Features
Cultural features in the study area include schools, churches, cemeteries, historical sites, and
archaeological resources.
a. Schools
Several schools are located in the study area (see Figure III-2), including the following-
- Olympic Senior High School
- Kennedy Junior High School
Steele Creek Elementary School
Berryhill Elementary School
b. Churches and Cemeteries
Locations of churches and cemeteries in the study area are shown in Figure III-2. Churches in
the area include the following:
Central Steele Creek Presbyterian Church
Trinity Baptist Church
Shopton Road Baptist Church
Steeleberry United Methodist Church
Steele Creek Presbyterian Church
Mt. Olive United Presbyterian Church, USA
Berryhill Baptist Church
Westmoreland Baptist Church
Moores Chapel United Methodist Church
- St. Johns Chapel Primitive Baptist Church
- Woodland Presbyterian Church, USA
- Steele Creek Baptist Church
Shadowbrook Baptist Church
Ramoth AME Zion Church
- Liberty Baptist Church
- Garden Memorial Presbyterian Church
III-7
C. Historic Structures
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and in
consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, an architectural survey
was conducted in order to identify architectural resources listed in or potentially eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, and to identify impacts to such resources that may
potentially occur as a result of the proposed West Loop project. A detailed description of the
survey results are described in Historic Structures Survey and Evaluation Report. Charlotte
Outer Loop (West Section) R-2248(A) (Mary Beth Gatza for Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.,
January 31, 1990).
A survey of the study area was conducted between March and June, 1989, using the 1988
Mecklenburg County Survey as a basis of informationto identify potentially eligible historic
structures. For the purpose of this survey, all standing structures judged to be more than 50
years old were. inspected. Several 1920s and 1930s bungalows were noted which were not
included in the County Survey. While they do fall under the "50-year rule," they were
determined to be of little historic significance due to their number and commonness throughout
the county, and thus were not included in the inventory.
During the initial phase of the survey, structures determined to be of historic significance were
mapped and targeted for closer inspection. These properties were visited, the residents or
owners were interviewed, and the buildings were photographed. Original historical research was
conducted where appropriate or necessary to verify information gathered from oral histories.
The Area of Potential Effect was determined before proceeding with the intensive survey. The
area of Potential Effect includes, but is not limited to, the right-of-way for all three of the
alignments that were initially proposed. Generally, it includes properties within and immediately
adjacent to the corridors. Ground cover and topography were determining factors in judging
whether a property should be included in the area of potential effect. It was determined to be
greater in areas where interchanges are likely to be built, such as the point where the highway
would cross Steele Creek Road (NC 160). Thus, the area of potential effect is variable
throughout the project area. All structures falling within the area of potential effect were
surveyed. In addition, three properties (Cooper Log House, Steele Creek Church and
Cemetery, and John Douglas House) located outside the Area of Potential Effect have been
included in the inventory for information purposes.
The survey area, in general, represents a good cross-section of the architectural types and styles
which are found throughout Mecklenburg County. The 27 sites inventoried can be broken down
III-8

fl

as follows: one late-eighteenth century log house, with subsequent periods of construction
dating from c. 1840 and c. 1880; two early-nineteenth century plantation houses; three mid-
nineteenth century farmhouses; 13 residences dating from the late-nineteenth and early-
twentieth centuries; three dwellings built during the 1910s; one twentieth-century tenant farm
house; one house of undetermined vintage which was overbuilt during the late-nineteenth
century; a complete farmstead dating from 1929; a late-nineteenth century church; and a c. 1890
brick store building. The inventory includes a proposed rural historic district which
encompasses five of the above-listed properties.
Eight individual properties and one district containing five properties are eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. They are shown in Figure III-3 and include:
John Douglas House
Steele Creek Church and
Cemetery
John Grier House
Dr. Query House
Cooper Log House
Dr. Sandifer House
Moore-Sadler House
Brown Farmstead
hopton Rural Historic Distri
Robinson House
Hayes-Byrum Store
Byrum House
Bungalow
William Grier House
The John Douglas House is a one-story frame and weatherboard Greek Revival house built
around 1867. The Steele Creek cemetery dates from the 1760's, while the brick church was built
in 1889. The two-story John Grier house occupies a large farm setting. It is of frame
construction and was built in 1836. The two-story frame and weatherboard Dr. Query house
was built in 1919. The Cooper log house was constructed in the 1790's and modified around
1840 and again around 1880. The Dr. Sandifer house, a two-story frame structure, dates from
the 1850's. The Moore-Sadler House, which sits on a knoll overlooking a large parcel, dates
from the 1880's. The Brown Farmstead includes a 1929 bungalow farmhouse and associated
outbuildings on a working farm setting. The Shopton Rural Historic District includes five
properties dating from 1828 (William Grier House) to 1930 (bungalow). The Hayes-Byrum
store, Byrum house, and Robinson house (also within the district) all date from the late 19th
century to about 1900.
Fourteen additional properties were determined to be ineligible for the National Register:
' Johnson Horse Barns
Gallant-Brown House
Faires House
Cathey House
Freeman House
' Tenant House
Brown House

House, Dixie River Road
House, Dixie River Road
Vinson House
House, Walkers Ferry Road
Wilkinson-Mitchell House
George Williamson House
Connell House
III-9

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred with these evaluations (see
correspondence in Appendix B).
d. Archaeological Resources
An archaeological reconnaissance survey of the proposed corridors was conducted in the spring
of 1989. The purpose of the survey was to locate potentially significant prehistoric and historical
archaeological sites within areas that might be affected by construction of the highway
alternatives.
The historical background of the area was researched, including archival research in the North
Carolina State Archives (chiefly in the map collection), in the North Carolina Collection at the
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, in the files of the Archaeology and Historic
Preservation Section of the Department of Cultural Resources, and in local historical sources in
Mecklenburg County, chiefly in the Carolina Room of the Public Library of Charlotte and
Mecklenburg County. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historical Properties Commission and the
Mecklenburg Historical Association were contacted for information on sites in the area. The
results of the research are contained in the report An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of
the Proposed Charlotte Outer Loop (Western Section), from I-77 (,General Younts Expressway,)
to NC 27 (Mount Holly Road). Mecklenburg County. North Carolina (Thomas Hargrove for
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc., February 1990).
In areas with exposed ground surfaces (at least 25% visibility), the surveyors crossed the
exposed ground with systematic, closely spaced transects to check for prehistoric and historic
artifacts on the surface. Since the ground surface visibility in much of the survey area is low, the
chances of finding artifacts from every site exposed on the surface were small. In areas without
ground surface visibility, the surveyors used systematic shovel tests at intervals of 30 meters or
100 feet along the proposed road corridors. The soil from each shovel test was screened
through 1/4 inch mesh. Shovel tests were not excavated where standing water was present or
where the slopes were too steep for habitation, but slopes were checked for quarry sites or
rockshelters. Each shovel test measured approximately 30 centimeters on a side. Each shovel
test was backfilled after its excavation. In this survey, shovel tests were not particularly
successful in finding prehistoric sites, probably because the typical site, when found under good
collecting conditions, is a low-density scatter of artifacts. In the wider floodplains along Long
Creek the shovel tests were supplemented with soil auger tests up to four feet in depth to check
for stratified deposits, although the Monacan floodplain soils in the project area are probably
too poorly drained for settlements of significant size.
III-10

1r _
?_.. ?.,
QAS
---
?,ti ux, .,?,°? rv
w
cc"
?( Q? pP ?py? r
DIFER 9?P \??1JM? h
aA "Y p': DR SAN
_ _.._. .
!r- ?? gyp. fiR "? \\
PST q `?? V r ? hA qj ? vtiM S
S t y P ?q a 29t,a
n?tF BROW HOUSE SRO ?aW Pp
/ SITE MOORE-SAD HOUSE
ROAD F
GRIER COOPER a` p
P OUSE SITE
qg w DR.QUERY BR TEAD
JOHN HOUSE N ...,a E R} 2T
GRIER S N RUR L NEE
HOUSE IC DIS ICT 9 p
. BROWN HOUSE SITE
P > ti?
c _
DOUGL
Cc)
HOUSE JI _j
v G n STEELS CR EK?C?l JC?C?J
PRESBYTER N w 0
> 61 AP+ C 7 ? 3ll E_A` i
aPtp ?p a CEMETERY g Z t C` NAT!. h?P}
R p G? { AIRPORT I q
?2C)CK ROAD v
n KO }
G? M b?C? ? ? ? ?7
x
2+ 521 x
71 RILLY GR Ak ; . WY
U rg ?
t?
C
LEGEND
N,l
, O HISTORIC STRUCTURE
J
21 ® ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
1'
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
GRAPHIC SCALE
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000
(IN FEET)
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
POTENTIAL CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES
FIGURE
III- 3

In the course of the archaeological survey, 26 archaeological sites -- 21 prehistoric and 5 historic
-- were recorded. Most prehistoric sites are lithic scatters without any diagnostic artifacts that
would allow dates to be assigned to the sites. The prehistoric sites with diagnostic artifacts date
o the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic periods. The five historic-period sites include two gold
' mines (possibly part of the same mining operation), one eighteenth century house site, an
antebellum plantation (possibly with an eighteenth century component), and a house site
possibly dating to the latter half of the nineteenth century or the first part of the twentieth
' century.
' The prehistoric sites in the inventory have low densities of artifacts, heavily disturbed by farming
and erosion. They have little potential for providing significant information about prehistory
through excavations, controlled collections, or other intensive research methods. They are not
' eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. No additional work is
recommended on these prehistoric sites.
The two gold mine sites (31MK543 and 31MK544) consist of open pits and tailings, probably
dating to the nineteenth century. Further archaeological work on these sites would probably not
' add significant historical information on gold mining in the region. The lack of machinery and
other features associated with mining and the miners would be a major obstacle.
' The Brown House site (31MK553) on Steele Creek Road dates to the third quarter of the
eighteenth century. The farmstead was largely destroyed by a tornado in 1929, but some
' subsurface features might be preserved, especially in the detached kitchen and its cellar.
' The John Grier farm (31MK555) includes a well-preserved farmhouse from the 1830's, when the
area was a cotton plantation. The Grier farm, which has been continually operated by the same
family for seven generations, is also the site of the first Grier farm founded during the early
years of colonization in the eighteenth century. The John Grier House and grounds were placed

i

on the state's Study List for National Register eligibility in 1989.
The Swann Place (31MK538) is a house site, probably dating to the late nineteenth or early
twentieth century. The very low density of artifacts and the apparently recent age of the site
diminish its research value. Additional archaeological work is not recommended on this site.
The SHPO has concurred with the report recommendations, but proposes additional testing at
the Brown House site. (See correspondence in Appendix B.) Because the Brown house is not
affected by the preferred alternative, no further testing is recommended for this project.
III-11

B. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT '
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg County area has a thriving and constantly expanding economic '
environment. It is expected that the number of jobs will increase at a faster rate than the population
between now and 2005, indicating that a substantial number of persons from adjacent counties will
commute to Mecklenburg County to work. I
The economic goals in Mecklenburg County as outlined in the 2005 Generalized Land Plan include ,
the following:
o To market Charlotte-Mecklenburg as an area that provides a good environment for business, '
both new and existing.
o To direct new development toward less developed geographic areas of the county while '
providing jobs in a wide spectrum of occupation categories.
1. Land Use and Planning
Land use in the study area is compatible with existing zoning. Figure H14 shows existing land
use in the study area. Industrial, commercial, and office uses are located near major arterials
such as Westinghouse Boulevard, Arrowood Road, York Road, Wilkinson Boulevard (US 74-
29), I-85, the airport, and railroad lines. The study area is within Mecklenburg County's zoning
jurisdiction. Much of the area is zoned residential and particularly rural residential to the west
near the Catawba River.
Examples of some of the larger developments in western Mecklenburg County include the
Westinghouse Boulevard Industrial Center, Steele Creek Park, Arrowpoint Office Park, and
Coffey Creek Business Park. Large planned unit developments in the area around Sandy Porter
Road, Shopton Road, and Beam Road include Whitehall Park, Pringle Lakes, and Birchmont.
Plans for these developments include residential, recreational, and office uses. Whitehall Park,
which is located in the corridor, is not currently active, although zoning exists for it.
The concept of a freeway around the City of Charlotte is included in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure I4), which has been adopted by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in November 1988. The West Charlotte Outer Loop
is also in conformance with the 2005 Generalized Land Plan for the Charlotte area (adopted
November 1985) as well as the Steele Creek Small Area Plan (not adopted) and the Dixie-
Beur & ll Small Area Plan (adopted February 1989). Both of these plans will be superseded by
the Southwest District Plan, which is expected to be adopted in late 1991. This plan includes
III-12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
I
e
°y
oq
1 ?/???S?FSF
c?
tk
I t?
J `
t ?7
COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
N OFFICE
?
xsT INSTITUTIONAL
GRAPHIC SCALE RURAL OR UNDEVELOPED
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000 DIXIE AFFECTED COMMUNITIES
AND DEVELOPMENTS
(IN FEET) T PREFEF14ED TIVE
TIE TO PROPOSED
NORTHERN OUTER LOOP
WOODLEA
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
EXISTING LAND USE
FIGURE
1[4

i
the adopted alignment for the outer loop. Funding for the loop was included in the 1989 State
Highway Bill (HB 299).
Future land development in the area is expected to follow existing zoning with plans to stimulate
residential growth and continue with business and industrial development (see Figure III-5).
Two development enterprise areas located in the study area are discussed in Section III.B.4.,
Development EnterWrise Areas.
2. Income
' In 1981, the total personal income in Mecklenburg County was $4,728.4 million. This income
was the highest for any county in North Carolina, and has been the highest in each year studied
' between 1980 and 1987 (see Table III-4).
TABLE 1114
PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME
Year North Carolina Mecklenburg County
1980 $7,999 $10,189
1981 8,879 11,351
1982 9,283 12,010
1983 9,988 12,892
1984 10,999 14,271
1985 11,658 15,363
1986 12,436 16,336
1987 13,322 17,613
' Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, May 1989
3. Labor Force
Characteristics of the civilian labor force by race and sex in Mecklenburg County are shown in
Table III-5. The total unemployment rate of 3.9% in Mecklenburg County is considerably lower
than the statewide overall unemployment rate.
4. Development Enterprise Areas
' In the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County 2005 Generalized Land Plan, nine areas are identified as
development enterprise areas (DEAs). There are two DEAs located within the project study
area (see figure III-6). A DEA is an area with potential for becoming a new growth area
which includes residential and/or employment opportunities. The southern DEA is classified as
mixed-use and the northern DEA is classified as employment-based. According to Development
III-13

Enterprise Areas, approved by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission in February
1988, "A mixed-use DEA is composed of retail,.employment, service employment, light industrial
uses, and residential uses... An employment-based DEA has a retail and employment focus.
Higher density residential uses can be integrated harmoniously as an additional minor use."
TABLE III-5
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE BY SEX AND RACE'
Mecklenburg County
1986
Percent Dictrbutkm
C"ilian
Labor Gvflian
Labor
Unempk1ment
Sex and Race Force Flo UntmDloved Force Flo Unemulaved Rate
Male & Female 255,320 245,470 9,850 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.9
(Total)
White 191,680 186,560 5,120 75.1 76.0 52.0 2.7
Black 60,780 56,210 4,570 23.8 22.9 46.4 7.5
American Indian,
Eskimo, and
Aleutian 1,020 980 40 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.9
Other 1,840 1,720 120 0.7 0.7 1.1 6.5
Spanish Origin' 2,330 2,210 120 0.9 0.9 1.2 5.2
Total Minority' 65,960 61,120 4,840 25.8 24.9 49.1 7.3
Female Only 115,980 110,950 5,030 100.0 100.0 100.0 4.3
Percent of Both 45.4 45.2 51.1 - - - -
Sexes
White 83,740 81,220 2,520 72.2 73.2 50.2 3.0
Black 31,040 28,620 2,420 26.8 25.8 48.1 7.8
American Indian,
Eskimo, and
Aleutian 470 440 30 0.4 0.4 0.6 6.4
Other 730 670 60 0.6 0.6 1.1 8.2
Spanish Origin' 1,040 1,000 40 0.9 0.9 0.8 3.8
Total Minority' 33,270 30,730 2,540 28.7 27.7 50.6 7.6
' 1986 sex and race breakouts are based on 1980 census proportions
' Persons of Spanish Origin may be of any race
] Sum of Black, American Indian, Eskimo and Ale utian, Other, and Spanish Origin
Source: Employment Security Commission of North Carolina, Labor Market Information Division
5. Utilities and Services
Utilities and services in the study area consist of electricity, sewer, telephone, water distribution,
natural gas, and cable television. The location of major utility lines is shown in Figure 111-7.
a. Electricity
Electrical service in the study area is provided by the Duke Power Company. Three major
transmission lines are located in the study area.
III-14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
V
a ^+rv
d ` ,f \

GRAPHIC SCALE
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000
(IN FEET)
z
O
CaejJh,
,??`,, ?OUNpY
LEGEND
RURAL RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
AIRPORT PROPERTY
EMPLOYMENT
PARKS/OPEN SPACE
0 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CENTER
0 FARM PRESERVATION AREA

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦ WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP ALIGNMENT
AS SHOWN IN 2005 GENERALIZED LAND PLAN
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
SOURCE- GENERALIZED LAND PLAN 2005
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG PLANNING COMMISSION
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
FIGURE
FUTURE LAND USE =-5

u

I

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
----------- -
e W4 Fp
?TQ F v 74
IFS R0?? W5 ?S
r
E LOYMEN ??` °,
M 2 MI D-USE
E3 E4 w„?
TIE TO PROPOSED
m 4 E5? c NORTHERN OUTER LOOP
- 45 sj r? c,)
'NA-1-ACE RD
' a . NEE Q
} r ?. _ `Ja ?} tQ
k
I 0?0 fG AIRPORT Lu c
kOCK ROAD o
T F
{7
21 4 521 s
77 L SILLY GR AM : 'A'Y
TIE TO
PROPOSED r
SOUTHERN ,
OUTER LOOP
NPUONS c•
r? Ej4?
21
LEGEND
GRAPHIC SCALE O DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISE AREA BOUNDARY
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
(IN FEET)
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISE AREAS
FIGURE
116
0
J

1

1
1

J

1

iu?uN7v .,...
CK?LENH(Jfr0 C,O!lhi'FY
V
oh
G?
?p
?p
q? ?F?T II
S
1 ? ?2•
6 Ff ° Z..
R"'AD FIBERO TICS w M2
u;
? r
? t
r
.. ?; SUBSTATION ?
r Q \/
a EI 2
F,ee Ca
?Rpp ?p3 ? ?Oqd
c ? Q"C`?Ca
? c?0 II
,\ ? .: oEPM ???n
P?
21 ?
77
? uG
TIE TO
PROPOSED O??r
SOUTHERN
OUTER LOOP
ea

a?
C
w
v?\
E3
A
1
tf;
Y

?3

C,
0;
d`19D
ILLY C
{
A ?
Vl
?? CJ
ROCK ROAD
LEGEND
Z
O
ASQtj
TATION r? - Y
-f
z
W5
CCU
c? ?C
?• yr
FIBEROPTICS
CABLE
P?
0 e TIE TO PROPOSED
NORTHERN OUTER LOOP
GAS AND OIL PIPELINES
- POWER AND COMMUNICATION LINES AND CABLES
SANITARY SEWER
WATER
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
GRAPHIC SCALE
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000
(IN FEET)
' O
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
UTILITIES AND SERVICES
FIGURE
=- 7
11

u

E

Fl,
F
u
r

i

b. Water and Sewer
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department provides water and sanitary sewer service
to the portion of the study area within the Charlotte city limits. City water is also provided
to the Steeleberry Acres area and to the public schools on Sandy Porter Road.
C. Telephone
Telephone service in the area is provided by Southern Bell. AT&T also maintains a
fiberoptic cable north of I-85.
d. Railroads
Norfolk Southern Railway and CSX Transportation maintain rail lines in the study area, as
shown in Figure III-7.
e. Natural Gas
Three major pipelines are located in the project study area. Colonial Pipeline, Plantation
Pipeline, and Piedmont Natural Gas pipelines all cross the study area in an east-west
orientation.
L Cable Television
Cable television service in the study area is provided by Vision Cable of North Carolina.
Cablevision also provides service in Mecklenburg County, but not in the study area.
6. Hazardous Waste Sites
Potential hazardous waste sites include generators, treaters, and disposers of hazardous wastes,
landfills, sewage treatment facilities, garbage dumps, abandoned service stations with
underground storage tanks, fuel oil and gasoline storage tanks, and lagoons. EPA and the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management were contacted regarding potential hazardous
waste sites. A field reconnaissance was also performed. The location of identified potential
hazardous waste sites is shown in Figure III-8.
The sites identified as potentially hazardous waste sites include the following:
Westinghouse Boulevard area
Textron (two locations)
Venture Corporation
III-15
Forsyth
Fruehauf Manufacturing
Henkel Corporation
Unocal Chemicals Division
Simmons Health Care
Aplix, Inc.
Shopton Road area
Custom-Made Chemical Company
Demolition landfill site
Wilkinson Boulevard area
Atlantic Design Company
American Cyanamid
I-85 area
Service station at Sam Wilson Road
Jordan Graphics
NC 27 area
Sodyeco Plant (Superfund site, chemicals and lagoons)
Service station at Mt. Holly-Huntersville Road
Livingstone Coatings
According to the 1987 North Carolina Hazardous Waste Annual Report (North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch), 1.68
billion pounds of hazardous wastes were generated in Mecklenburg County, while the state of
North Carolina generated a total of 2.81 billion pounds of hazardous waste, during 1987. Thus,
Mecklenburg County generated 59.6 percent of the hazardous waste generated in North Carolina
in 1987.
7. Mines and Quarries
No active mining or quarry operations are located in the project study area. However, there are
several abandoned gold mines in the area. These mines include the Tom Ferris Mine, Dudley
Mine, Walker Mine, and Cathey Mine. Additional discussion of the abandoned gold mines is
included in Section IIIA.6.d., Archaeological Resources.
C.
NATURAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The study area encompasses one of the less developed areas of Mecklenburg County and the natural
environment subsequently will be affected by the proposed project. Those existing features to be
discussed include the terrain, weather, flora and fauna, hydrology, soils, and ambient air quality.
I1I-16
I
I
I
I
I
4- _
\. i
3kc e i \, uKCFh?U.
{MECKtuV URG CO e; ??? ?? ?\
u:f ?s ^y ?'?Wfi z
?y00 G G ?} 2 \
?0AG7 w' 'T" n?i. ?. t S
29ls
ni' ¢ Rki ? J ? fi
°A
S
/^? ?vA? i?pQ ('? Ltk 9f ??? 4I
49
Ney
„ton :.ACE _
e
®*
p NEF RUA`
G CI R 3G Lk ?F_ x a 1.7
1
?
4 ' f ORr ?`,
r c,
L' T"IiE ROCK ROAD c?a
C?vC3?:? a
ki
@uNO Pu
2€ C
27
e = !,( Gn µA fl
Qw.
I
"LONS
LEGEND
21
f(
POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
GRAPHIC SCALE
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000
(IN FEET)
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
FIGURE
IH11- 8

L

1. Tono¢ranhv
Located in the southern Piedmont physiographic region, Mecklenburg County is characteristic of
the region with rounded hills, low ridges, and rolling plateaus. The highest point is in the
extreme northern section of the County and is 830 ± feet above mean sea level. The lowest
point is at the state line, south of Pineville, at 520 ± feet above mean sea level. The study area
includes primarily rolling terrain, with the steepest slopes along Lake Wylie and between Dixie
River Road and Wilkinson Boulevard.
2. Geology and Mineral Resources
The proposed project is located within the Southern Piedmont Physiographic Region. This
region is characterized by broad, gently rolling interstream areas and by steeper slopes along the
drainage ways. Elevations generally range between 500 and 1,000 feet above mean sea level.
The area is drained by the Catawba River and lesser tributaries including Steele Creek, Coffey
Creek, and Big Sugar Creek. Many ponds are located in the study area.
The rock of Mecklenburg County belongs to the diorite-granite complex Gabbro-diorite is
widely exposed along NC 49 south of Shopton. It is a massive, medium to course-grained, dark-
colored igneous rock composed mostly of pyroxene or hornblende and plagioclase feldspars. It
is exposed in a few road cuts and as isolated boulders above the generally flat land surface.
The project area is part of the "Charlotte Belt," a series of highly deformed and contorted
' metamorphic rocks that have been intruded by a variety of granites and gabbros. Because of the
great variety of rock with their different compositions, textures, and structures, the rock base
' weathered at different rates and to different degrees. This results in the nature and thickness of
the residual soil overburden varying considerably in relatively short distances.

1

The majority of the surface soils have been mapped by the Aerial Agricultural Soils Association.
These soils are gently sloping to strongly sloping, well drained soils that have a predominantly
clayey subsoil and they are formed in residium from acid igneous and metamorphic rock. This
soil type indicates only a slight limitation for development which is minor and easily overcome.
There are no known active geological faults in the project area and the seismicity is low.
III-17

3. Soils
Soil types in the study area are predominantly Cecil and Iredell-Mecklenburg. There are also
areas of Monacan, Wilkes-Enon, Pacolet-Cecil, and Enon-Helen-Vance soil types.
The Cecil unit is comprised of approximately 65 percent Cecil soils and 35 percent minor soils.
These soils have a predominantly clayey subsoil, are well-drained, and are used mainly for
cropland and pastures. This unit is limited for use in farming but has high potential for most
urban uses.
The Iredell-Mecklenburg unit consists of approximately 40 percent Iredell soils, 35 percent
Mecklenburg soils, and 25 percent minor soils. These soils have a predominantly clayey subsoil,
are moderately well-drained, and are used mainly for cropland, pastures, and forests. This unit
has high potential for crops, moderate potential for woodland, and low potential for most urban
uses.
4. Meteorology and Climatology
Mecklenburg County is located in the western Piedmont climatic region. Summers are generally
hot and humid and winters cold but relatively short. The average summer temperature is 77
degrees F and the average winter temperature is 43 degrees F.
Prevailing winds in the area are from the southwest with a mean annual wind speed of nine
miles per hour.
Average annual rainfall is 44 inches and average seasonal snowfall is six inches. The mean
number of days per year with 0.01 or more inches of precipitation per year is 110 to 120 days.
5. Water Resources
The study area is in the Catawba River Basin which is part of the Santee River Basin. Major
drainage facilities in the area are Long Creek, Sugar Creek, and Lake Wylie.
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has prepared a
list classifying waters in North Carolina according to their best usage. These classes are shown
on Table III-6 in parentheses with a definition of the applicable classes following.
1II-18

TABLE III.6
WATER RESOURCES AND CLASSIFICATION
Catawba River and Lake Wylie (WS-III North of 145 and B South of I45)
Long Creek(C)
Thomas Pond (C)
Sugar Creek (C)
Coffey Creek (C)
Johnson Lake (C)
Moody Lake (C)
Eagle Lake (B)
Maynard Lake (C)
Whippoorwill Lake (C)
Watt Lake (B)
Steele Creek (C)
Beaverdam Creek (C)
Legion Lake (C)
Shoaf Lake (C)
Little Paw Creek (C)
Danga Lake (C)
Paw Creek (C)
Ticer Branch (C)
Class WS-I: Waters protected as water supplies which are natural and uninhabited or predominantly
undeveloped (not urbanized) watersheds; no point source discharges are permitted and
local land management programs to control non-point source pollution are required;
suitable for all Class C uses.
Class WS-II: Waters protected as water supplies which are low to moderately developed (urbanized)
watersheds; discharges are restricted to primarily domestic wastewater or industrial non-
processed waters specifically approved by the commission; local land management
programs to control non-point source pollution are required; suitable for all Class C uses.
' Class WS-III: Water supply segment with no categorical restrictions on watershed development or
discharges; suitable for all Class C uses.
' Class B: Suitable for swimming, primary recreation, and all Class C uses.
Class C. Suitable for secondary recreation and fish propagation.
Primary recreation includes such uses as swimming, skin diving, or skiing. Secondary recreation includes
such activities as boating, wading or fishing, or primary recreation uses when they occur on an infrequent or
incidental basis.
Source: EHNR - Division of Environmental Management

III-19

6.
Floodplains
Mecklenburg County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. Boundaries of
the 100-year floodplain are shown in Figure III-9, as determined from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Some of the larger floodplains in the study
area include Coffey Creek, Steele Creek, Beaverdam Creek, Little Paw Creek, Paw Creek, Tiger
Branch, and Long Creek.
7.
Vegetation and Wildlife
The biotic communities which have evolved within the Mecklenburg County study area are
products of various biophysical factors working over a period of time. These factors include
climate, soils, topography, and disturbance associated with human activities. The most profound
of these factors influencing the landscape has been the degree of disturbance associated with
human activities.
Biotic communities supported in this area are named for the plants dominant in the highest
stratum. These vegetation units are shown on the Biotic Communities Map. (See Appendix A-
4.) The following map units have been defined:
Evergreen Hardwood Forest (EHF)
Mixed Evergreen Hardwood (MEH)
Oak Hardwood Forest (OHF)
Hardwood Swamp Bottomland (HSB)
Pine Plantation (PP)
Open Water (OW)
Agriculture (AG)
Old Field (OF)
Cleared Land (CL)
Man Dominated (MD)
A detailed explanation of these biotic communities and their plant species components follows.
Appendix A-2 lists the animal species likely to be associated with the biotic communities
within the West Charlotte Outer Loop study area. It should be noted that Mecklenburg County
is located on the eastern edge of the Piedmont, where several species reach their easternmost or
westernmost distribution limits.
Of the fish species listed in Appendix A-2, eight are considered gamefish: longnose gar, chain
III-20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
STREAMS, LAKES AND FLOODPLAINS
FIGURE
H_g 11 I
111
GRAPHIC SCALE PAEFEIMALTEiNMYE
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000
(IN FEET)

pickerel, redbreast sunfish, bluegill, largemouth bass, green sunfish, channel catfish, and brown
' bullhead. No commercial fishing occurs in the study area. Sport fishing is limited in the area,
owing to the small size and restricted access to the creeks and streams. Lake Wylie does
support considerable sport fishing. Eagle Lake is known for outstanding fishing, however, access
is limited to residents of the Eagle Lake Community and their guests. On other streams, fishing
is limited to occasional small pools.
' a. Evergreen Hardwood Forest CM

L?

Evergreen hardwood forests within the study area have canopies (highest forest strata)
yielding greater than fifty percent evergreen species. Typically, evergreen species dominate
the canopy and include species such a shortleaf pine (Sinus echinata), Virginia pine (Pines
virdmiana), and red cedar (Juni rp us virginiana). Hardwoods associated in the canopy are
of a successional stage, the most common being white oak (Quercus alba). White oak
grows throughout all the upland hardwood stands within the project area. This species is
able to adjust well to a wide variety of ecological conditions. Only in flats where
accumulation of alluvial soils becomes important does white oak fail to be a canopy
dominant. Other examples of canopy species are willow oak ( uercus phellos), blackjack
oak (Ouercus marilandica), sweet gum (Li uidambar stvraciflua), American elm (Ulmus
americana), and American ash (Fraxinus sp.). This community is dependent upon
topography and generally supports the most xeric forest type.
The subcanopy characteristically contains, in addition to immature individuals of the
canopy species, species which do not usually grow to the full height of the canopy. These
species are flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), black cherry (Prunus serontina), and
American holly lex o a ).
Diversity of shrub and herb species is below that of more mesic communities. Typical
shrub species are low bush blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), high bush blueberry V ' ' m
atrococcum), wild strawberry (Fra aria sv.), blackberry (Rubus alleeheniensisand
spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata).
b. Mixed Evergreen and Hardwood Forest OOH)
The mixed evergreen hardwood community is characterized by approximately half of the
canopy species dominated by pines and half dominated by hardwoods. Small areas within
the mapping unit may have a predominance of pines or hardwoods which are grouped in
this category.
1II-21

Pines include shortleaf pine, Virginia pine or scrub pine, and red cedar. Hardwoods
include sweet gum, red maple, American ash, red oak (Ouercus rubra), and southern red
oak (O. falcate).
The subcanopy usually contains saplings or seedlings of canopy hardwoods. Pines are
usually not found in these areas because the low light conditions associated with dense
hardwood canopy prohibit pine regeneration. Other subcanopy species include black
cherry, slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), winged elm , . slate), wild azalia (Rhododendron
nudiflorum), American holly, and silverberry (Elaeaanus umbellata).
Woody vines common in the understory include Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinguefolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and trumpet vine (C=2sis radicans).
In areas associated with more mesic conditions, wild ginger (Asarum su,) and blood root
(Sanguinaria candadensis) occur with other herbaceous and woody species.
C. Oak Hardwood Forests (OHF)
The oak hardwood forest canopy is dominated by broad-leaf, deciduous species. Species
dominance is dependent upon slope, location, and exposure, which varies between stands,
although species content is similar. Canopy species may include oaks such as white oak,
willow oak, southern red oak, blackjack oak, and northern red oak, and hickories such as
mockernut, sweet pignut hickory (C. ovalis), and pignut hickory (C. g abra). Other tree
species that may be present include tulip poplar, red maple, and an occasional pine where
either remnants of previous successional stages or breaks in the canopy have occurred.
Understory species include dogwood, black cherry, slippery elm, silverberry, and blueberry.
Vines may include Virginia creeper, poison ivy, wild grape, and greenbriar mil c ).
Herbaceous species are more numerous in the moister hardwood forests and may include
blood root, hepatica (Hepatica americana), and shield ferns (Thelypterus V,). Drier
forests are more sparse and may include blueberry.
d. -Aah wood Swamp Bottomland (HSB,?
Hardwood Swamp Bottomland developed in sediments along lowlands or flats associated
with drainage systems in Mecklenburg County. Sedimentation deposition results from
recurring flooding and accumulates adjacent to mainstream bodies providing substrate for
alluvial forests. The best developed alluvial forests occur in areas of least disturbance and
III-22

in wide floodplain terrain. Steep topography limits the width of the floodplain along all
' the creek and river systems in the study area.
Mature alluvial forests have less diversity than younger forests and the canopies may be
' composed of box elder (Ater negundo), river birch etula Wag), and hackberry (Celtis
occidentalis). The subcanopies are typically poorly developed.

u
Many of the forests in the study area are immature forests in various successional stages
and include sweetgum, blackgum MWntica), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red
maple, American elm, and swamp cottonwood WQRWus hetaDghylla). The understory is
sparse with occasional saplings of canopy species. Common understory shrubs include
alder (Alms semilata), pawpaw (&imina triloba), American holly, and flowering
dogwood.
Woody vines are prominent in some forests along water courses and may include poison
ivy, Virginia creeper, blackberry, and wild grape i i ). Herbs may include false
nettle (Boehmeria gylindrica), rattlesnake fern (Botryshium vir¢inianum), and many
ephemeral species in spring.
Hardwood swamp bottomlands integrate gradually with forests of river flats and may have
the same species. River flats occur along smaller drainage basins with seasonal flow and
less flooding than floodplains.
Slopes adjacent to rivers or creek systems have forests with similar species composition.
Species composition is related to topography, deposition of sediments, recency of flooding,
soil fertility, and moisture content. Species composition may include mockernut hickory
(fie tomentosa), blackgum, red oak, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and
American beech (Fergus grandiflora). Subcanopy includes flowering dogwood, redbud
(Cercis canadensis), mountain laurel %Wmia latifolia), and may include blueberry.
e. Pine Plantation (PP)
Pine plantations occur predominantly in the Lake Wylie area. Planted pines include
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and shortleaf pine. Sweet gum, red maple, wild cherry, and
other tree and shrub species may grow in association with the pine plantations when the
understory has not been cleared after establishment of the plantation.
L Onen Water (M
III-23

Lakes, ponds, and streams large enough to be distinguished by the 1"=400' aerial photos
are considered open water. Vegetation existing on the borders of the open water areas
are included in the descriptions of the biotic community adjacent to the open water.
Floating aquatics such as pondweed (PotomW&ton =) may exist in open water areas.
g. Agriculture (AG)
Areas currently in use for crop production are considered agriculture. These areas are
specifically maintained for agriculture and may be planted in row crops such as rye (Jecale
cereale) and corn (Zea mom).
h. Old Field (OF)
Fields that may have been in agriculture, used for pasture, or other landscape usage, which
have been allowed to revert to largely native vegetation are termed old field. These areas
contain a wide variety of plant species because of variation in soil type and moisture,
topography, nature of previous land use, and length of time since abandonment.
Species in old field may include ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), broomsedge
(AndroRW4n s,), blackberries (Rubes M), plantain (Plantagg virginica), pepper grass
(Lepidium virginicum), and pigweed (Chenopodium album).
i. Cleared Land (CL1
Areas that have been clearcut for harvest, or cleared for agriculture or silviculture are
designated as cleared. Areas planted in pasture grass or maintained by mowing are
included in the man-dominated category.
j. Man-Dominated (MD)
Mapping units designated as man-dominated include residential, commercial, and
industrial buildings. Pastures and large areas that are planted in pasture grass or
maintained by mowing practices are included in this category, as are small gardens and
nurseries.
Power lines, water lines, gas lines, and other utility corridors and structures are included
where they are maintained and are obvious on the aerials. Vegetation is variable because
III-24

of the many habitats encountered within these corridors. Maintenance practices control
and limit establishment of large woody species with vegetation most closely resembling old
field habitat.
8. Protected Species
' Two North Carolina laws -- The Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979 and the
Endangered Species Act of 1987 and one Federal law -- the 1973 Endangered Species Act, as
amended 1978 (50 CFR, Part 17, 1985) were reviewed for consistency with project activities and
' procedures.
' A complete literature survey was conducted for protected species which could potentially occur
within the project study corridor. The literature survey was performed in coordination with the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), the North Carolina State Museum of
Natural Sciences, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and the U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Additional field surveys were conducted
' during the week of April 18-23, 1989. Endangered or threatened species or species of special
concern potentially occurring in the study area are listed in Appendix A-1.
Federally-Listed Species -- The project study area is within the historical ranges of five animal
species listed by the U.S. Department of the Interior as endangered or threatened. Two of the
species, the eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar) and Bachman's warbler rmivor
achm ") are probably extirpated from North Carolina. They would, therefore, not be
impacted by the construction alternatives. Three of the species, Kirtland's warbler D ndroi
' kir Ian " ), Arctic peregrine falcon (F co pgre¢rinus tundris), and the Southern bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occur in the area only as migrants or wanderers. Since breeding
habitats have not been observed to occur within the study area, there would be little potential
for impacts to these species.
' One federally listed endangered plant species has been recorded within the project study area:
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as
' an endangered species. It is a perennial that blooms in September and October. The plant's
range is limited to seven counties in the southern piedmont region of North Carolina. An
upland plant, it is found along roadsides, woods, and pastures. There are three recorded
occurrences of Schweinitz's sunflower in Mecklenburg County: 1) Beatties Ford Roadside site;
2) Jar Creek Sunflower site, and 3) Jar Creek Schweinitz's Sunflower site. All three of these
' sites are privately owned. E.M. Puckett, the owner of the Jar Creek site, has signed a formal
management agreement with the state. These sites were last observed in 1990. The above sites
III-25

are north of the project study area, and no Schweinitz's sunflowers were observed to occur in the
project corridors.
State-Listed Species -- The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has listed two additional
animal species that could potentially occur within the project corridor. The known locations of
occurence for these species were outside the project area (See Appendix A-1.) Their potential
for involvement within the project alternatives is discussed below.
The Carolina Darter (Etheostma collis) is listed as a species of special concern by the NCNHP.
It has been observed near Huntersville in northern Mecklenburg County, in the vicinity of the
junction of Cane Creek and the south prong of Clark Creek, and in the lower part of Remah
Creek near the Mecklenburg-Cabarrus County line.
The Santee chub (Hybpsis zanema) has also been observed in Mecklenburg County vicinity and
recorded by NCNHP. The approximate location was in McDowell Creek between OS and 1.0
mile north of SR 2136.
No observations of these species in the project corridor have been documented. They also were
not observed during the field reconnaissance. The potential to impact these species is
considered minimal.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) is listed as endangered by the State of North
Carolina as well as being federally-listed.
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) is listed as. threatened by the State of North Carolina. It is
dioecious, colonial shrub which inhabits woodlands in the piedmont region of North Carolina. It
is believed to be parasitic on the roots of pines. It was last observed in Mecklenburg County in
1967 in mixed forests, northeast of Channel 9 TV Tower, Plaza Road extension. The 1967
record site is not within the project corridors, and no individuals were observed during the
project area field survey.
These and other plants that could potentially occur within the project area are listed by NCNHP
in Appendix A-1 as species of special concern or rare. The likelihood of their occurrence in the
project corridor is noted on the table. None of the above species were observed during the
project area field survey.
III-26

9. Wetlands

a. Wetland Community Types
Wetlands are defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as "those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Federal Register, 1977). The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Cowardin et. al., 1979) defined wetlands as "lands
transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or
near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water." In accordance with USFWS
classification, a wetland must have one of the following characteristics: (1) at least
periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes, (2) the substrate is
predominantly undrained hydric soils, and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated
with water or covered by shallow water sometime during the growing season of each year.
' The wetland communities described and mapped in this study (Appendix A-4) meet all of
the following criteria used in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland jurisdictional
determinations: (a) a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, (b) hydric soils, and (c) the
' appropriate hydrologic conditions (areas are inundated either permanently or periodically).
The following wetland categories were identified within the proposed alignment corridors:
' Hardwood Swamp Bottomland (HSB) and Open Waterr,(OW). These categories are
described under the Vegetation and Wildlife section of this study (see M.C.6).
' b. Wetland Concerns
Wetlands are of special concern in environmental impact studies. They are considered
uniquely sensitive habitats due to such functional values as providing breeding, nursery,
and feeding grounds for many species of fish and wildlife. They also provide recreation,
flood protection, and pollution control functions. The aesthetic, recreational, and
ecological values of wetlands are protected by Federal and State agency regulations.
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), now referred to as the
Clean Water Act, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to regulate the disposal of
dredged or fill material into the "waters of the United States," which includes the wetlands
within the project alignments. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also reviews
' wetland issues under the authority of Section 404.
III-27

C. Wetland Quality
The quality of the wetlands within the project corridor depends on their value and function '
as wildlife habitat, soils, hydrology, and vegetation. The greater the degree of alteration to
wetlands from normal or historic conditions, the less their contribution as fish and wildlife '
habitat, flood control, groundwater recharge, and filtering of pollutants.
While functional wetland values may be attributed to both of the wetland communities
described, the hardwood swamp bottomland community is generally considered the most
valuable. As a result of specific soil development, hydrologic regimes, and successional '
processes, the greatest diversity in constituency and strata is observed in bottomland
hardwoods associated with natural drainage courses. The --hWest 'quality bottomland
hardwood- wetland communities =include. areas along Beaverdam Creek andlMft P`A'W
`"Creek.
LL
Open water communities, while sensitive to development, lack the diversity of hardwood
swamp bottomland communities. One,comtunity-that is considered outstanding open -
water wetland habitat is Eagle Lake
10. Prime. Unique. and Important Farmlands
Farmland can be described as prime farmland, unique farmland, state and locally important ,
farmland, or other farmland. The United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service describes these three categories as follows:
a. Prime Farmland
These soils are best suited for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. They
have good qualities, are favorable for all major crops common to the county, have a
favorable growing season, and receive the available moisture needed to produce high yields '
on an average of 8 out of every 10 years.
b. Unique Farmland '
These soils are designated as unique based on an arbitrary factor, such as type of crop ,
grown.
C. State and Locally Important Farmland
III-28 ,

' These soils have either seasonal wetness, erosion, or droughtiness that limits their
suitability for some crops. Crops that are adapted to wet or droughty conditions, or if
erosion is controlled, produce moderate to high yields if treated and managed according to
modem farming methods.
' d. Other Farmland
These soils are generally not suited to crop production without applying extensive
management. Some of these lands are in urban and built-up areas.
' Of 337,920 acres of land area in Mecklenburg County, 36,292 acres are prime farmland
and 194,025 acres are state or locally important farmland. No farmland has been
' designated as unique in Mecklenburg County. Table III-7 indicates how farmland is used
in Mecklenburg County. Figure III-10 shows prime farmland in the study area.
i

TABLE III-7
FARMLAND IN MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Use Acres
Farmland
Cropland
Harvested Cropland
33,929
20,382
11,913
Source: 1987 U.S. Agricultural Census, N.C. Department of Agriculture

1

11. Ambient Air Ouali
ty
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established ambient air quality standards
for six pollutants. These pollutants are particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. Monitoring of these pollutants, except lead, is done
statewide by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management and four local agencies.
Table III-9 is a summary of the National and North Carolina air quality standards. When these
standards are exceeded as outlined, an area is labeled as non-attainment for that pollutant.
Mecklenburg County is classified as non-attainment for carbon monoxide and ozone and is
subject to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). This plan is required by 42 U.S.C. 1857
(Section 110 of the Clean Air Act of 1970) to attain and maintain a national ambient air quality
standard. The ambient concentration of carbon monoxide in the vicinity of this project is
estimated to be 3.0 parts per million (ppm), based on information obtained from the
Mecklenburg County Environmental Protection Department.
III-29
0
TABLE III-8
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL AND NORTH CAROLINA
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
National National North
Primary Secondary Carolina
Pollutant Time of Averaee Standard Standard Standard
TSP° Ann. Geometric 75 U8/m3 None 75 ug/m3
Mean - 24 hr 260 Ug/m3 150 ug/m3 150 ug/m3
PM-10 Ann. Arithmetic 50 US/m3 Same as prim. a
Mean - 24 hr°,c LSO ug/m3 Same as prim. a
SO2 Ann. Arithmetic 80 Ug/m3 None 80 ug/m3
Mean - 24 hrb 365 Ug/m3 None 365 Ug/m3
3 hourb None 1,300 ug/m3 1,300 ug/m3
NO2 Ann. Arithmetic 100 Ug/m3 Same as prim. 100 Ug/m3
Mean
CO 8 hourb 9 ppm None 9 ppm
1 hourb 35 ppm None 35 ppm
03 1 hour` 0.12 ppm Same as prim. 0.12 ppm
Pb Quarterly
Arithmetic Meanb 1.5 ug/m3 Same as prim. 1.5 ug/m3
a. The National Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) standards were replaced by a National Particulate
Matter-10 micrometer, aerodynamic diameter, (PM-10) standards on 7-1-87 by EPA. The North
Carolina adoption of a State PM-10 standard is pending.
b. Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
C. Not to be exceeded on more than an average of one day per year.
Ug/m3 - Micrograms per cubic meter of air
mg/m3 - Milligrams per cubic meter of air
ppm - Parts per million
Microgram - one millionth of a gram, where 454 grams = 1 pound
Source: Ambient Air Quality. 1986, NRCD, Division of Environmental Management, Air
Quality Section.
111-30
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
.l'
GRAPHIC SCALE
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000
(IN FEET)
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
PRIME FARMLAND
FIGURE
III-10

J

J

L
1
1

i

r
I
u

L
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

CHAPTER IV
' ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter presents the probable social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed action for the
' alternatives selected for more detailed study. Direct and indirect (secondary) environmental consequences of
these alternatives are presented. The environmental consequences have been divided into the following sub-
sections:
A. URBAN AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS
The proposed action will provide improved transportation service to the study area and is compatible
' with the proposed land uses for this area. The proposed highway facility would reduce travel time,
particularly for work trips to and from this area. Travel time for travel through the urban area would
also be reduced, particularly travel between I-85 west and I-77 south. The type of development
' encouraged by the airport and the proposed highway facility will provide improved employment
opportunities and significantly reduce travel times and connecting distances to work.
Permanent impacts on the study corridor, such as air quality, noise, business and residential
relocations, visual and other effects which would result from the project are discussed in detail in their
respective sections of this report.
' The proposed action would have positive local economic impacts, primarily in the form of effects on
land values. Properties will likely increase in value where access is provided, especially in areas near
the Arrowood Extension and the airport, as the highway facility will improve accessibility for existing
and future commercial and industrial activities. This should positively impact the tax base and
generally provide increased revenues for the local government as well as provide additional job
opportunities for citizens located in the region surrounding Charlotte.
1. Impact on Communities
The middle (preferred) alignment bisects the Steele Creek rural community (including the
' Paragon Drive and Trojan Drive/Gold Medal Circle subdivisions) and some sparsely developed
areas along Garrison Road (see Figures 11-2, III-4). It also impacts residential communities
' along Walkers Ferry Road and Old Dowd Road, has a severe impact on the new trailer park on
Tuckaseegee Road, and impacts the Moores Chapel Road community near Rhyne Road. The
northern extension of this alignment would severely impact development on Woodlea Road
north of Mt. Holly Road.
1 W-1

The east alignment would bisect the Steeleberry Acres community. The west alignment would
avoid most of the development in the southern portion of the study area but would be a major
impact on the Windy Grove Road area near Berryhill Elementary School and on lakefront
residential development along Paw Creek Cove. The western interchange at I-85 would impact
residential and industrial development on Moores Chapel Road and its vicinity, as well as cut off
Moores Chapel Road itself. The severing of Moores Chapel Road would require local travel
across I-85 to use Wilkinson Boulevard and Sam Wilson Road, a diversion of at least one mile.
Access to schools or public facilities would not be affected. The primary effect would be on
residences south of I-85 and businesses north of I-85. The northern terminus would severely
impact the community along NC 27 near Mt. Holly-Hunterville Road.
Crossover EWI would have relatively little impact on residential communities. EW2 would have
a major impact on residential development along and north of Walkers Ferry Road and in the
Paw Creek Cove area. The Duke Power training center would also be severely impacted by this
alignment. Crossover EW3 would have an impact on residential development on Sam Wilson
Road and on Hawfield Road.
The preferred alternative would have minor impacts on Title VI groups. The only concentration
of elderly persons is the rest home on Wilkinson Boulevard, which will not be taken by the
proposed action. There are no known concentrations of handicapped persons in the study area.
The Garrison Road and Dixie River Road areas contain concentrations of minorities. Although
the proposed action affects the edges of these communities, there will be minimal impact on
community cohesion. The Rhyne Station Road area contains the largest concentrations of
minorities in the study area. Although the proposed action will be disruptive to that community,
there will be only a moderate impact on community cohesion. The road will affect one edge of
the community and will not take any businesses or institutions. Consideration will be given in
the design phase to keeping existing Moores Chapel Road open.
2.
Land-Use Impact
All alternatives would have major land-use impacts. The most evident impact would be an
increase in the rate of development in western Mecklenburg County, particularly around
interchanges. The east alignment is most compatible with the 2005 Generalized Land Plan (see
Figure III-5) and is closest to the alignment shown there. The middle (preferred) alignment
follows the same corridor near and north of the airport, while the west alternative differs the
most from that shown in the plan. The Outer Loop would, likely spur nonresidential
development near York Road and Arrowood Road, near the airport (especially for the
eastern/middle corridor), at Wilkinson Boulevard, and at Mt. Holly Road. Residential
IV-2

development would be more likely along Steele Creek Road, in the western part of the study
' area, and north of I-85.
The west alignment could tend to attract non-residential uses farther to the west of the airport
' than desired by local planners. Although the 2005 Generalized Land Plan shows all rural
residential use west of the airport, local planners have discussed the land east of the Outer Loop
' for developing with airport-related industrial and warehouse uses, and the land to the west
reserved for residential development.
B. NATURAL AND PHYSICAL IMPACTS
' 1. Air Ouali
Air pollution may result from industrial emissions and emissions from internal combustion
' engines. The impacts resulting from highway construction or improvement can range from
aggravating existing air pollution problems to improving air quality. Carbon monoxide (CO),
hydrocarbons (HC), and nitrogen (NO,) are produced by the combustion of fuel in diesel and
gasoline engines. Small amounts of lead, sulfur dioxide, and particulates are also emitted by
motor vehicles. High concentrations of these pollutants can have adverse health effects.
Carbon monoxide is a major contributor to air pollution resulting from motor vehicles. High
ambient CO concentrations are known to occur immediately adjacent to heavily traveled freeway
routes. Carbon monoxide in high concentrations can have severe health effects. Because CO is
a non-reactive pollutant, it is easily modeled on a microscale, as required by the Federal
Highway Administration. Hydrocarbon emissions originate from fuel tanks and as a byproduct
of internal combustion engines. The action of sunlight on atmospheric emissions may lead to
' the formation of photochemical oxidants such as ozone.
The maximum one-hour background carbon monoxide concentration for the project area was
estimated to be 3.0 parts per million (ppm) by the Air Quality Section of the Mecklenburg
County Environmental Protection Department.

fl
IV-3

The effect of the proposed project on ambient air quality was estimated using the CALINE3
computer model and emission factors computed from the MOBILES computer model.
MOBILE3 considers such factors as forecast year, vehicle mix, vehicle speed,
inspection/maintenance programs, temperature, and percent hot and cold starts to project
emission factors in grams per mile for various roadway segments. These emission factors are
then input to the CAI INE3 program, which considers traffic volume, roadway geometry, and
atmospheric conditions to project concentrations of CO or other pollutants on a microscale
basis.
MOBILES input parameters included:
Region: Low altitude (500 feet)
Inspeetion/Maintenance Program, beginning 1983, covering light duty gasoline
Model years (vehicles) 1997-2010
Ambient temperature 30.7°F (mean temperature of coldest month)
Vehicle speed: 55 MPH on freeway
35 MPH on arterial
All free-flow conditions
Vehicle mix (MOBILE3 default)
60.4% autos (gasoline)
9% light trucks (gasoline)
9% medium trucks (gasoline)
4.1% heavy trucks (gasoline)
7.8% autos (diesel)
4.6% medium trucks (diesel)
4.4% heavy trucks (diesel)
0.7% motorcycles
CALINE3 input parameters included:
Atmospheric Stability class = F
Wind speed = 1 meter/second
Wind direction = 10° increments (0°-350°)
Settling velocity = 0
Deposition velocity = 0
Surface roughness = 10 cm
Averaging time = 60 min.
Receptor height = 1.6 m
Traffic speed - 55 MPH on freeway
35 MPH on arterial
(free flow conditions)
Traffic volumes = design hour volumes, year 2010
vehicles
This procedure was applied with year 2010 projected volumes at four locations: interchanges
with I-85 (east and west alignments) and with Steele Creek Road (east and middle alignments).
The major roads (I-85, Steele Creek Road, and Outer Loop) were modeled for each location
1V-4

1
1

0

with year 2010 design hour traffic. These locations were judged to be worst-case locations due
to heavy traffic volumes at I-85 and nearby residential use compared with relatively high traffic
volumes at Steele Creek Road. Worst case conditions were used to assign the parameter values
for the two models. One receptor was selected in each interchange quadrant, for a total of 16
receptors. The receptors actually used were either the closest structure to each quadrant of the
interchange or, if no structure existed, the right-of-way line.
Based on the above conditions, the maximum one-hour carbon monoxide concentration is 53
parts per million, as shown in Table IV-1. Comparison of the predicted carbon monoxide
concentrations with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (maximum 1 hour = 35 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the maximum one-hour concentration does not
exceed the eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm, no eight-hour analysis was required since there is no
exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality standards.
The project is located within the Metropolitan-Charlotte Interstate Air Quality Control Region.
This project is also in an air quality non-attainment area which currently requires adherence to
transportation control measures in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 19, 1981. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has determined that both the transportation plan and the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) conform to the SIP. The FHWA has determined
that this project is included in the TIP for the Charlotte-Metropolitan Planning area. Therefore,
pursuant to 23 CFR 770, this project conforms to the SIP.
IV-5
I
TABLE IV -1
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATION
Maximum 1 Hour
CO Concentration*
Location Receptor Numbe r Descri tp ion (Parts Per Million)
Outer Loop at 121 House 33
I-85 (East) 121 SW ROW 33
(Preferred) 121 NW ROW 3.3
121 NE ROW 3.4
Outer Loop at 409 House 3.8
I-85 (West) 418 Business 5.1
425 House 3.6
432 Business 3.6
Outer Loop at 51 House 43
NC 160 (East) 53 House 4.1
53 NW ROW 4.1
53 SW ROW 3.6
Outer Loop at 222 House 4.1
NC 160 (Middle) 231 House 53
(Preferred) 236 House 4.0
239 House 3.7
ROW = Receptor taken at righ t-of-way; no nearby structures
* = Includes background CO
a. Hydrocarbon Emissions Inventory.
Because Mecklenburg County has been designated as a non-attainment area for ozone
whose formation is affected by hydrocarbons (HC), a hydrocarbon emissions inventory has
been performed for the four project alternatives. The inventory required vehicle speeds,
link distances, and projected 2010 traffic volumes throughout the study area. Speed-
dependent emission factors obtained from MOBILE3 were used to compute the quantity
of HC emitted into the atmosphere for each alternative. As shown in Table IV-2, the
proposed action would reduce study area HC emissions by 52 tons per year over the No-
Build alternative.
TABLE IV -2
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Year 2010 HC Emissions
Alternative
No-Build
East
Middle (preferred)
West
TonsMar
1,414.4
1,354.1
1,362.0
1,3285
IV-6

During construction of the proposed project, all material resulting from clearing and grubbing,
demolition, or other operations will be removed from the project, buried, or otherwise disposed
of by the contractor. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
' accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D. 0520.
Measures will be taken to control the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is
necessary for the protection, safety, and comfort of motorists and nearby residents. This will be
accomplished through the use of water trucks as directed by the Engineer.
2?
The probable traffic noise impacts associated with this project were evaluated in accordance with
the procedures and provisions of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Procedures for
Abatement of HighwU Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. The existing noise levels were
measured along the project and predictions of design year (2010) peak-hour traffic noise levels
and aircraft noise levels for receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project were made. The
noise analyses are documented in a technical memorandum prepared by Kimley-Hom and
Associates, Inc., dated June 21, 1989. The document is available at the North Carolina
Department of Transportation.
Equivalent Sound Levels (L.eq) for traffic were computed using the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure (STAMINA 2.0/OPTIMA).
By definition, the Leq 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.
' The noise environment around an airport is typically described using a measure of the
cumulative noise exposure that results from the collection of noise data from individual events,
in this case aircraft operations. The metric used to account for this noise is referred to as the
Day-Night Level, abbreviated as Ldn. In general, Ldn may be thought of as an accumulation of
all of the noise produced by individual events that occur throughout a 24-hour period. The noise
of each event is accounted for by a noise metric that integrates the changing sound level over
time. This fluctuation is observed when an aircraft approaches, flies overhead, then continues
' off into the distance. These integrated sound levels for individual events are referred to as
Sound Exposure Levels, or SELs. The accumulation of the SELs from each operation during a

IV-7
1
24-hour period determines the Ldn for that day.
Typical sound levels of common indoor and outdoor sources are shown in Table IV-3.
Illustrated sound levels range from the threshold of hearing at SdBA to a jet takeoff at 120 dBA.
Typical urban sound levels range from 50 dBA to 80dBA.
TABLE I V-3
TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS
Source Distance Sound Level ldM
Jet Takeoff 200 ft. 120
Jet Landing 200 ft. 100
Gas Lawnmower 3 ft. 94
Diesel Truck 50 ft. 88
Noisy Urban Daytime ---------- 80
Gas Lawnmower 100 ft. 72
Heavy Traffic 300 ft. 60
Vacuum Cleaner 10 ft. 68
Normal Speech 3 ft. 64
Quiet Urban Daytime ----------- 50
Quiet Urban Nighttime ----------- 40
Threshold of Hearing ----------- 5
The FHWA has established noise abatement criteria based on the activity category of a land
use. These criteria, which are listed in Table IV-4, are considered to be the absolute levels
where abatement must be considered. The Category A criterion applies to tracts of land for
which the preservation of serenity and quiet are of paramount importance. The Category B
criterion is an . exterior condition applied to schools, churches, residences, parks, and in some
cases to institutional land uses. The Category C criterion is also an exterior condition applied to
commercial and industrial activities. The Category E criterion is an interior condition which
applies to noise sensitive activities such as in schools, churches, and hospitals. The area affected
by this project consists primarily of Categories B, C, and E.
IV-8

TABLE IV-4
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level » Decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Lea(h) Description of Activity Catep
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
(Exterior) significance and serve an important public need and where the
preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue
to serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports
(Exterior) areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
(Exterior) Categories A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, auditoriums.
Field measurements made at 29 locations along the project using a CEL 493 Type I Precision
Integrating Impulse Sound Level Meter helped determine existing ambient noise levels for
receptors. Ambient noise emanates from natural and mechanical sources considered to be
' present in a particular area. By quantifying the existing acoustic environment, the impact of
noise levels from the project for residences, churches, businesses, and other noise-sensitive
receptors can be assessed. The ambient noise monitoring locations and associated noise levels
are listed in Table IV-5 and shown in Figure IV-1. These measurements include aircraft activity
at Charlotte-Douglas International Airport as well as other usual background noise.
Future highway noise levels at various distances from the proposed highway were estimated
using the FHWA computer program STAMINA 2.0. Input parameters for STAMINA included
the following.
o projected 2010 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for "build" alternatives (see Figures II-
5A, B, C)
0 10 percent of ADT during peak hour, 60/40 directional split for autos
0 9 percent heavy trucks, 6 percent medium trucks (percent of total ADT)
k
f
li
0 s
or truc
t
4.2 percent of ADT during peak hour, 50/50 directional sp
o all traffic in outer lane for each direction
o high traffic volume on receptor side
o level, straight section on freeway
' 0 55 MPH operating speed (free flow)
o soft surface attenuation
IV-9

TABLE IV-5
EXISTING AMBIENT AND PROJECTED 2010 NOISE LEVELS
Location
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Distance
from Existing Projected 2010
Descrintion Road t. ?eq ABA L ea dBA• by Corridor
Holly Road west of Woodlea Road 50 66 ROW(E&M)
Mt. Holly Road east of Bellmeade Road 50 68 69(W)
Bellmeade Road (background) 50 60 62(W),65(EW-3)
Moores Chapel Road east of Rhyne Road 50 63 64(E&M)
Moores Chapel Road at intersection of
Sam Wilson Road 50 64 65(EW-3)
Wildlife Road (background) 50 55 60(E&M)
Moores Chapel Road south of Harbor Lane 50 63 ••
I-85 from Performance Road 50 63 ••
Starnes Road (background) s0 59 ••
Wilkinson Boulevard near Country Manor 50 76 76(E)
Amos Smith Road (background) 50 56 56(EW-2)
Old Dowd Road west of Freeman Drive 50 64 ROW(S),
ROW(EW-I)
Freedom Drive (background) 50 65 65(E),65(EW-1)
Walkers Ferry Road near Galaxie Road 50 58 59(EW-1)
(background)
Walkers Ferry Road at Berryhill
Elementary School so 56 Sam
Mt. Olive Church Road near Church s0 57 65(EW-1)
Dixie River Road east of Mt. Olive
Church Road 50 59 ROW(E),67(M),
60(EW-2)
Dixie River Road - west section
(background) 50 46 55(W)
Dixie River Road west of Robbie Circle
(background) 50 54 68(M)
Steele Creek Road south of Byrum Drive 50 68 ROW(E)
Garrison Road (background) 50 41 64(M)
Douglas Drive east of Steeleberry Drive 50 63 68(E)
Shopton Road near Church 50 71 73(E)
Steele Creek Road east of Shopton Road
west 50 63 ROW(W)
Brown-Grier Road west of Sandy Porter
Road so 57 62(W)
Sandy Porter Road at Olympic High
School 50 63 66(E),66(M)
Sandy Porter Road south of Taragate
Drive 50 60 64(W)
York Road near Robert Control 50 68 68(E&M)
Behind Royal Life Insurance Building 50 54 57(common)
• Includes projected aircraft noise
'• Greater than 2,000 feet away from any alternatives; negligible influence on future noise levels
Note: Background locations are those located away from major thoroughfares and as such have only minor influence from
traffic noise. These locations provide a baseline noise level for other locations away from major noise influences.
Because of the proximity of the corridor to Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (CLT),
future aircraft noise was also considered. An update of the year 2005 Ldn noise exposure
contours at CLT by others was undertaken in 1989. Since accurate forecasts further into the
future do not exist, the year 2005 noise exposure contours were used as a basis for this study.
During the period 1988 to 2005, annual jet aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) are
projected to increase from 212,000 to 300,500. Because of quieter aircraft that will be
introduced during this period, aircraft noise will not increase proportionally.
IV-10
a
i
s
i
r
i
i
??rpry ?i
?.....
? ,TY ?..? W ? UpO r
M` CKtChiBl1?C C{;I}^ f Y
W4 Pp
Q ny p?FR
e
UDC 0 IB W g <, N, I I a? `? \/yF r
°T 15
v
Sq
fisT ?Or? .`??
C W ESL
SI, 4 ?IL 29 (Sp f
6 kg?S :Dpi 14 ?? AO?? 5 F???p90
10o p
C?E?EK ?;)qC o24 > M2 21 2
17
13' ?? µ9PG? TIE TO PROPOSED
O E5 ???'i NORTHERN OUTER LOOP
49 09 a. I
z 25 NEE 4
c _ 7
26
0:
270 C1?iF",? _ !L°}n r
6 u m
s P OC?_f'
7?t4i EI E 2 22 i! At7_G,A
G0 G G a fl-%
AIRPORT.
2 c1?e??' u a ;LE ROCK ROAD
J
029
21
? 521
77 BILLY GR AM ; VVY
z
TIE TO
PROPOSED LEGEND
SOUTHERN
OUTER LOOP
0 NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS
}
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
NA?IONS
Pp
q0
21
77
GRAPHIC SCALE
5000 0 2500 5000 10000 20000
(IN FEET)
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS
FIGURE
=-

The procedures used for highway noise analyses and aircraft noise analyses are analogous.
Highway noise analysis is undertaken using the peak-hour or one-hour equivalent (Lec) noise
level. The highway peak/design hour is the peak one-hour period occurring between 4:00 PM
and 6:00 PM. At CLT, this one-hour peak corresponds to a complex (or peak-hour) by US Air,
and accounts for approximately 10 percent of the daily. airport operations.
The computer program NOISEMAP 5.2, developed under contract to the U.S. Air Force, was
used in the preparation of the Ldn noise levels for CLT. This program computes Ldn values at
individual grid points around the facility using the aircraft noise data, aircraft climb profiles, and
airport geometry (runway layout and flight track locations). Development of noise exposure
levels for CLT requires detailed knowledge of the operations that generate noise at the airport.
Required information included:
o Number of operations per day by aircraft type;
L o Estimates of runway use by aircraft type;
o Locations of flight paths;
o Percent use of each arrival and departure path and of each traffic pattern; and
o Aircraft power settings, speeds, and altitudes for departures, arrivals, and patterns.
To compare the aircraft Ldn with the highway Leq, the nighttime aircraft operations were
deleted from the NOISEMAP computer run. After the Ldn values were obtained from the
computer output, the value at each receptor was adjusted to reflect that 10 percent of the
operations occur in a single one-hour period instead of being distributed over a 24-hour period.
This is analogous to multiplying an ADT by some factor to obtain the traffic in the peak hour.
The result is a one-hour Leq from aircraft directly comparable to the highway Leq.
In several cases, ambient noise readings were adjusted when it appeared that they were
significantly impacted by aircraft noise. In most cases, no adjustment was made for existing
aircraft noise. The double-counting of noise is not significant when the absolute difference
between ambient noise level and the predicted aircraft noise level is great. Where the double-
counting is significant, it would tend to overstate the impact of aircraft noise, without influencing
the impact of highway noise.
Ambient noise levels at each receptor were derived from the noise levels at the monitored
locations, based on the corresponding distance from the nearest roadway. A 43 dB decrease in
noise with each doubling of distance was assumed.
Future noise levels were projected for 575 receptor locations, including residences, businesses,
churches, and schools, based on the distance from the proposed road. Projected noise levels at
IV-11

these receptors are summarized in Table IV-6 and shown in detail in the Techni
Memorandum on Noise Analysis (Kimley-Horn, June 1989).
TABLE IV-6
SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACT
(Projected Year 2010)

Eastern Alternative
Middle Western C
dal rossover
EW Z s
M-2
( Whr ed)
Locations Approaching or Exceed-
ing Noise Abatement Criteria(')
11)
nce 49(
Re
d 11(1
0) 1104) 7(0 0)
0( 4(
4)
0
si
e 0 0 0
Locations With Substantial
Impact(2)
Residence
34(
4)
28
7)
(2) 14(
14(
4)
4)
8(
15
(0)
0
Business 0
0 0 0 0
Predicted noise level of 65 dBA or more for residences, 72 dBA or more for businesses; not
including locations where ambient noise exceeds noise abatement criteria or locations within
proposed right-of-way
t2j 15 dBA increase or more (10 dBA where ambient noise exceeds 50 dBA); not including locations
within proposed right-of-way
() Locations where noise abatement criteria are projected to be exceeded solely due to this project
i.e., not due to projected increases in airport noise
The majority of the affected receptors of the proposed action are located to the north of the
Steele Creek Road interchange. The section between Steele Creek Road and Wilkinson
Boulevard, which passes near Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, contains several
receptors which are more greatly affected by air traffic than highway traffic.
Traffic noise abatement was. considered for those areas where 1) noise abatement criteria were
approached or exceeded for receptors, or 2) a substantial increase in noise level would be
caused by this project. Concrete noise barrier walls were considered for eight different
locations. These were assumed to be located 150 feet from the centerline, at the edge of the
project right-of-way. Walls ranging from 10 to 20 feet in height were evaluated.
Noise reduction goals were developed for the barrier evaluation. In order for a barrier to be
recommended, it must provide a minimum insertion loss of 6 dBA for the most impacted
receivers it was designed to protect, and have a cost of $25,000 or less per residence with a 4
dBA or more reduction. In addition, an affected receptor must be at least four times the height
of the wall away from the wall.
IV-12

1
Eight barriers were examined for the proposed action corridor. The evaluation addressed
existing noise conditions, predicted noise levels without the barrier, dBA increases over ambient
levels, noise levels with the barrier, and the dBA reduction (insertion loss) with the barrier. The
approximate location of each barrier, the number of receptors with a 4 dBA decrease was also
determined.
Because of the low population density and levels of projected airplane noise in portions of the
study area, most barriers of suitable height and length to provide significant noise reduction
have a relatively high cost per dwelling unit. Of the eight barriers evaluated, two were
estimated to provide substantial noise reduction for less than $25,000 per dwelling unit.
Although OPTIMA runs for barriers 1 and 2 showed minimum costs of less than $25,000 per
unit, the receptors would be closer to the wall than desirable (less than three times the height of
the wall). Thus, none of the barriers provided a reasonable and cost-effective noise reduction.
Therefore, no noise barriers are recommended to be provided with this project. Further noise
analysis will be conducted during the project design phase.
Because of the low density of development in the vicinity of this project, rolling topography, and
existing and projected noise from Charlotte-Douglas International Airport and other roads,
noise barriers do not appear to be feasible as a means of traffic noise abatement for this
project. Other mitigation means have been considered.
Alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the proposed improvements
in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. For noise, abatement, alignment selection is
primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas.
Changes in the vertical alignment of the proposed improvements were not considered
applicable. Since sensitive areas are found on both sides of the proposed roadway, shifting the
horizontal alignment is not considered to be a viable alternative.
Traffic system management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume, and time of
operations are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the
capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway. It was determined that a reduction in
speed limit of 10 MPH would result in a noise level reduction of approximately 1 to 2 dBA.
Because most people cannot detect a noise reduction of up to 3 dBA and because reducing the
speed limit would reduce roadway capacity and increase user cost, it is not considered a viable
noise abatement measure.
The use of vegetation for noise barriers is not considered to be effective in the actual reduction
IV-13

of noise levels for this project. This is due to the substantial amount of right-of-way necessary
to make vegetative barriers effective. FHWA research has shown that vegetative barriers should
be composed of closely-spaced, densely foliated trees and shrubs, and should be approximately
100 feet wide in order to provide a 3 dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to provide a 5
dBA reduction, substantial amounts of additional right-of-way would be required. The cost to
acquire the right-of-way and to plant the vegetation is estimated to exceed the 525,000/unit cost-
effectiveness requirement.
The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise impacts is not
considered to be a feasible noise abatement measure for this project. The cost to acquire
impacted residences for buffer zones would exceed the NCDors abatement threshold of
$25,000 per residential unit. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future sensitive
areas is not recommended because this could be accomplished through land use controls.
One of the most effective noise abatement measures is the proper use of land use controls to
minimize future impacts. Local jurisdictions with zoning control should use the information
contained in the final noise evaluation to develop policies to limit the growth of noise-sensitive
land uses adjacent to the freeway. These policies could include setback requirements, building
codes, and zoning.
A detailed barrier evaluation will be performed during the design stages, and barriers will be
considered where warranted. Earthen berms may be effective in some areas, especially where
parallel barriers may be necessary to protect impacted areas on both sides of the proposed
freeway. While earthen berms generally provide more cost-effective noise attenuation than
other barrier materials, they are limited by right-of-way and other engineering considerations
(e.g. drainage, access, future development). They are not likely to be feasible in most areas of
this project, where right-of--way is constricted.
3. Water Quality
The streams crossed by the alternatives are shown on Figure III-9. The study area is drained by
five secondary streams: Coffey Creek, Steele Creek, Paw Creek, Little Paw Creek, and
Beaverdam Creek. All of these ultimately flow into the Catawba River, located to the west of
the studied alternatives. The water quality classification of these creeks is C. Class C waters
are designated suitable for fishing, secondary recreation, and agricultural uses. The
classification of the Catawba River is WAS-III north of I-85 and B, south of 1-85. In addition,
nine ponds within the study area are identified on Figure III-9 as follows: Spratt Lake,
Johnston Lake, Moody Lake, Maynard Lake, Eagle Lake, Watt Lake, Shoaf Lake, Legion Lake,
IV-14

and Whippoorwill Lake. All of these are classified as Class C except for Class B designation on
Eagle Lake and Watt Lake. (See Table III-6 for definition of classifications.)
All of the studied alternatives will require crossings of the streams. The number of crossings for
each of the alternatives is shown on Table N-7.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 requires the control of accelerated erosion and
sedimentation with land disturbing activities. Erosion and sedimentation measures are required
during construction. Construction-related impacts will be minimized through erosion and
sediment control measures, such as temporary grassing, sediment checks, baled hay or straw
dams, a limitation on the exposure of erodible earth, and the diversion of flow during the
construction of a water crossing.
Any bituminous-mix plant operations established for the construction of the proposed action
r shall be equipped to meet applicable State and Federal pollution control requirements.
Detrimental impacts to surface and subsurface water flow may be experienced in the borrow
areas. Borrow sites will be provided by the contractor if borrow is necessary on the project.
The contractor will be responsible for acquiring the right to take the material and any right of
access that may be necessary for locating. and developing the site, and for clearing and grubbing
and draining as appertains. Except where borrow is obtained from a commercial source, or
where the borrow site is constructed to serve as a pond, the following requirements will apply to
the condition of the site after all borrow material has been removed:
a. Where practical, the site shall be graded to drain.
b. The site shall be dressed and shaped to contours which are comparable to and blend in
I with the adjacent topography, but in no case will slopes steeper than 2:1 be permitted.
C. Seeding and mulching shall be performed over all areas of the borrow site that have been
disturbed by construction operations. Seeding and mulching in borrow sites shall be
performed in accordance with those sections of the State's standard specifications dealing
with seeding and mulching, temporary seeding, and repair seeding.
i d. Where it is necessary to drain the borrow site, the contractor shall perform this work in
accordance with the section of the standard specifications that deals with ditch excavations.
Before the final acceptance of the project, the contractor shall furnish the engineer with a
IV-15

copy of a written release executed by the property owner or his authorized representative
indicating that the final condition of the borrow site is acceptable to the property owner.
In addition, the NCDOT inspects all borrow sites during the final inspection of the project
to ensure compliance with the specifications.
Design measures to protect long-term water quality include avoiding public water supplies
and high quality aquatic habitats, minimizing the number of stream crossings, minimizing
segments where roads He closely parallel to streams, and maximizing the distance from
roads to streams to allow for stormwater infiltration and deposition of pollutants
associated with road runoff. Construction practices will include protection of stream
bottom habitat from siltation by sedimentation control measures and retention of riparian
vegetation.
According to research performed by FHWA and documented in Effects of Highway
Runoff on Receiving Waters (FHWA, 1985), highway runoff in urban areas contributes
only a small fraction of overall storm water pollutant loadings to surface waters, due
primarily to the relatively small surface area of highway right-of-way compared with total
urban watershed area. While highway projects may be seen as contributing to increased
runoff in rapidly urbanizing areas, the project itself has little effect on runoff impact. In
addition, studies do not support a major impact either of highway projects on dissolved
oxygen (DO) content of streams or of nutrient loadings. While some metallic runoff
occurs, the incidence of lead has decreased notably with the phasing out of leaded gasoline
as an automotive fuel. Other metallic runoff usually occurs as sediment, which sinks to
the bottom of receiving waters. This sediment can be reduced through various means as
simple as vegetated ditches. Metal concentrations are proportional to traffic volumes;
since construction of this project will result in an overall reduction in vehicle miles
travelled in the urban area, it can be concluded that there would be an overall reduction
in the impact of certain pollutants on water quality. Few data are available regarding the
toxicity of petroleum products on freshwater species.
This project will be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) stormwater regulations, since it involves construction resulting in the
disturbance of five acres or more. A permit will be required from the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management 90 days prior to commencement of construction.
Water pollution control measures will be described in the permit application.
Mitigation measures for adverse water quality impact due to highway runoff should
consider the characteristics of highway runoff. First, more frequent minor storms should
IV-16

I
be considered rather than the infrequent major storms that are the focus of flood
management. Second, the critical period for highway runoff is the "first-flush" stage, which
produces relatively high concentrations of pollutants during the initial stages of storm
runoff. Thirdly, the loadings of heavy metals and other particulates are of greater concern
than loadings of nutrients and organic material.
Management measures that best take advantage of the above characteristics are described
below.
• Elimination of curbs reduces accumulation of pollutants between storms and allows
them to disperse without producing heavy loadings. This project is planned to be
constructed without curb and gutter, as shown in the typical sections, Figure 1I-3.
• Litter control will limit potential pollutant sources, as well as provide aesthetic and
safety benefits. North Carolina's Adopt-A-Highway program has proven successful
in reducing litter along roadsides.
• Management of the use of de-icing chemicals and pesticides/herbicides reduces the
total load of these pollutants that can affect water quality.
• Avoidance of direct discharge of highway runoff into receiving waters can be
attained through routing stormwater to such management measures as vegetative
controls (grassed channels or overland flow); detention basins, which retain
stormwater for sedimentation of particulates away from receiving waters and also
store a portion of the peak flow from stormwater to infiltrate into the ground and to
be filtered through percolation into the soil; and wetlands, which are often effective
at removing selected pollutants from stormwater runoff.

• Reduction of runoff velocity reduces the ability of the runoff to carry particulates to
receiving waters. Management measures that can reduce runoff velocity include
reducing gradients of runoff channels, installing velocity reduction devices such as
drop structures and baffles, and using grassed rather than paved waterways.
• Establishment and maintenance of vegetation provides filtration, sedimentation, and

infiltration. Measures that will enhance the runoff treatment of vegetation include
establishing dense grass cover wherever practicable, minimizing the number of grass
cuttings to increase grass height, and leaving grass cuttings on the ground as
additional filter material.
I IV-17

The project will not result in a significant impact on groundwater quality in the study area.
Shallow wells will be impacted in the vicinity of the project. New wells will be drilled to
replace those where needed, or homes will be connected to municipal water supplies. As
this area urbanizes, city water lines are expected to be extended into the project area,
reducing the results of groundwater impact. Abandonment of wells, if required, will be in
accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
4.
Hydroloev and Floodplain Management
Direct impacts to surface waters will result from the filling of wetlands, floodplains, and stream
banks during construction of the proposed section. Filling of the floodplains, unless
compensatory storage is provided, willresult in an incremental loss of flood storage during high
intensity storm conditions and potentially result in increase of flood heights.
Mecklenburg County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Emergency Program.
(The 100-year floodplain boundaries are shown in Figure III-9.) The 100-year floodplain and
floodway limits were developed from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and
Mecklenburg County Official Area Map.
The preferred alternative will cross major creeks and there is no practical way to totally avoid
these crossings. Streams were crossed transversely wherever feasible and compatible with other
design features, such as roadway crossings and interchanges. Large floodplain areas have been
avoided where possible, and stream crossings were located as far upstream as feasible. An
analysis has been made of the impact on hydrologic and hydraulic features of these crossings.
Hydrologic impacts were assessed in terms of acres of potential floodplain encroachment, since
new construction would alter the natural hydrologic conditions of the study. Table IV-7
summarizes the results of the hydrologic analysis of the various stream crossings for the.studied
alternatives.

1
IV-18
t
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE IV-7
STREAM AND FLOODPLAIN CROSSINGS
- - Acres of

_TXM Stream H22g" crossing
East Al 350' C Coffey Creek Tributary
15
250' P Coffey Creek Tributary
El 300' P Tributary to Moody Lake
670' P Tributary to Moody Lake
270' P Tributary to Coffey Creek
E2 500' C Tributary to Coffey Creek
350' C Tributary to Eagle Lake
350' P Tributary to Coffey Creek
950' P Tributary to Coffey Creek
350' P Tributary to Beaverdam Creek
300' P Tributary to Beaverdam Creek
230' P Tributary to Beaverdam Creek
320' P Tributary to little Paw Creek
E3 350' C Tributary to Little Paw Creek
280' C Tributary to little Paw Creek
320' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
E4 600' C Ticer Branch 4.7
900' P Tributary to Paw Creek
350' P Tributary to Paw Creek
220' C Paw Creek 25.5(15.9 in E4, 9.6 in E5)
E5 380' P Tributary to Paw Creek
Middle Al 350' C Coffey Creek Tributary 1.5
(Preferred) 250' P Coffey Creek Tributary
El 300' P Tributary to Moody Lake
670' P Tributary to Moody Lake
Ml 340' P Tributary to Coffey Creek
450' P Tributary to Steele Creek
610' P Steele Creek
M2 450' P Tributary to Beaverdam Creek
280' P Tributary to Beaverdam Creek
20(1' C Tributary to Legion Lake
650' P Tributary to Be-averdam Creek
400' P Tributary to Beaverdam Creek
280' P Tributary to Beaverdam Creek
300' P Tributary to little Paw Creek
E3 350' C Tributary to Little Paw Creek
280' C Tributary to little Paw Creek
320' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
E4 600' C Ticer Branch 4.7
900' P Tributary to Paw Creek
350' P Tributary to Paw Creek
220' C Paw Creek 25.5(15.9 in E4, 9.6 in E5)
IV-19
TABLE IV-7

West
Crossovers
STREAM AND FLOODPLAIN CROSSINGS, CONTINUED
Acm of
SeEmenS c TVPC seam d am c?
ES 380' P Tributary to Paw Creek
Al 350' C Coffey Creek Tributary iS
250' P Coffey Creek Tributary
Ml 340' P Tributary to Coffey Creek
W2 550' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
300' P Tributary to Beaverdam Creek
400' C Tributary to Beaverdam Creek 19
W3 380' C Beaverdam Creek 1.6
270' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
300' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
280' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
580' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
280' C Little Paw Creek 6.1
1,300' B Paw Creek Cove
320' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
280' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
W4 700' P Tributary to Catawba River
560' C Tributary to Catawba River
340' C Tributary to Catawba River
200' P Tributary to Long Creek
220' P Tributary to Long Creek
420' P Tributary to Long Creek
350' C Tributary to Long Creek 1.7
300' B Long Creek 5.6
EW2 220' P Tributary to Beaverdam Creek
350' C Little Paw Creek 2.4
250' P Tributary to Paw Creek Cove
280' P Tributary to Paw Creek Cove
300' P Tributary to Paw Creek Cove
1,100' B Paw Creek Cove 9.4
320' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
280' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
EW1 400' C Beaverdam Creek 1.6
300' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
280' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
550' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
280' C Tributary to Little Paw Creek
250' P Tributary to Little Paw Creek
300' P Tributary to Little Paw Creek
380' C Little Paw Creek
300' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
EW3 220' C Paw Creek 5.7
IV-20

TABLE IV -7
STREAM AND FLOODPLAIN CROSSINGS, CONTINUED
C? Acres of
N ? Segment TV= y Flooddsin dracsinx
200' P Tributary to Lake Wylie
350' C Tributary to Long Creek
300' B Long Creek 6.8
C = Box Culvert P = Pipe B = Bridge
Drainage structures are proposed for the regulatory floodway crossings for the studied
alternatives (see Table IV-6). The proposed action will be designed such that the floodway will
carry the 100-year flood without increasing the flood water elevation more than one foot at any
given point. The dimensions of the drainage structures and the roadway grades will be adjusted
and designed to avoid increasing the flood hazard in the project area. Therefore, the project
will not constitute a significant encroachment. The final designs will be coordinated with
appropriate state and local officials and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
to assure compliance with FEMA, state, and local floodway regulations. The preferred
alternative does not include longitudinal encroachments into floodways.
The preferred alternative does include some longitudinal encroachment into floodplains.
Approximately 600 feet of a ramp encroaches into the Ticer Branch floodplain south of
Wilkinson Boulevard, while a collector-distributor road north of I-85 includes 800 feet of
longitudinal encroachment into the Paw Creek floodplain at the proposed channel change noted
below. Locations that would avoid the floodplain are not feasible due to interchange constraints
on I-85, existing development, and the project terminus location at NC 27. These
encroachments will be analyzed further and reduced where feasible during final design.
It has been determined that neither of the above encroachments are significant, based on the
criteria set forth in 23 CFR 650.105(q): there is no significant potential for flood-related
property loss or hazard to human life; there is no significant adverse impact on natural and
beneficial floodplain values; and there is no significant impact on evacuation routes or
emergency vehicle routes.
A channel change may require coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A channel
change is anticipated at Paw Creek north of I-85 (800') for the preferred alternative.
The objectives of Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain Management," and DOT Order 5650.2,
"Floodplain Management and Protection," are to avoid adverse impacts due to occupancy and
I IV-21
r
alteration of the 100-year floodplain unless that location is the only practical alternative. In such
circumstances, it is required that every effort must be made to minimize the potential risks to
human safety and property, and to minimize negative effects on natural and beneficial floodplain
value. The preferred alternative will be developed to comply with these orders and with North
Carolina Executive Order 123, "Uniform Floodplain Management Policy."
Methods to minimize harm and preserve the floodplains could include minimizing fill and
grading requirements, preserving the free natural drainage whenever possible, maintaining
vegetation buffers, controlling urban run-off, and minimizing erosion and sedimentation during
construction.
The proposed action will be based on the standards established within Federal-Aid Highway
Program Manual, Volume 6, Chapter 7, Section 3, Subsection 2 (FHPM 6-7-3-2).
5.
Natural Systemsgrotected S ties
Construction of the proposed action will remove the existing vegetation and displace wildlife
from within the project construction limits. The existing habitat, some of which comprises
various natural woodland and communities or agricultural area, will be cleared. Portions of the
project area will be covered with roadways, bridges, and other man-made structures, thus
precluding revegetation; other portions of the project area will be grassed, landscaped with
shrub or tree species, or allowed to revegetate naturally. Overall, the natural communities
within the construction limits will be destroyed and replaced with developed lands or vacant land
communities in which both vegetation and wildlife diversity and numbers will be greatly reduced.
The approximate acreage affected by biotic community type as defined in III.C.6 for each
segment of the studied alternatives is shown in Table IV-8.
IV-22

TABLE IV4
TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED
OHF HSB ZP AQ Q C 1D TOTAL
_
East Al 43.0 30.0 7.8 44.4 30.1 9.3 1645
El 14.9 25.1 15.0 2.6 15 59.1
E2 23.7 18.1 73 34.8 12 30.6 115.7
E3 8.7 15.1 92 4.6 37.6
Ei 29.3 40.0 78.6 1.0 395 188.4
E5 3.0 66.6 13 2.7 1.4 2.7 12.6 90.3
Middle Al 43.0 30.0 7.8 44.4 30.1 93 1645
(Pref.) El 14.9 25.1 15.0 2.6 15 59.1
Ml 24.8 23.7 3.8 02 114 28.6 935
M2 512 20.4
15
1 3.0 202
2
9 02 18.6
4.6 113.6
37.6
E3
E4 8.7
29.3 .
40.0 .
78.6 1.0 395 188.4
E5 3.0 66.6 13 2.7 1.4 2.7 12.6 90.3
West Al 43.0 30.0 7.8 44.4 30.1
2
6 93
15 1645
59
1
El 14.9 25.1 15.0 . .
Ml 24.8 23.7 3.8 0.2 12.4 28.6 93.5
W2 24.7 8.6 29.6 8.7 5.4 77.1
W3 15.0 19.1 37.0 2.3 5.1 2.4 8.8 89.7
W4 7.9 64.4 39.3 0.1 64.8 176.4
W5 8.0 6.9 11.0 2.7 5.6 34.2
Cross- EW1 95 11.2 15 31.4 22.1
1
23 75.7
7
90
overs EW2 0.7 32.2 5.3 23.7
135 5.7 4
6 .
34.6 .
56.1
EW3 1.6 .
Totals East 122.6 194.9 7.3 146.7 0.0 3.9 44.4 34.1 3.7 98.1 6555
Middle 150.1 222.0 3.0 155.8 3.8 2.7 44.6 46.7 3.7 114.7 746.9
West 1135 171.9 0.0 159.4 6.1 5.1 44.6 56.1 13.8 124.1 694.6
a. Natural Resource Impacts
Impacts to natural resources are quantified by alternative segments. Acreages were
measured by manual transfer of the 350-foot corridor right-of-way onto the Biotic
Communities Mapping. The full 350-foot right-of-way and 1,000-foot wide interchange
ramp section were used and assumed to be the impact zone. Although impacts to bridged
communities would not be as severe, vegetation would be removed to accommodate
placement of the bridges and subsequent growing conditions would be degraded by the
' shade cast by the structures. Forested upland communities retaining their natural
vegetative constituents such as Evergreen Hardwood Forest, Mixed Evergreen Hardwood,
and Oak Hardwood Forest are generally more important in terms of wildlife value and
secondary productivity than highly altered or maintained communities such as Agriculture,
Old Field, Cleared Land, Man Dominated, and Pine Plantation. The alternative
alignment affecting the most acres of forest uplands is the Middle Corridor (proposed
action), which impacts 375 acres. The alignment least impacting forested uplands is the
Western Corridor with impacts to 285 acres. (Wetland impact is discussed in detail in
IV.B.7.) Little impact to fishery habitat will occur, due to limited crossings and avoidance
IV-23

of Lake Wylie and Eagle Lake. The only permanent impact will be loss of bottom at
culverts.
b.
Protected Species Impacts
No Federal- or State-listed endangered or threatened plant or animal species have been
recorded within the project study area. Appendix A summarizes the species' potential for
occurrence within the study area. No endangered or threatened animal or plant species
were observed during field surveys conducted in the project areas. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) was contacted for a list of species. USFWS concurred that no
Federal-listed endangered animal or plant species or critical habitat are known to occur
within the project area.
Since the time that the initial surveys were performed and correspondence was received,
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) has been listed as endangered. A detailed
field reconnaissance will be conducted on the preferred alternative for current-listed
species with emphasis on Helianthus schweinitzii in all appropriate habitat locations at the
appropriate time of year, prior to the acquisition of right-of-way.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) listed two animal species, the
Carolina darter and the Santee chub, as potentially occurring in the area. The known
locations of occurrence for these species were outside the project area. These species
were not observed during field reconnaissance studies conducted within the alignment
corridors in spring of 1989. Alternative alignments for the project have been selected to
avoid sensitive wetland habitats where possible. Hence, the potential to impact these
species is considered minimal.
The NCNHP lists 10 plant species which could potentially occur within Mecklenburg
County (Appendix A). The list provides descriptions of the State-listed plants, describes
the location of the population, and date of last known occurrence. None of the listed
species were observed within the alignment corridors. Field studies conducted within the
alignment corridors during 1989 produced no observations of endangered or threatened
plant species.
Some short-term construction impacts, primarily stream sedimentation, will affect acquatic
habitat, as described in Chapter IV.133; however, they will be minimized to the extent
practicable and rapid recovery will occur. Long-term sedimentation impacts will be
minimized through construction practices. Additional runoff will be small compared with
IV-24

total existing runoff and stream flow.
initzii
hw
th
li
f
H
bi
id
ddi
l h
i
,
e
us sc
on
or
e
tat
a
e a
ona
t
Construction of the road will, in fact, prov
which typically occurs in roadside ditches.

Stream sedimentation could potentially impact the Carolina darter or Santee chub, if they
occur in streams affected by the project. As stated earlier, this impact will be minimized
by proper construction practices. Adequate hydrological crossings will be provided to
maintain stream flow and species habitat.

In view of the above, the project is not expected to impact any threatened or endangered
species or affect or modify any critical habitat. A final determination of effect will be
made following the field survey for Helianthus schweinitzii. The project is considered
consistent with the Endangered Species Act.

6. Farmland
i
id
mportance.
e
The study area contains both prime farmlands and farmlands of local and statew
No farmland in the study area has been designated as unique. Although much of the area is
undeveloped, increased urbanization is anticipated in the study area. The proposed action will
include involvement with both prime farmland and farmland of local and statewide importance
within the proposed right-of-way. Table IV-9 gives the estimated acres for prime farmland for
the studied alternatives. Figure III-10 shows prime farmland in the study area and its
relationship to the corridors.
TABLE IV-9
FARMLAND INVOLVEMENT
Acres of
Alternative Prime Farmland

t East 78.8
Middle (Preferred) 109.0
West 42.0
Crossover EW1 0
Crossover EW2 0
Crossover EW3 0
This project has been coordinated with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) as required by
the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Since the SCS has stated some of the land is covered
by the Farmland Protection Policy Act, a completed Form AD 1006 has been included in
Appendix B.
IV-25
L

7. Wetlands
The term "wetlands" refers to those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. ,
Hydrological data, hydric condition of the soil, and the vegetative cover indigenous to the
area are the major factors involved in classifying particular areas as wetlands. The proposed
action will be coordinated with the appropriate federal and state agencies having
jurisdictional authority on wetland involvement.
a. Wetland Impact.
Area-wide impacts to wetlands are quantified by alternative segments based upon
estimated construction limits for roadway fill sections and interchange areas. Table
IV-10 summarizes the estimated acreage of impacted jurisdictional wetlands per
alternative. Most of these are;miior stream crossings that would be covered under
tbe,pationwide permit.
Quantitative comparison of wetland acreage impacted by alternative alignments
results in a range of over five acres difference between "best" and "worst"
alternatives. However, it is also necessary to qualitatively evaluate wetlands
impacted by the alignments. From field visits, a few systems have been identified as
outstanding in regard to values, functions, and pristine nature. Some of the most
notable are Eagle Lake, Beaverdam Creek, and Little Paw Creek.
In reference to quality, as defined above, the preferred alignment provides the, least ,
impacts to wetlands. It avoids Eagle Lake and the high `quality bottomland ?
-hardwood wetlands at Beaverdam Creek and Little Paw CreekA. The west alignment
impacts the high quality wetlands of Little Paw Creek and Beaverdam Creek. The
alignment most affecting quality wetlands is the east, which impacts the high quality
wetlands near Eagle Lake and the wetlands of Paw Creek north of I-85.
Long-term impacts resulting from construction of a freeway would involve at least
partial clearing of wetlands at crossings associated with water course drainages and
hardwood bottomland swamps. Wetland habitats would be eliminated within the
IV-26

t
1
t
1
construction corridor where stream drainages are crossed on fill rather than
bridged. Box culverts would allow normal surface flows and maintain historic
hydrologic conditions. Pools frequently created at openings of cross culverts may
become sediment traps during periods of high water. Wetland flood control
capacity will be reduced proportionately by the amount of fill used in wetlands.
TABLE IV 10
SUMMARY OF WETLAND INVOLVEMENT
BY ALTERNATIVE
Affbeled Affected
?
Alternate Segment Weiland AeKsrpe
?
All Al Adjacent to Johnson Lake 0.00
El Adjacent to Moody Lake 0.00
East E2 Adjacent to Eagle Lake 0.00
Eagle Lake Trib. 2.00
Coffey Creek Tributary 0.01
Beaver Dam Creek Tributary 0.01
Beaver Dam Creek Tributary 0.01
Beaver Dam Creek Tributary 0.01
East, Middle E3 Little Paw Creek Tributary 0.01
Little Paw Creek Tributary 0.01
Lake Wylie Tributary 0.01
E4 Paw Creek Tributary 0.16
Paw Creek 1.46
Paw Creek Tributary 0.34
E5 Paw Creek Tributary 0.11
Unidentified Open Water 2.00
Unidentified Creek 0.10
West W2 Beaver Dam Creek Tributary 0.96
Beaver Dam Creek Tributary 1.85
W3 Lake Wylie Tributary 0.01
Little Paw Creek 3.33
Lake Wylie 5.00
W4 Catawba River Tributary 3.00
Catawba River Tributary 0.16
Catawba River Tributary 0.17
Catawba River Tributary 0.46
Long Creek Tributary 0.01
Long Creek Tributary 0.01
W5 Long Creek Tributary 0.01
Middle Ml Steele Creek 0.01
Steele Creek Tributary 0.01
M2 Lake Wylie Tributary 0.01
Beaver Dam Creek 0.68
Beaver Dam Creek Tributary 0.20
Beaver Dam Creek Tributary 0.01
Crossovers EWl Little Paw Creek Tributary 0.01
Little Paw Creek Tributary 0.01
Little Paw Creek Tributary 0.74
Lake Wylie Tributary 0.01
EW2 Little Paw Creek Tributary 0.01
IV-27
Altenostive
Subtotals
TABLE IV 10
SUMMARY OF WETLAND INVOLVEMENT
BY ALTERNATIVE (continued)
Affected open Affected
Dent wetland AM M water r
EW3 Catawba River Tributary 0.01 Lske Wylie 6.26
Long Creek Tributary 0.01
Long Creek Tributary 2.00
East 6.2 5.0
Middle (Proposed Action) sa
West 10.0
Some fragmentation of wetland habitat is unavoidable, in that the preferred
alternative crosses streams within the study area. The preferred alternative was
developed to avoid important wetland areas or to minimize impacts to them by
crossing in the least obtrusive manner -- either at the fringe or perpendicular. Such
crossings are developed such that small pools are not cut off from the main body of
the wetland community, and the remaining parts will retain wetland function and
value. The fragmentation impact of wetland crossings can be assessed by viewing
Figure III-9, since the wetlands crossed by the alternatives generally follow the
streams shown in that figure.
The severity of impacts to wetlands is also greatly reduced in wetlands where cross
culverts are placed in fill areas to allow adequate cross-flow.
Impacts to the water quality of wetland habitats would consist primarily of short-
term increases in turbidity and sedimentation. Best management practices will be
used during construction to ensure erosion control and minimize adverse effects to
water quality.
Temporary impacts to wetland resources will occur as a result of construction access
in wetlands. Methods of access in each wetland will be determined on an individual
basis at design and construction phases. Best management practices for standard
road and bridge construction will be used to minimize impacts to wetlands within
the construction corridor.
Mitigation, or a lessening of impacts, will be considered as a possible means for
compensating for wetland -Tosses: Potential mitigation options include minimizing
the_.impact thro evaluating alternative designs, minirniaaing impacts by crossing
wetlands at their most narrow point, rectifying impacts by improving the " habitat
IV-29

values of adjacent altered wetlands, the acquisition of adjacent wetland for the
purpose of protection, and the creation of in-kind habitat from adjacent upland
areas. The most `likely sites for replacing wetlands will be close to the areas
impacted, major stream crossings. Some of these areas include Paw Creek
and its tributaries near I-85 (Fast and Middle Alternatives), Beaver Dam Creek
area (Middle and West Alternatives), and Little Paw Creek and Paw Creek near
Lake Wylie (West Alternative). *don will be accomplished within the
proposed right-of-way where feasible
Preliminary investigation has identified the most suitable site for mitigation as the
Pawtuckett Golf Course (north of I-85). This site was chosen for the following
reasons:
- Purchase of portions of the golf course is most likely inevitable due to the
proposed interchange location
- The land is already disturbed by de-forestation of bottomland and uplands
and the creation of wetlands at this site would not require the destruction
of aativs::upla"s,,..'
- Adjacent to Paw Creek
- Enouo area to provide all project mitigation on one site vs. scattered
wetlands creation or restoration
- The proposed stream channel diversion may be manipulated to provide
sufficient hydrology to support the created wetlands
In-kind Bottomland Hardwood Forest will be created adjacent to Paw Creek.
Vegetative species diversity and density will emulate adjacent Bottomland
Hardwood Forests. The elevation of the mitigation area will be that of Bottomland
Hardwood Forest adjacent to Paw Creek. Mitigation acreage will be evaluated
based on the quality and size of impacted wetland areas.
Only Practicable Alternative Findin¢. Executive Order 11990, "Protection of
Wetlands," requires that wetlands be avoided where practicable and that impacts be
minimized and mitigated. Because of the considerable drainage system in the
project area, there are no alignments that would completely avoid wetlands.
However, the analysis provided above shows that avoidance/minimization of
wetlands has been a major consideration in delineating alternative alignments.
Compensatory measures have been evaluated for potential implementation on this
project. The goal of the mitigation is no net loss of wetland values and functions.
Based upon the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable
IV-29
alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands and that the proposed action
include all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result
from such use.
8.
Relocation
The proposed action will require the relocation of residences and businesses and other land
uses within their respective right-of-way limits. The study area is experiencing urbanization,
and deferring the proposed action will only result in additional relocation impacts. In order
to compare the relative impact of the studied alternatives, an evaluation was made of the
numbers and types of displacements and other demographic data for each alternative. This
information is included in Appendix C and is summarized in Table IV-11 for each
construction alternative.
TABLE IV 11
NUMBER OF DISPLACEMENTS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Businesses Residences
(Minority)
East 6 99(21)
Middle (Preferred) 3 115(28)
West 9 62(2)
Crossover EW1 -- 16(0)
Crossover EW2 -- 8(0)
Crossover EW3 -- 24(0)
All three alternatives will involve displacements of residences and businesses. The west
alternative would have the least impact on residential displacements, due to the lower
degree of development in that corridor. Most of the residential displacements would be in
the northern portion of the corridor. All but seven of the homes are owner-occupied. The
east alternative would have the second lowest number of residential displacements (99),
including 41 owner-occupied units and 58 rental units, of which 50 are mobile homes in
Field Ridge Acres. The middle (preferred) alignment has 115 residential displacements,
with 50 units at Field Ridge Acres. The number of minority displacees is greatest for the
east and middle (preferred) alternatives with most of those living in the Moores Chapel
Road area. The west alternative would have the greatest impact on business displacements,
in terms of both number and size of businesses displaced.
It is established policy that the North Carolina Department of Transportation provides for
such relocations within the guidelines of the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance & Real
IV-30

Property Policies Act of 1970 as amended. In brief, this policy provides that construction
not commence until comparable replacement housing meeting Decent, Safe & Sanitary
(DSS) requirements has been made available to those displaced by the project.
All displaced people and business will be given an explanation of the provisions of this law,
will be given descriptive brochures, and will be assisted in their obtaining the benefits for
which they are eligible under Federal regulations. At least one Relocation Officer will be
assigned to the project to assist and advise the displacees. Additional personnel will assist
as required.
1
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 so schedule
its work to allow ample time prior to displacement, to allow negotiations for 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 made in areas not generally less desirable in regard
to public utilities and commercial facilities.
Rent and sale prices of replacement housing offered will be within the financial means of
the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
nonprofit organizations, and farm operations in obtaining and moving to replacement
property.
All displaced tenants and owner occupants will receive an explanation regarding all options
available to them, 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.
This program provides that three types of assistance are available as follows:
o Relocation assistance
o Relocation moving costs and incidental payments
o Relocation replacement housing payment or rent supplement
IV-31
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, financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving
Payments Program, in general, as well as 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 owners who are eligible and qualify up to $22,500 and tenants who are
eligible and qualify up to $5,250. Where families cannot be relocated within their financial
means and/or cost of replacement housing falls out of the above limits, the law provides for
Last Resort Housing.
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 and 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.
In addition to the payments already mentioned, a small business (having not more than 500
employees), farm, or non-profit organization may be eligible to receive a payment not to
exceed $10,000 for reasonable and necessary expenses actually incurred in relocating and
reestablishing such small business, farm, or non-profit organization at a replacement site.
It is a policy of the State that no person will be displaced by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation's construction projects unless and until comparable or
adequate replacement housing has been offered to 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.
An investigation has been made into the availability of substitute housing in the project
area. Local realtors and builders were contacted, and they verified that ample amounts of
sale and rental housing is currently available in the western Mecklenburg area.
There is presently a shortage of land zoned for mobile home parks in Mecklenburg County,
however, there are an adequate number of sites available in adjoining counties. (Gaston
County is approximately two miles from the Field Ridge Acres mobile home park that
IV-32

11

n

r

n

11
9
10.
would be taken by the East alternative.) Given adequate lead time, relocation of mobile
home park residents can be accomplished, with possible zoning relief from Mecklenburg
County.
According to information available from local multiple listing services, contacts with local
officials, social agencies, housing officials, and community groups, none of the studied
alternatives should cause a housing shortage. Last Resort housing or special housing
programs are not anticipated on this project. If Last Resort housing is needed, it will be
implemented in accordance with State law.
A copy of the relocation report for each alternative corridor is included in Appendix C.
Hazardous Waste Sites
State regulatory agencies have been consulted, and lists of known hazardous waste sites
scheduled for cleanup by EPA and the regulatory agencies have been reviewed. This
includes a review of EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) of heavily contaminated sites and
the sites scheduled for priority cleanup with Superfund money. Also, the lists of known
lesser sites or potential sites maintained by the State regulatory agencies have been
reviewed. These include the North Carolina Hazardous Waste Annual Report, the
Alphabetic Listing of Hazardous Waste Facilities Excluding Small Generators, and the State
Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory (CERCLA). One site eligible for the Superfund money
is located in the project area. The site is Martin Marietta - SODYECO Division/Sandoz,
located off NC 27 at the Catawba River crossing. This site and other sites which are known
or suggested as potential hazardous waste sites are shown on Figure 1II-8.
In addition to the review, the construction alternatives have been surveyed for potential
sites. No potential hazardous waste sites were found by the survey. Only four of the
hazardous sites are located within 2,500 feet of the rights-of-way of the proposed action. As
discussed in Chapter III, Mecklenburg County is one of the state's major generators of
hazardous waste. Therefore, it is very important that the proposed project be located and
refined in later design phases, and that continued surveillance of hazardous waste sites and
possible migration of their contamination boundaries be maintained. Any underground
storage tanks discovered during construction will be reported to the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management.
Mineral Resources
The proposed action is not anticipated to impact mineral resources in the study area. A
IV-33
large quantity of mineral resources, specifically crushed stone, will be required to construct
this project. Quarries to the north and south of the project nearby and are expected to
provide an adequate supply of aggregate.
11. Pedestrians and Bicyclists
As described in Chapter M A4., several greenways, which include provisions for bicyclists
and pedestrians, are proposed in the study area and could be affected by the proposed build
alternative. The Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department confirmed the
location of existing and planned greenways. No existing greenways will be affected by the
construction alternatives. The East corridor is not anticipated to cross the Coffey Creek,
Sugar Creek or Steele Creek greenways proposed in the study area. The Middle
(preferred) and West corridors cross the upper extremities of the proposed Steele Creek
greenway. (The interchange at I-77, which is not part of this project, impacts the Big Super
Creek Greenway.) Any necessary drainage structure design will be coordinated with the
County Parks and Recreation Department to ensure the continuity of the greenway system.
The build alternative will tend to have a beneficial impact on bicycle traffic by diverting
major traffic volumes, including most trucks, from existing surface arterials and collectors.
12. Visual
Portions of the study area will be impacted by the construction of this project. The
preferred alternative, like the east corridor, is more compatible visually with the anticipated
commercial and industrial land uses, particularly near the airport. Therefore, the preferred
alternative will be less of a visual obtrusion into the study area. Although the west
alternative would have provided excellent views of Lake Wylie in several locations, it also
would have impacted views of the lake from other locations, particularly in the vicinity of
the Paw Creek Cove crossing.
The roadway will have visual impacts on adjacent areas. The rolling terrain and need for
interchanges and grade separations will create differences in elevation that will increase the
visibility of the highway, particularly at fill sections and at interchanges. Differences in
grade also increase the construction limits of the project and thus increase the visual
impacts. Noise barriers, where used, also can create visual impacts. Visual impacts can be
lessened by design, texture, and coloring of structural elements and by landscaping.
The preferred alternative will offer several opportunities for creating excellent views from
the highway. Visually pleasing aspects of the highway and views from the highway will be
explored in the design phase.
IV-34

r
13. Utilities and Service
Electric Transmission Lines
Figure III-7 shows the major power transmission lines located within the affected study
area. The effects of crossing these lines were considered to minimize their involvement and
have been included in the economic comparison of the construction alternatives. The
preferred alternative is not anticipated to adversely affect any electric transmission facilities.
Railroads

1

Three railroad crossings are involved with the preferred alternative. There are no
significant differences among the alternatives in regard to their involvement with the
crossings. The crossings will be grade-separated with structures that span the railroads, thus
minimizing the potential impacts on rail service facilities. No interruption in rail service is
anticipated.
Sewer and Water Service
The locations of existing major sanitary sewer and water lines have been considered in an
effort to avoid any significant disruption to utilities. The preferred alternative is generally
located outside the city limits of Charlotte, and sewer and water service is limited.
According to the 2005 Generalized Land Plan, the City and County have designated
development enterprise areas which include plans for water and sewer extensions. Two
enterprise areas are included in the study area. One is the Dixie-Berahill Small Area Plan,
which includes recommendations for provision of public utilities projected beyond a ten-
year time-frame. The other enterprise area is the Steele Creek Small Area Plan. The
Steele Creek Plan recommends the utility extension in the study area. Included were the
extension of the water main from Sandy Porter Road to Shopton Road, on NC 160 from
Douglas Drive to Westinghouse Boulevard, and on Shopton Road from NC 160 to Beam
Road. The extension of the Steele Creek sewer outfall to Olympic High School and Steele
Creek Elementary School was recommended. The implementation of Beam Road and
Arrowood Road water main projects and the Coffey Creek sewer outfall project were also
recommended for the area.
IV-35

14. Schools
The study area contains four public schools including two elementary schools, one junior
high school, and one senior high school. The school system officials have been given an
opportunity to review the alternatives and no objections to the project have been expressed.
The construction alternatives were developed to avoid any major disruptions to the school
system. Although no school will be relocated, the West alternative passes close to the
Berryhill Elementary School and Kennedy Junior High School, and the Middle (preferred)
alternative passes close to Olympic High School. Approximately 3.5 acres at one corner of
the Berryhill Elementary School site would be required for the West alternative. This
wooded area is not a playground, nor is it used for recreation purposes.
C. CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
Section 4(f) of Title 49, U.S. Code, Section 303 (23 CFR 771.135(a)(1) states that a project requiring
the use of a publicly-owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife/waterfowl refuge, or
land of a historic site of national, state, or local significance may be approved only if there is no
feasible and prudent alternative to such use and the project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to consider the
effects of their project on historic properties and to seek comments from the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation.
1. Parks and Recreation
The construction alternatives will not affect any existing public parks and will not require
the use of publicly-owned park land. The west alternative crosses portions of Lake Wylie
and would affect recreational opportunities at some locations. There are two proposed park
sites on the 2W5 Generalized Land Plan. Mecklenburg County has acquired park property
in the vicinity of the Catawba River/Lake Wylie. This property was acquired with the park
funds outside the Outer Loop corridor and with corridor protection funds within the
corridor. Coordination is being maintained with the Parks and Recreation Department
concerning these sites and their relationship to the proposed facility. Because the preferred
alternative does not affect these parks, all of the acquired land can be used for park
purposes. The two existing parks located near Lake Wylie and NC 49 are well beyond the
affected area of the construction alternatives.
IV-36

n

u
fl

Fil

2.
3.
The privately-owned Pawtuckett Golf Course, north of I-85, will be impacted by the
preferred alternative at the I-85 interchange. Five fairways will be taken by the interchange.
Replacement land is available adjacent to the golf course that could be incorporated into
the golf course. As an alternative to acquiring additional land, the golf course could be
redesigned with shorter or more narrow holes. Details regarding the effect on the golf
course property will be determined during the right-of-way acquisition process. Because the
golf course is privately-owned, Section 4(f) does not apply to this property.
Historic Structures
Eight individual properties and one historic district (containing five contributing structures)
have been recommended as being eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and
SHPO has concurred. Three properties (Cooper Log House, Steele Creek Presbyterian
Church and Cemetery, and the John Douglas House) are located outside the Area of
Potential Effect and are therefore omitted from the following discussion of potential effects.
The John Grier House was originally in the Area of Potential Effect but was removed due
to a shift in corridors with the dropping of segment W-1.
There will be no Section 4(f) involvement (taking right-of-way) or adverse effect at the
Brown Farmstead or the Dr. Query House, since the east alternative was not selected.
There will be no effect at the Dr. Sandifer House because the west alternative was not
selected.
A proposed interchange at Steele Creek Road (NC 160) for the middle and west
alternatives would lie at the southwestern edge of the Shopton Rural Historic District, but
would not require acquisition of land within the historic district. Potential adverse effects
can be avoided by ensuring that the widening of Steele Creek Road occurs only on the side
opposite the district, and that the crossing over the freeway will remain at essentially the
same elevation as at present. Thus, with those conditions, the project would have no
adverse effect on the district.
There is no effect at the Moore-Sadler House property since the EW-3 crossover was not
selected.
Archaeological Sites
Two potentially eligible archaeological sites were identified by the survey. the old John
IV-37

Grier house site (31MK555) on Brown-Grier Road, behind the existing house, and the
Brown House site (31MK553) on Steele Creek Road. The old Grier house site would not
be affected by any of the alternatives. The Brown House site would be affected by the East
alternative. Since this alternative was not selected, no intensive survey and testing program
to determine National Register of Historic Places eligibility will be performed. These sites
are not important for preservation in place.
D.
E.
ENERGY IMPACTS
The proposed action will require initially expending additional energy sources to complete the
facility; however, this energy will be more than recovered over the life of the project by the more
efficient transportation system. Energy savings will be realized because there will be fewer travel
delays and a more direct route for travel. Proposed interchanges and grade separations will ease the
"stop-and-go" traffic operation on the existing highway system. The proposed action will also provide
decreased energy consumption by diverting traffic to the freeway system that now has to travel the
congested highways within the Charlotte urbanized area.
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
The construction of the preferred alternative has the potential of impacting the environment;
however, potential impacts can be minimized by careful adherence to established construction
methods. Included are the following measures:
a. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right-of-way and provided by
the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special provisions or unless
disposal within the right-of-way is permitted by the engineer. Disposal of waste or debris in
active public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by the
engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution. In addition, a large amount of waste would
decrease the anticipated life of a municipal or county landfill.
b. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to reduce breeding areas for
mosquitoes.
C. An extensive rodent control program will be established where structures are to be removed
or demolished.
d. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
IV-38

' e. There will be strict adherence to the erosion plan by the contractor, including limiting areas
and duration of exposed earth and the stabilization of exposed areas as quickly as possible.
Careful attention to erosion control will be concentrated at the numerous stream crossings
' required by the West Charlotte Outer Loop.
E Techniques to suppress dust during earth-moving operations will be employed.
g. The contractor will salvage merchantable trees for pulpwood or sawtimber where feasible.
h. The contractor will take measures to protect standing trees outside the construction limits
from skinning of tree trunks or damage to feeder roots due to heavy equipment operation;
from fill dirt being placed around the base of trees; and from petroleum spills near the base
of trees.
Traffic on connecting or crossing roads will be maintained, except for brief periods, through staging
of construction and/or construction or development of detour roads. The traffic control plan for the
project will ensure safe operations during construction. Before construction is started, a
preconstruction conference involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Division of
Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures, including precautionary steps to be
taken during the time of construction that will minimize interruption of public utility services and
traffic. Public utility officials will be involved in the preconstruction process.
Construction plans will be developed to minimize the impact on sensitive sites near the construction
area. These would include houses, businesses, historic structures or districts, and sensitive wildlife
habitats. Mitigation techniques could include such measures as minimizing construction areas, use
of construction, fences, flagging of trees, berms, or restriction of work hours.
Although the noise levels of construction equipment are high, such impacts are of short duration.
Peak noise levels from highway construction equipment as measured at a distance of 50 feet may
vary from 70 dBA to 100 dBA. This range includes earth moving equipment, concrete pumps and
mixers, erection equipment, saws, pile driving equipment and vibration equipment. It is anticipated
that the major sources of construction noise will be from earth removal, hauling, grading, pile
driving, and paving. Temporary speech interference for passersby and individuals working nearby
can be expected. Such noise will be limited to daylight hours as much as possible.

IV-39

F.
G.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY I
Short-term impacts to the human environment will include the taking of right-of-way and other
structures, including the relocating of a number of families and businesses. The Division of r
Highways' relocation and financial assistance program will minimize this inconvenience.
Impacts to the natural environment will include displacement of productive t and
P? animal
communities. This displacement could be partially offset by creating or preserving habitat areas
within the right-of-way, particularly at interchange areas. Thus, some of the impacts would be short- ,
term; however, most direct impacts to the natural environment within the right-of-way will be long-
term. These will include conversion of natural areas and habitats to highway and man-dominated ,
systems; and stream modifications, where they occur.
During the construction phase of the project, some short-term impacts such as erosion and siltation
of local creeks and streams are likely to occur; however, with current erosion control measures, this
siltation is not anticipated to be significant enough to adversely affect the environment.
The proposed construction will provide a substantial portion of the circumferential loop system for
the Charlotte urban area. The proposed loop system can certainly be classified as a long-term
productive facility. This project will provide for a safer and more efficient highway system and is
designed to serve both the existing and future needs for this area. The long-term benefits offered by
this project, including reduced vehicular operating costs, savings in travel time, reduced potential for
accidents, and the enhancement of the general economy of the area, should more than offset the
short-term inconveniences and adverse effects on man's environment.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES I
The acquisition of additional land for the construction of the proposed project is for all practical
purposes an irreversible commitment.
The additional land acquired for the project will no longer serve the natural environmental, and '
therefore an irretrievable commitment of approximately 632 acres of wildlife habitat will be made.
The proposed project will remove approximately 109 acres of prime farmland from production or
the possibility of ever being in production. It may also accelerate changes in land use patterns
adjacent to the facility.
IV-40 e

' The physical elements or materials used for construction and the energy consumed during
construction, along with the manhours required, are considered to be both irreversible and
irretrievable. Construction of the proposed project will also commit the state to providing operating,
maintenance, and repair costs throughout the life of the facility.

[I

1

IV41

r,

17

F
u
L.
n
I?
L?

I

u
CHAPTER V
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS
TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT
' Environmental Protection Agency
• Department of Transportation
' Department of the Interior
• Department of Commerce
Department of Agriculture
Department of Energy
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Office of Management and Budget
Interstate Commerce Commission
• Federal Aviation Administration
Regional Offices
Regional Representative of the Secretary of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Emergency Management Agency
General Services Administration
State A eancies

North Carolina Department of Human Resources
* North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
* North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
* State Clearinghouse
Local Governments
Centralina Council of Governments
Chairman, County Commissioners
Mayor of Charlotte
• Charlotte/Douglas International Airport
Mecklenburg County Department of Engineering
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Health
• Mecklenburg County Department of Parks and Recreation
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission
• Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Greater Charlotte Chamber of Commerce
Charlotte Police Department
Charlotte Fire Department
• Charlotte Department of Transportation
City of Charlotte Public Libraries
• Response received (see Chapter VI)
V-1

1

C
?J

17
11

1771
LJ

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

CHAPTER VI
COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Environmental Impact Statement was coordinated with Federal, State, and Local agencies and
organizations, as well as with the public through an extensive public involvement plan. A Notice of Intent to
prepare an environmental document was published on August 11, 1988, in the Federal Register.
' A. AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
' Specific agencies and organizations contacted during the study process are as follows:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
General Services Administration
U.S. Department of the Interior
Federal Emergency Management Administration
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
' Federal Aviation Administration
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Geological Survey
Department of Commerce - Ecology and Conservation
Department of the Interior - Outdoor Recreation
Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
' Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Centralina Council of Governments
Mayor of Charlotte
Chairman, Mecklenburg County Commissioners
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission
Charlotte Parks and Recreation Department
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport
Mecklenburg County Engineering Department
' Mecklenburg County Fire Marshal
Mecklenburg County Police Department
Mecklenburg County Board of Education
Mecklenburg County Social Services
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department
City of Charlotte Fire Department
City of Charlotte Police Department
' City of Charlotte Housing Authority
Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Charlotte Department of Transportation
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Health
Greater Charlotte Chamber of Commerce
VI-1
1
Responses received from agencies commenting on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement are
summarized below, with responses as appropriate. The letters received are reproduced in full in Appendix B.
United States Department of Transportation. Office of the Secretary
Date of letter: August 21, 1990
We have no comments.
Response: None required. '
Unites States Department of Commerce, Office of Charting and Geodetic Services
Date of letter: August 31, 1990
Geodetic control survey monuments are present in the project area. The Office of Charting and Geodetic
Services (C&GS) should be contacted at least 90 days in advance of construction activities that will disturb
or destroy these monuments. '
Response: The monuments will be located during design, and C&GS will be notified at least 90 days prior to
the commencement of work for relocation of any affected monuments.
Charlotte /Douglas International Airport
Date of letter: September 7, 1990
The airport prefers the middle corridor because it will provide for the development of compatible land uses
on the airport side of the route and because It will minimize impact on the terminal VOR facility. The
EW3 crossover Is preferred because it follows the flight departure corridor and would encourage
compatible development in the area.
Response: The Middle Corridor has been selected as the preferred alternative. The EW3 crossover was not
selected because it would have greater negative impacts than the preferred E5 segment. Details of this
comparison appear in Chapter II(F.2). '
Federal Aviation Administration
Date of letter: August 27, 1990
None of the proposed corridors will cause impact to the airport. If the eastern corridor Is selected, ,
coordination should be maintained with FAA until the alignment is finalized.
Response: The Eastern
Corridor was not selected; therefore, coordination with FAA will not be required.
VI-2 '
C
r

1

n

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Date of letter: August 7, 1990
All corridors impact Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. The eastern corridor seems to have the least direct
Impact on the schools. Traffic should be maintained during construction on all roads Intersecting the
outer loop.
Response: Maintenance of traffic will be provided for during preparation of construction plans (see IV.E).
United States Environmental Protection Aged
Date of letter: September 17, 1990
The section that provides a review of the potential air quality Impact needs some clarification.
Response: The potential air quality impact discussion has been clarified in the FEIS. (See IV.B.1.)
A Hydrocarbon Emission Burden Analysis should be performed for each alternative using the MOBILE 4
computer model. A list of the modeling assumptions for each model should also be provided.
Response: This analysis has been included in the Final EIS (see IV.B.1). To remain consistent with earlier
work on this project, MOBILE3 was used instead of MOBILE4. The model assumptions are also listed in
IV.B.1.
The DEIS contains Information regarding background CO levels and disposal by burning that Is
Inconsistent with the North Charlotte Outer Loop.
Response: The background CO concentration used in this document (3.0 ppm) is based on later data than
that used in the North Charlotte Outer Loop EIS (2.4 ppm). Because of the low projected concentrations,
this difference is not critical. The methods for disposal of construction debris will comply with state and
local regulations.
The section of the DEIS that discusses wetland Impacts needs to be expanded to provide more detail
concerning specific significant Impacts to wetland areas.
Response: The wetland discussion has been expanded in the FEIS. Mitigation proposals are included in the
Chapter IV discussion. A letter indicating additional coordination with the Corps of Engineers is included in
Appendix B. NCDOT will apply for a Section 404 permit prior to construction. The fragmentation impact
of wetlands systems has been included in the expanded discussion.
VI-3
The Department of Transportation should aggressively pursue non-point source (water) pollution control
and incorporate design features to protect waterways from spills of hazardous materials.
Response: These features will be evaluated during final design of the project, incorporating measures
described in IV.33.
The discussion on the relationship of airport noise and highway noise should be clarified in the FEIS.
Table IV-5 Is confusing.
Response: The noise discussion has been clarified as requested in the FEIS. The footnotes for Table IV-5
have been revised to provide more clarity.
Noise mitigation measures should continue to be investigated.
Response: Other noise abatement measures are discussed in the FEIS, and will continue to be investigated
during the final design.
North Carolina Department of Environment. Health. and Natural Resources
Date of letter: October 3, 1990
Threatened and endangered species or species of state or federal concern may occur within the project
vicinity. Habitat degradation/fragmentation was inadequately addressed in the DEIS.
Response: To date, a literature search and preliminary field search have been conducted for the presence of
threatened and endangered species that may occur within the project vicinity with no observations of
occurrences. A detailed field reconnaissance will be conducted on the preferred alternative alignment during
the permitting and design phase of this project. A qualified biologist will survey the preferred alternative for
current-listed species with emphasis on Helianthus schweinitzii in all appropriate habitat locations at the
appropriate time of year. Further discussion has been added addressing habitat degradation and
fragmentation impacts on protected species.
The wetland section should be expanded, particularly regarding potential loss and mitigation plans.
Response: See response to US EPA regarding wetlands. Due to -the topography on the project vicinity, it is
not feasible to avoid impacts to wetlands totally. The applicant has demonstrated efforts to minimize wetland
impacts by selecting an alternative with the least amount of wetland impacts as the preferred alternative.
Wetland impacts will be mitigated as discussed in the document.
VI-4

I
1

Cumulative and indirect impacts were Inadequately addressed in the DEIS.
Response: This project is consistent with the land use plan adopted by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning
Commission; therefore, secondary impacts and induced development are addressed by this plan. The study
area is within the zoning jurisdiction of the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County; therefore, future
growth is subject to control by the Planning Commission and elected officials.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Date of letter: August 31, 1990
The document fails to address the speciflc impacts the project will have on fish and wildlife species and
other natural resources.
Response: These impacts are summarized in IV.B.5 and detailed in the technical report entitled "Natural
Resource Impacts."
Detailed descriptions of each impacted wetland and of mitigation proposals should be included in the final
document.
Response: See response to US EPA.
Bridges, not culverts and fill, should be used to cross broad floodplains, such as those at Paw Creek and
Beaverdam Creek.
Response: Bridges will be. considered during the design phase of this project at major waterway and
floodplain crossings.
Federal- and State-listed threatened and endangered species were not given adequate treatment in the
I document.

1
1
Response: To date, a literature search and preliminary field search have been conducted for the presence of
threatened and endangered species that may occur within the project vicinity with no observations of
occurrences. A detailed field reconnaissance will be conducted on the preferred alternative alignment during
the permitting and design phase of this project. A qualified biologist will survey the preferred alternative for
current-listed species with emphasis on Helianthus schweinitdi in all appropriate habitat locations at the
appropriate time of year. Further discussion has been added addressing habitat degradation and
fragmentation impacts on protected species.
VI-5
The middle corridor alternative is preferred due to smaller amount of affected wetland acreage.
Response: None required.
North Carolina Division of Forest Resources
Date of letter: August 8, 1990
We do not have any objections to the project as It appears it is needed.
Response: None required.
The Biotic Communities Maps in Chapter XI need to indicate acres of each type that is indicated.
Response: Table IV-7 has been expanded to indicate acreage by biotic community. See also the technical
memorandum, "Resource Impact Table I "
Provisions should be made to salvage all merchantable trees for pulpwood and sawtimber, and to protect
standing trees.
Response: These provisions have been added to the FEIS.
The Eastern Alternative appears to be the best. The final selected alignment should have the least impact
to forest and related resources.
Response: The Eastern Alternative was not selected based on the evaluation as detailed in Chapter H.F.
The Middle Corridor has been determined to be the best overall alternative.
North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation
Date of letter: August 28, 1990
Additional discussion of wetland and forest habitat mitigation is needed.
Response: See response to US EPA.
Appendix A-1 should be removed or modified to eliminate specific directional information.
Response: This section has been edited to remove specific directional information.
North Carolina Division of Land Resources
Date of letter: August 7, 1990
VI-6

1

1
1
L
Ten geodetic survey markers exist in the project area. The NC Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior
to construction.
Response: The NC Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction for relocation of any affected
monuments.
North C=arolina Division of Environmental Management
Date of letter: September 6, 1990
Section 401 Water Quality Certifications and Section 404 permits will be required.
Response: NCDOT will apply for these permits prior to construction.
NCDEHNR. Mooresville Regional Office
open burning must in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520 and well abandonment must be in accordance with
Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Response: These provisions are included in the document.
What type of impact on shallow wells are expected?
Response: Shallow wells in the vicinity of deep cuts for the roadway may be adversely affected, with the
quantity of the water reduced or increased sediment introduced by a lowering of the water table. Sections of
the project where this may occur include the crossings of Sandy Porter Road, Steele Creek Road, Dixie River
Road (north and south sections), Garrison Road, Mountainview Road, Walker's Ferry Road, and existing
Moores Chapel Road. The Wildwood subdivision may also be affected. Wells susceptible to impact from
the project will be monitored, and compensation will be provided for wells affected by the road construction.
Any underground storage tanks discovered during construction should be reported to DEM.
Response: This provision has been added to the FEIS.
Construction over or near waterways should not result in contravention of water quality standards.
Response: None required.
North Carolina DeRartment of Cultural Resources Division of Archives and History
Date of letter: August 23, 1990
VI-7
The Division concurs In all findings of the DEIS concerning historic properties, except for the finding of No
Adverse Effect for the Dr. Sandifer House. This should be an adverse effect, with planting as mitigation.
Response: Because the Western Corridor was not selected, there will be no effect on the Dr. Sandifer
House.
North Carolina Division of Emergen Management
Date of letter: August 2, 1990
On July 24, .1990, Governor Martin signed Executive Order 123, the Uniform Floodplain Management
Policy.
Response: Reference to this policy has been incorporated into the FEIS.
City of Charlotte. Department of Transportation
Date of letter: September 24, 1990
Figure I4 includes three errors.
Response: The figure has been corrected in the FEIS.
The 2010 volumes shown in Table I-2 for Billy Graham Parkway and Tyvola Road are considerably lower
than existing volumes or CDOTs projected 2010 volumes.
Response: It is recognized that the City's and NCDOT's traffic models produce different results in some
cases. Use of the City's volumes here would not be consistent with other projected traffic volumes. It is
recognized that the benefit of the West Outer Loop may be understated by the traffic volumes in this
document.
Coffey Creek Business Park Is not shown on Figure 1114.
Response: That development is located outside the project study area.
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department
Date of letter: September 20, 1990
Recommend not using W-3, W4, W-S segments, as they would bisect park areas.
Response: These segments are not included in the preferred alternative.
VI-8
1
C
1

Unites States Department of the Interior
Date of letter: November 21, 1990
We do not concur that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the Brown Farmstead.
Response: The alignment using property from the Brown Farmstead is not the preferred alternative.
A constructive use would occur at the Sandifer and Query Houses and Section 4(f) would apply.
Response: The alternatives affecting the Sandifer and Query Houses, were not selected. We disagree with
the assessment of constructive use.
Both 49 U.S.C. 303(a) and (b) apply to crossings of proposed greenways. We congratulate the project
sponsors for their commitment to design the crossings of such lands to accommodate future greenway
activities in accord with the wishes of the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department. The
' aesthetics of the crossing structures should be compatible with greenway use, and structure and roadway
drainage should be prevented from directly impacting trail surfaces and adjacent streams.
Response: The Department's commitment is to coordinate design of any necessary drainage structures with
the County Parks and Recreation Department.
'
The selection of the Western Alternative or EW_2 would be a constructive use of Berryhill District Park
land.
Response: The preferred alternative does not include the Western Alternative or Line EW-2. We disagree
' with the assessment of constructive use. As noted in the DEIS, the land for the proposed park was acquired
using a combination of park funds and corridor preservation funds. Proposed plans for the park and the
highway corridor have been jointly developed through coordination between the Park and Highway agencies.
In accordance with the FHWA's "Section 4(F) Policy Paper," Section 4(f) would not apply to this situation.
Likewise, since the park and highway facilities were jointly developed and planned, the use of the highway
t corridor would not substantially impair the activities, features, or attributes of the park resource.
' Table S-1, Page v. In order to correspond with the data provided in Section IV.B.7, the data in this table
concerning total wetland acreage potentially affected by the East alternative should be changed from 4.2 to
62 acres.
Response: Please see revised Table S-1, Page v.
VI-9
Section III.C.6, Pages III-20 to III-24: The statement falls to provide any Information concerning the
fishery values of the aquatic habitats present within the project area.
Response: A general description of the fish and other aquatic resources of the streams, ponds, and
impoundments present within the proposed alternatives can be found in the technical report Natural
Resource Impact, and Appendix A-2 of the FEIS. The discussions in II.C.7 and I:V.3.5 have been expanded
to include fishery values.
Section III.C.7, Page III-26: The plant Haliandhus schweinitzu was officially proposed by the Service for
Federal listing as an endangered species on July 2, 1990. Accordingly, the species' Federal designation
should be changed from "status review" to "proposed endangered."
Response: The status of Helianthus schweinitzii has been changed from "status review" to "endangered."
Section III.C.8, Pages III-26 to III-28. The Information provided In this section Is too general to allow an
adequate comparison of the wetlands present within and potentially impacted by the various alternatives.
Response: Wetland resources are similar at each impact site, and are described as good quality bottomland
hardwood forests associated with streams. See Technical Memo for species observed in the wetlands.
Section IV.B3, Pages IV 11 to IV-13: This section should also address the long-term water quality Impacts
likely to occur as a result of the elimination of riparian and floodplain wetlands, steam channel relocations,
highway and right-of-way maintenance activities, increased development of the project area, and other
highway-related activities.
Response: The above section has been expanded to address long-term water quality impacts.
Potential borrow sites, disposal sites, staging areas, etc., should be identified in the revised document and
should be located on upland sites In areas where they will have no adverse effect on water and wetland
resources.
Response: Borrow sites, disposal sites, and staging areas have not yet been identified. Should they be
necessary, they will be located on upland sites in areas where they will not adversely affect streams
impoundments, wetlands, or other important fish and wildlife habitats.
Section IV.BA and Table 1V-6, Pages IV-13 to IV 16: The criteria used for determining the type of structure
proposed for hydrologic crossings failed to give any consideration to the fish and wildlife habitat values of
the streams, Impoundments, and/or wetlands being crossed ... the Service recommends that Impacts to
such habitat be avoided to the maximum extent possible and that this section be revised to provide for
bridging of all streams and wetlands crossed by the selected alternative. The Service is particularly
VI-10

concerned about those wetlands associated with Eagle Lake, Beaverdam Creek, Little Paw Creek, and Paw
' Creek.
Response: Designing structures based on hydrologic criteria will, to a large extent, preserve animal habitat
and allow for cross-migration. The preferred alternative does not affect the wetlands at Eagle Lake or Little
Paw Creek. Mitigation is proposed to offset the impacts at Beaverdam Creek and Paw Creek, where
' bridging is not feasible.
This section should also be revised to assess the effects associated with Increased runoff due to the project-
related clearing of 457.2 to 5342 acres of woodlands and the conversion of roughly 7S or more acres of
earth to paved surface. Fioodplain and hydrological Impacts associated with commercial and residential
' development generated by the new highway should also be fully assessed In this section.
Response: The project would cause a slight increase in runoff velocities, quantities, and sedimentation in
' adjacent streams. An effective Erosion Control Management and Maintenance Plan will be implemented
during the design phase through construction. Mitigation measures that would minimize runoff and
' sedimentation impact would include such items as velocity dissipaters at drainage outlets, silt fences,
landscaping, sediment basins, and temporary slope drains. Impacts of developments will be controlled by
local government through sedimentation control ordinance and site plan review.
Section IV.B.4, Pages IV-16 and IV 17: This section currently gives only a very general assessment of
' potential terrestrial wildlife habitat losses expected as a direct result of highway corridor and right-of-way
clearing. It fails to address potential Impacts to wildlife associated with spoil disposal sites, borrow sites,
staging areas, etc. It also does not address Impacts expected due to other construction and development
within the project area likely to result from the new highway.
' Response: Please see previous response regarding borrow sites, staging areas, etc., and response to US EPA
regarding indirect impacts.
' No Information Is provided In the statement concerning the potential effects of each proposed alternative
on aquatic resources. The potential loss and alteration of aquatic habitats (stream and Impoundment)
associated with each alternative, including the Impacts associated with development and other actions likely
as a result of each alternative, should be fully described In the document, as should the effect these Impacts
will have on the fish (game and nongame) and other aquatic species populations within the project area.
Response: Regarding impacts to aquatic resources, please refer to the technical report entitled "Natural
' Resource Impacts" and Section III.C.6 of the FEIS for aquatic resources and loss of aquatic resources per
alternative alignment.
f VI-11
Section TV.B.7 and Table IV 9, Pages IV-19 to IV-21: The Information provided in this section is too
general to allow an adequate comparison of the alternatives. In addition, at least part of the data
presented in Table IV -9 appears to be Incorrect. This should be clarified, and the statement should be
revised to provide a full, accurate description of all potential stream impoundment, and wetland Impacts
associated with each alternative, including a complete breakdown (by site) of the type, location, and extent
of water and/or wetland habitat likely to be affected; the manner in which the waters or wetlands may be
affected; and justification as to why the impact(s) cannot be avoided. The final document should provide a
detailed mitigation plan that fully describes proposed mitigation sites and specific measures that will be
implemented to restore and/or create habitat to mitigate all unavoidable stream and wetland habitat losses
likely to occur as a result of the action. Restoration or creation of replacement habitat should be on a
habitat value basis rather than acre for acre.
Response: Please refer to the technical report entitled "Wetlands Assessment," Table 2. The table presented
in the FEIS is similar to the table presented in the technical report; however, the meaning has changed. The
table is intended to demonstrate estimated impacts to jurisdictional wetland, not hardwood bottomland
communities. Please refer to the technical report "Resource Impact," Table 1 for hardwood bottomland
swamp impact acreage per alternative alignment. A mitigation plan is proposed in Chapter IV of the FEIS.
Appendix A-1, Pages A-1 to A-3: The Federal status of Falco Fenegrinus hm&ius (tundrius is misspelled in
the document) should be "'I" (threatened); the Federal status of Haliaetus leucocephalus should be "E"
(endangered); and the Federal status of Heliandw schwebt&H should be changed to "PE" (proposed
endangered).
Response: Revisions have been made as recommended, except that Helianthus schweinitzii is now classified
as endangered.
Section IVY, Pages IV-31 and IV-32: The Impacts addressed under this section are long-term or
permanent impacts and should be Identified as such rather than as short-term impacts.
Response: Revisions have been made as recommended.
B. UTILITIES
The following utilities were also contacted to provide locations of their lines and facilities:
Duke Power Company
AT&T
Southern Bell Telephone
Piedmont Natural Gas Company
Cablevision of Charlotte
Vision Cable of Charlotte
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department
VI-12

ALLTEL Carolina, Inc.
Southern Net
CSX Railroad
Norfolk Southern Railway
C. STEERING COMMITTEE
A steering committee was formed at the initiation of the project study to provide assistance and
ensure coordination. Representatives from the following organizations attended steering committee
meetings:
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission
Charlotte Department of Transportation
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport
' Mecklenburg County - Engineering
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
' Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation
Town of Huntersville
' D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN
A public involvement plan was developed at the initiation of the study process with the following
t primary objectives:
' - To educate and inform the public on a timely basis regarding the study scope, schedule, findings,
and recommendations.
- To obtain public comments regarding the study process, data, conclusions, and
recommendations.
' The public involvement plan included use of several communications media as well as meetings
scheduled at various points during the study. These communications media and meetings are
described in the following sections.
1. Newsletters and Mailing List
Two newsletters have been distributed to interested citizens, groups, and officials throughout
the study. A database of citizen names was compiled, including persons attending meetings
' related to the study, persons requesting information, and neighborhood groups as provided by
the City of Charlotte. This list was updated and expanded throughout the study period and now
' includes approximately 350 names and addresses of interested citizens.
The first newsletter was mailed prior to the first public meeting and was also available at the
meeting.
VI-13
Copies of the newsletters are included in Appendix D.
2.
Telephone Contact
A telephone number for Kimley-Horn's Charlotte office was distributed through the newsletter
and at public meetings. This number was answered during regular office hours with an engineer
available to answer questions and provide information regarding the study progress and results.
If a question could not be answered immediately, the caller's telephone number or address was
recorded and a response made within two business days. Approximately 120 phone calls were
received from the public, mostly seeking information about the project.
3.
Mail Contact
A mailing address for Kimley-Horn was distributed through the newsletters and at public
meetings. All incoming mail was responded to by mail (or by telephone, if requested) within
two days. Approximately 20 letters were received from groups or individuals. Most of these
letters opposed the western alignment and supported the thoroughfare plan alignment.
4.
Public Informational Meetings
A public informational meeting was held early in the study. The meeting was informal, with
one-on-one interaction between project staff and the public. Brief presentations were made by
consultant staff during the meeting.
The public meeting was held at the Olympic High School Auditorium on Tuesday, October 25,
1988. The workshop meeting lasted from 5:00 PM until 9:00 PM, with a presentation by the
consultant at 7:30 PM. Approximately 65 citizens attended the meeting (52 signed the register),
with most remaining through the presentation. Officials from NCDOT, the City of Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, and the Federal Highway Administration were also present. Exhibits for
the workshop included maps of the alignments that showed potential hazardous waste sites,
mines and quarries, streams and floodways, historic and archaeological sites, land use, schools,
churches, and proposed parks and greenways. An aerial photo base map with the alternatives
displayed on an overlay attracted considerable attention from citizens. Another aerial photo
base map with a blank overlay was provided for citizens to indicate preferred routes or to make
other comments. Citizens also had the opportunity to be added to the mailing list or to make
comments on forms that were provided. A handout was provided which included printed maps
of the study area.
Citizen comments are summarized below:
VI-14
n
C?
1. "You can't please everybody, so let's get something done quickly."
2. Several citizens favored the western-most alignment (excluding the southern end) as least
disruptive.
al Air
ort
ti
I
l
t
l
D
h
3. p
.
on
n
erna
as
oug
ar
otte-
Some citizens favored the alignment closest to C
' 4. A majority of those expressing a preference favored the locally endorsed alignment.
5. One citizen was concerned about the route's impact on a manufacturing plant on York
Road.
' 6. A citizen commented that route selection should be coordinated with airport purchase of
residential property that is adversely affected by airport noise.
7. Several citizens favored following Westinghouse Boulevard to the Catawba River area.
8. It was pointed out that a chemical plant and old landfill exist along Shopton Road near
Sandy Porter Road.
th
9. e power
Some citizens strongly favored a northern terminus at Mt. Holly Road near
line.
' 10. It was noted that a natural gas pipeline crosses the study area north of I-85.
11. There was concern over the impact on the trailer park on Tuckaseegee Road north of
Wilkinson Boulevard.
12. Other projects discussed included the Little Rock Road extension, airport connector, and
southern outer belt.
13. Several people asked questions about the EIS process, particularly concerning duplication
of studies.
Items indicated on the "draw-your-own-route" map included the following:
' 1. Connect Carowinds Boulevard to the western alignment, then cross the river, or follow
along the eastern bank of river.
2. Through Taragate area, straight north along Wallace Neel Road, connect with Mt. Holly
Road at Tom Sadler Road.
3. Parallel to locally endorsed alignment, about 1,000' east on southern end, east of
manufacturing plant. Intersect Steele Creek Road just north of power line.
4. Parallel to locally endorsed alignment, east 2,000 to 4,000 feet, just west of development
on Shopton Road, through Steeleberry Acres, into Steele Creek road just south of Byrum
Drive.
5. Follow Coffey Creek to Douglas Drive.
6. Endorsement of western location at Mt. Holly Road.
7. Line crossing Wilkinson Boulevard at Paw Creek, crossing I-85, 3,000 feet east of Sam
' Wilson Road, stay west of Golf Course to cross gas pipeline between two lakes. (Line did
not continue north.)
' VI-15
A second public informational meeting was held on Wednesday, August 8, 1990 at Steele Creek
Presbyterian Church from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Hearing maps and exhibits were posted, and
representatives of Kimley-Horn and NCDOT were present to answer questions. Approximately
200 people attended the meeting. Most were concerned with the effect of the corridor on their
property, with the project schedule, and with procedures for right-of-way acquisition.
5. . Small Group Meetings
Civic groups and neighborhood organizations were contacted by mail early in the study process
to inform them that consultant staff were available to meet with them during the course of the
study for informal presentations and to answer questions. Minutes of these meetings are
included in Appendix D.
6. Public Hearing
A corridor public hearing was conducted by NCDOT on August 23, 1990 at West Mecklenburg
High School. Approximately 500 people attended. The purpose of the public hearing was to
receive comments from the public in a formal setting, so that these comments can be considered
in recommending a corridor for the West Charlotte Outer Loop. The comments from the
public hearing are summarized and addressed below.
Residents of the Eagle Lake community expressed opposition to segment E-2 of the Eastern Corridor due
to disruption of their community, degradation of the exceptionally high water quality, and damage to the
wildlife habitat.
Response: The preferred alternative avoids the Eagle Lake community by following the middle alternative.
Several people supported the west corridor so as to move the outer loop as far out as possible.
Response: The west alternative creates an adverse traffic impact on Garrison Road as well as serving less
traffic than either the east or middle alternatives. Moreover, the west corridor impacts the greatest amount
of wetland acreage, impacts the Lake Wylie shoreline, and conflicts with the existing I-85 weigh station.
Members of the Moores Chapel United Methodist Church circulated a petition against the EW3 crossover
option. The petition, signed by 160 citizens, stated that the EW3 crossover option would threaten the future
existence of the community.
Response: The preferred alternative does not include the EW3 crossover alternative.
VI-16

1
i
Several citizens expressed the opinion that the power lines along the west corridor offer the best alignment
alternative leading to the least noise impact and community disruption.
Response: The west corridor adversely impacts planned parks near Lake Wylie. Noise levels will be less
with the west corridor (Table IV-6) but the impact on wetlands would be much greater (Table IV-10). The
middle alternative (the proposed action) impacts 5.1 acres, whereas the west alternative impacts 10.0 acres.
Also, the west corridor is the least compatible with the 2005 Generalized Land Plan.
One citizen, commenting In favor of the west corridor, stated: "The west alternative crosses 145 west of the
high voltage power lines. Contrary to the DEIS, the weigh station could remain Intact as It Is east of the
power lines. This would fit In perfectly for trucks after being weighed to enter the outer loop.*
Response: This comment assumes that the truck weigh station would not have to be relocated given a west
alternative. In order to provide safe merge distances, however, the weigh station would have to be relocated
at great cost and disruption.
One citizen felt that the percentages of heavy trucks used In the air pollution and noise pollution models
were understated.
Response: For the air pollution model, the default vehicle mix was used. The 4.4% heavy diesel trucks
refereed to by the citizen is one component of the truck percentage. Since medium and heavy trucks which
consume either gasoline or diesel are considered, the actual truck percentage used for the air pollution
modeling was 22.1%. This figure is an extremely conservative estimate for the proposed action in the peak
hour. For the noise pollution model, a peak-hour truck percentage of approximately 7% was used. NCDOT
has stated previously that the peak-hour truck percentage is roughly one-half of the daily percentage.
Consequently, the value that was used can be considered reasonable.
One citizen noted that Increases In the noise levels were non-uniform at the monitoring locations (Table IV-
5). In his opinion, the evaluations were "unrealistic!
Response: The projected noise levels are determined by combining existing noise, projected aircraft noise,
and projected traffic noise. The amount of increase over existing is a function of all three. Since noise is
added logarithmicly, quiet receptors will exhibit greater increases than louder ones. This accounts for the
non-uniform increases in noise levels.

I VI-17
I
TABLE VI-1
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
Individual Comments
Favor Qnnosed
East 1 10
Middle 5 2
West 1 7
EWl (crossover) -- --
EW3 (crossover) -- 10

Form Letters/Petitions
Favor Qnposed
l
-- 160
1
1

}

VI-18
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1

J

CHAPTER VII
LIST OF PREPARERS
This report was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways; City of Charlotte; and the County of Mecklenburg.
Federal Highway Administration
Roy C. Shelton
District Engineer
B.S. in civil engineering. Engineer responsible
for the administration of the Federal Aid highway
program for the western district of North Carolina.
Twenty-five years of experience in transportation.
John C. Wadsworth
Area Engineer
B.S. in civil engineering. Engineer responsible
for administration of Federal-Aid Highway Program in
Mecklenburg County. Twenty-five years experience in
transportation.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
L.J. Ward, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
B.S. in civil engineering. Highway engineer manager,
responsible for highway planning and environmental
impact analyses for NCDOT. Thirty-seven years
experience in transportation.
H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
B.S. in civil engineering. Highway engineer
responsible for coordinating consulting engineering
firms preparing planning/environmental studies.
Seventeen years experience in transportation.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
James L. Zimmerman, Jr., P.E.
Principal-in-Charge
Laurence J. Meisner, P.E., AICP
Manager
Nathan B. Benson, P.E.
Project Manager - Environmental
Norman H. Willey, P.E.
Project Manager - Design
J. Steven Mifflin, P.E.
Project Design Engineer
M.S. and B.S. in civil engineering. Responsible for
management of engineering and environmental
studies. Twenty-two years of professional engineering
experience.
M.S. in regional planning and B.S. in industrial
engineering. Fourteen years of experience in
transportation planning and environmental studies.
B.S. in civil engineering. Twenty-nine years of
experience in transportation planning and
environmental studies.
B.S. in civil engineering. Thirty years of experience
in highway design.
M.S. and B.S. in civil engineering. Fourteen years
of professional engineering experience in highway
planning and design.
VII-1
Lisa S. Hilliard, P.E. B.S. in civil engineering. Five years of experience in
Project Planner transportation planning and environmental studies.
Brian A. Roper, E.I.T. Graduate studies and B.S. in civil engineering. Two
Transportation Analyst years experience in transportation planning and
environmental studies.
Russell J. Woodworth, P.E. B.S. in civil engineering. Seven years of Roadway
Roadway Design Engineer transportation experience in design and environmental
assessments.
Thomas W. Lambert, E.I.T. B.S. in civil roadway engineering. Five years
Design Engineer experience in roadway design.
Jimmy R. Westmoreland, Jr. B.S. in civil engineering. Two years experience
Transportation Analyst in transportation engineering.
John E. McCullough, C.E.T. Associate's degree in civil engineering. Twenty-two
Transportation Analyst years experience in traffic operations, noise, and air
quality analyses.
Nathaniel S. Behura M.S. and B.S. in civil engineering. Three years
Transportation Analyst experience in transportation planning.
James M. Hudgens Graduate studies in biology, bachelor of Biology,
CZR Science (biology and chemistry). Twenty years of
related experience. Responsible for environmental
assessment and planning work.
Cynthia Bruce B.S. degree (biology and chemistry). Two years of
Biologist, CZR experience in a variety of technical and managerial
tasks including environmental survey work, resource
definition and mapping, technical writing,
environmental permitting, and endangered and
threatened species studies.
Anne S. Cox M.S. and B.S. in biology. Two years of experience
Biologist, CZR in resource definition and mapping, environmental
surveys and technical writing. Specialty field is Botany.
Thomas Hargrove B.A. and MA. in anthropology. Fifteen years
Archaeologist of experience in archaeology and thirteen years
Thomas Hargrove and Associates of experience in cultural resource management.
Mary Beth Gatza B.A. in historic preservation. Three years
Architectural Historian experience as architectural historian and research
historian.
Grant Anderson B.S. in engineering physics. Twenty years experience
Senior Consultant in acoustic analysis.
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission
David A. Howard B.S. in community and regional planning.
Community Planning Manager Sixteen years planning experience. Manager of long-
range and mid-range planning and transportation for
Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C. for fifteen years.
VII-2

Charlotte Department of Transportation
R.N. Pressley, Jr. P.E.
Director

William B. Finger, P.E.
Manager, Transportation Planning Division
Mecklenburg County Engineering
William S. Coxe
County Transportation Planner

r

r

B.S. in civil engineering. Responsible for all
transportation planning and City Traffic Engineer in
City of Charlotte. Twenty-five years experience in
transportation.
B.S. in industrial engineering. Master's degree
in transportation planning. Division of the Charlotte
DOT. Sixteen years experience in transportation.
BA. in geography and political science.
Coordinator of transportation planning for
Mecklenburg County. Twelve years experience m
transportation.
VII-3
1
r
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Twis

Air Quality
Alternatives
No Action
Transportation System Management
Mass Transit Systems
Construction
Archaeological/Historical Sites
Businesses
Churches and Cemeteries
Community Cohesion
Cost Estimates
Economic Conditions
Farmlands
Floodplain Involvement
Geology
Hazardous Waste
Hydrology
Land Use
Mineral Resources
Need for Improvement
Noise
Parks and Recreation Facilities
Planning, Transportation
Planning, Land Use
Preparers
Population Characteristics
Public Involvement
Relocation
Safety
Schools
Soils
Threatened and Endangered Species
Traffic, Demand
Typical Sections
Utilities
Vegetation
Water Quality
Wetlands
Wildlife
CHAPTER VIII
INDEX
VIII-1
III-29, IV-3
II-1
H-1
U-1
II-2
II-3
III-8, IV-37
III-12, IV-30
III-7
IV-1
II-7
III-13
III-28, IV-25
IV-18
III-17
III-15, IV-33
III-18, IV-18
IV-2
III-17, IV-33
I-1
IV-7
III-5, IV-36
1-1,111-12
III-12
VII-1
III-1
VI-1
IV-30
I-7
III-7, IV-36
111-18
III-25, IV-22
II-10
1I-7
III-14, IV-35
I11-20, IV-22
III-18, IV-14
III-27, IV-26
III-20

1
1j,

1

CHAPTER IX
REFERENCES
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Technical Coordinating Committee, Western Outer Belt Location Study Draft,
September 1986.
Sasaki Associates, Inc., Western Outer Belt Location Study, prepared for Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Metropolitan Planning Organization, September 1985.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Biocle Program Bicycling Highways Touring Guide.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, Employment and Household Projections. Mecklenburg
County, A Syo_optic Rep,.
United States Department of the Interior, The Mineral Industry of North Carolina, Yearbooks from 1980 to
1986.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Land
Resources, Geological Survey Section, Dir tor^y of North Carolina Mineral Producers, 1981.
r P. Albert Carpenter, III, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,
Division of Land Resources, Geological Survey Section, Metallic Mineral Deposits of the Carolina State
Belt. North Carolina. Bulletin 84, 1976.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, Comprehensive Street Classification System, February 1983.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section, Water Qualm Prog[ess in North Carolina 1986-1987.3056
ReRgrt, July 1988.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Environmental
Management, Air Quality Section, Ambient Air Quality, 1986.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Important Farmlands of Mecklenburg-County.
North Carolina.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, Stele Creek Small Area Plan, May 1985.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, Comprehensive Plan 1995 August 1976.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, 2005 Generalized Land Plan. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, adopted
by Charlotte City Council and Mecklenburg County on November 25, 1985.
Wilbur Smith and Associates, Long Range Transit Plan. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public n i n Stud
prepared for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, January 1977.
State of North Carolina, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of
Environmental Management, Classification and Water Qualify Standards Assigned to the Waters of Ik
Catawba River Basin, (Reprint from N.C. Administrative Code: 15 NC AC 2B.0308).
State of North Carolina, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of
Environmental Management, Administrative Code Section: 15 NC Ac 2B.0100 - Procedures for
A. i _ ment of Water Quality Standards, ,15 NC AC 2B.0200 - Classification and Water Quality
Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina, effective January 1, 1988.
Dbde/BerQhill Small Area Plan. Study Group Report, adopted by the County Commission February 2, 1989.
Mecklenburg County Planning, Planning Staff, Regional Reconnaissance, Fall 1986.
i IX-1

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Technical Coordinating Committee, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Surface Transportation
Improvement Program. FY89-FY93, approved by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Metropolitan Planning
Organization, May 1988.
North Carolina Employment Security Commission, Labor Market Information Division, Civilian Labor Force
Estimates for North Carolina. 1984.
North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, State Data Center, Profile. North Carolina U ate.
1982.
North Carolina Department of Water Resources and Community Development, Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMANI Water
Quality Review 1983-1986, June 1988.
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Jk Q
Hazardous Waste Facilities Excluding Small Generators, June 1988.
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Master Plan Update Volume IV; Airport Plans. Financial Plan and
Environmental Factors, October 1987, prepared by Howard Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff.
Geology and Ground Water in Charlotte Area. North Carolina, by H.E. LeGrand and MI. Mundorff,
Geologists, U.S. Geological Survey, 1952

J

IX-2 1
u
F
CHAPTER X
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A -BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
1- Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern Potentially Occurring in
i the Project Area
2- Animals Likely to Occur in the Project Area
' 3- References for Biotic Communities Data
4- Biotic Communities Map
APPENDIX B - AGENCY RESPONSES
APPENDIX C - RELOCATION STUDY REPORTS
APPENDIX D - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
1 - Newsletters
2 - Meetings with Public

1

X-1
t
t
1
1
1
1

APPENDIX A-1
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN
POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC
Fed. State
Scientific Name Common Name Status maw Notes on Occurrence
MAMMALS
Felis concolor cougar Eastern cougar E E Assumed to be
extirpated from N.C.;
Requires larger
uninhabited tracts. Not
likely to occur in project
area.
BIRDS
Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland's warbler E E Migratory species; no
nesting occurs in the
project area; not
observed on site.
Falco peregrinus tundrius Arctic peregrine T E Migratory species;
falcon does not nest in the
project area; not
observed on site.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Southern bald eagle E T No known nesting sites
in the project area;
requires large body of
open water for feeding.
Nearest known nesting
site is at Jordan Lake,
near Raleigh, NC.
Vermivora bachmani Bachman's warbler E E Within historic range.
Almost extinct; no
nesting sites in area; not
likely to occur.
FISH
Etheostoma colus Carolina darter SC Not within project
corridor; not likely to
occur.
Hytpsis zanema Santee chub SC Not with project
corridor; not likely to
occur.
PLANTS
Tortula Rropag lu osa
Budding tortula
PP
Not in project corridor.
Anemone berlandieri Southern thimbleweed PP Not likely to occur.
Botrychium jenmanii Alabama grape fern SR Last observed 1936-39;
not likely to occur.
Carex projecta Necklace sedge PP Not likely to occur.
Dentaria multifida Divided toothwort SR Not likely to occur.
Echinacea pallida Pale coneflower PP Last observed 1969. Site
possibly destroyed.
A-1
Echinacea RuMurea Purple coneflower SR Known to occur in
Mecklenburg County,
N.C. Not observed on
site.
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitts sunflower E E Not observed in project
corridor. Not likely to
occur.
Nestronia umbellula Nestronia C2 T Not likely to occur.
Panex Quinguefolius Ginseng 3C SC Known to occur in
Mecklenburg County.
Not observed on site.
E = Endangered C1 = Candidate with sufficient data to support listing
T = Threatened C2 = Candidate without sufficient data to support listing
SC = Special Concern 3C = Does not appear to need listing based on current assessment
PP = Primary Proposed of rarity and threats
SR = Significantly Rare
PE = Proposed Endangered
A-2
1

11
J

APPENDIX A-2
Animals Likely to Occur
in the Project Area
A-3
APPENDIX A-2
Fauna Likely to Occur In
Charlotte West Outer Loop Study Area
*Grey squirrel
Virginia opossum
Southeastern shrew
Southern short-tailed shrew
Least shrew
Eastern mole
little brown myotis
Eastern pipistrelle
Big brown bat
Silver-haired bat
Seminole bat
Evening bat
*Eastern cottontail
Fox squirrel
Southern flying squirrel
Eastern harvest mouse
White-footed mouse
Golden mouse
Hispid cotton rat
Meadow vole
*Red fox
Grey fox
Raccoon
Long-tailed weasel
Mink
Striped skunk
White-tailed deer
BIRDS
*Cardinal
*American robin
Brown thrasher
*Carolina wren
*Eastern bluebird
Wood thrush
Gray catbird
*Mocking bird
Brown-headed nuthatch
Eastern tufted titmouse
Carolina chickadee
*Common crow
Blue jay
Eastern phoebe
Downy woodpecker
*Red-bellied woodpecker
Red-headed woodpecker
Eastern kingbird
Common flicker
Ruby-throated hummingbird
*Mourning dove
(Cardinalis cardinalis)
*Species observed within the project study corridors during field studies.
A-4

!t"
L?I'

F7
n
171

n
IJ

11

1

( rocyon cinereoar eg nteus)
(Procyon lotor)
(Mustela frenata)
(Mustela vison)
(Mephitis mephitis)
(Odocoileus vir ink ice)
(Colaptes auratus)
(Archilochus colubris)
(Zenaida macroura)
1
J

[J

t
11

0
1

Loggerhead shrike
Starling
White-eyed vireo
Black-and-white warbler
Yellow warbler
Pine warbler
House sparrow
Eastern meadowlark
Red-winged blackbird
Common grackle
Scarlet tanager
Rufous-sided towhee
*Held sparrow
'Mallard
'Canada goose
Wood duck
'Turkey vulture
*Red-tailed hawk
Red-shouldered hawk
American kestrel
Northern bobwhite
Screech owl
Whip-poor-will
REPTILES
Common snapping turtle
Eastern mud turtle
Eastern musk turtle
Eastern box turtle
Northern fence lizard
Six-lined racerunner
Ground skink
Carolina anole
Southeastern five-lined skink
Broad-headed skink
Slender glass lizard
Worm snake
Scarlett snake
Black racer
Ringneck snake
Rat snake
Mole kingsnake
Eastern kingsnake
Northern water snake
Brown water snake
Rough green snake
Queen snake
Brown snake
Redbelly snake
Southeastern crowned snake
Eastern ribbon snake
Eastern garter snake
Rough earth snake
Smooth earth snake
Copperhead
Canebrake rattlesnake
*Species observed within the project study corridors during field studies.
A-5
AMPHIBIANS
Southern leopard frog
Pickerel frog
Green frog
Bull frog
Northern cricket frog
Gray treefrog
Spring peeper
Upland chorus frog
Eastern spadefoot toad
Fowler's toad
Eastern newt
Spotted salamander
Marbled salamander
Northern dusky salamander
Three-lined salamander
Four-toed salamander
Slimy salamander
FISHES
Longnose gar
Bowfin
Chain pickerel
Threadfm shad
Bluehead chub
Rosyside dace
Redlip shiner.
Creek chub
Striped jumprock
Margined madtom
Fantail darter
Stoneroller
Redbreast sunfish
Bluegill
Largemouth bass
White sucker
Green sunfish
V-lip redhorse
Suckermouth redhorse
Channel catfish
Brown bullhead
(Lepomis auritus)
(Lgpomis macrochirus)
icropterus salmoides)
(Catostomus commersoni)
(Lepomis cvanellus)
(Moxostoma collapsum)
(Moxostoma pappillosum)
(Ictalurus Runctatus)
(Ictalurus nebulosus)
*Species observed within the project study corridors during field studies.
A-6

1
E

P?

1

APPENDIX A-3
REFERENCES FOR BIOTIC COMMUNITIES DATA
CZR, Inc. Treyburn• Natural Resource Documentation Biotic Communities Element. Coastal Zone
Resources, Inc., Jupiter, FL; 1985.
Cooper, J.E.; Robinson, S.S.; Funderburg, J.B., editors. Endaugmd and Threatened Plants and Animals of
North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: N.C. State Museum of Natural History, 1977.
Hall, E. Raymond. The Mammals of North America. New York, N.Y.; John Wiley & Sons; 1981.
Louder, Darrell E. S..= and Classification of the Catawba River and Tributaries North Carolina.
Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission; 1964. .
Martof, Bernard S.; Palmer, Wm. M.; Harrison III, Julian R. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virg'ma. Chapel Hill: University of NC Press; 1980.
Menhinick, E.F. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. Charlotte, NC: Press of the Univ. of N.C. at
Charlotte; 1975.
Miller, W.C. North Carolina Mammalian Species. Raleigh, NC: N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission;
1969.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Database Output, Raleigh, NC; 1989.
Potter, Eloise F.; Parnell, James F.; Teulings, Robert P. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of NC Press; 1980.
Radford, A.E.; Ahles, H.E.; Bell, C.R. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of NC Press; 1968.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plan
(Reprint) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior; 1988.

1

11

APPENDIX A-4
Biodc Communities Map

1

i
1
0

?I
J
sm
0
n
0
0
3
N
a?
a
m
F o
M3 OD *mi
f J) N p p on ?
rq
a ?3 ?OD$?x83m
m? ma1OW?;?kW
N p c 2 am
m g m$
e 3? ? ?=u?gm'x
M
3-n°?a ?o=g
a Z
a?
a
0
0
a
Common segment
_- -,_
a
-I g??
N '
m
U)
2
D
0
q
m
0
C
m
m
F.,
sm
0
0
C
m
N
D?
00 m
m
N p o l
f '0 ' 2 -1
v i

? ?3 n Q D $ 9 = 5 3<
e (a S we L C
a
:E K?
N
CL
a ? I 8 ; m?
W ' a W
FL ? o 8 m
3.
CL
?
o 0 CL
=:E
=8
a l ma
3 8
0 CL
a

0

w
a
N
r
m
m
z
v
00,
D
z
m -
N '

/
/
v
y?EE? cRe ,? ?09?
i?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Z -A?
J
w
"O'I
U
J
I
v i s
z ? m
3
z
/ U
c
XtE SAO e I : ? ?
w •
I L
a A 4k, W? m? m
L / o « E oG
Q??OL AZ I
.000
W a = ; 3
IL U -? a
=t o .? f
tut LL. LL. LL
? ? Oll,?y r w ,?
J
03SOdOh
"Ol
/ y
/
i w Z
/ ,4 w J?
looo,
ar
4
w
?d
f
I?p
%i., alti
4 ?
/
w
W
/ A
r
i V
LL Q
W
H
7
V
O
S
cc
W
Is
0
FW-
0
Q
N

1

1

J

r_

1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
7
Q
4
0
q
s

w
1
31 -k -,/-
03SOdDtid
s

3 /
3
4
IY

S
oc
N
V
ro

a

3
a°

ro E
E
? °

?

W

m r
.
o
m
c LL E
I ? g w

c o
?C
W g 5 :2 a m

o?
m
m
K
=
Y
?
?

?
c
0p1.
?
?
?
?
m
m C

c
E
C!

LL U. cm

93
Z
t7
W
J
w
_1) -- z
U
Y
£-3
Q
w ?
? Q
N
W
F-
0
U
F=
0
o?
CL
0
Q
W
F-
0
O
Q
N

1

C

I.
I

1
Q
4 x ?
W
n
ti - ? fl

X
,,1 D
N011oj

4
i
CO)
Z
p ?
m
ti
OFs
21 a
? o
100, LU $ao
I CL
p _ _ -- ?.
> c a 12
ooo,
_ _ g o
S-AA ? r .?,:: ?? 1LLI s _? W aIi?
U. U.
C
o
m

m
W ? h
Q
-- M

w W
U. Q
W
P
Z
0
V
H
m

W
5
0
F.
o
Q
W
3

u
u
11

I

0

I I
u

E
APPENDIX B
AGENCY RESPONSES

n

0

?I

0

I
r

fl

14$ Memorandum
U.S. Department of
Transportation
Office of the Secretary
of Transportation
Subject Draft Environmental Impact Statements Date: 21 IM
and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for
Two NogAh Carolina Projects
Reply to
From ugen Lehr. Attn. of:
Chief, Environmental Division
To Eugene W. Cleckley
Chief, Environmental Operations
Division, HEV-11
We appreciate the opportunity to review the subject draft
environmental impact statements and draft section 4(f)
evaluation. We have no comments.
et~Q1? o--'
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of the Chief Scientist
???cs o' Washington, O.C. 20230
' August 31, 1990
v ?- Zo
y9ch•E1 ? ^'
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager %?ANC??
Planning and Environmental Branch
' N. C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
' Dear Mr. Ward:
Enclosed are comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Outo- T^-n, Nort1- Carolina. We hope our
comments will assist you. Thank you for giving us an opportunity
to review the document.

Enclosure

Sincerely,
David Cott'ngham
Director
Ecology and Environmental
Conservation Office
?F
. i

1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
OFFICE OF CHARTING AND GEODETIC SERVICES
ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND 20952
2 0 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR: David Cottingham
Ecology and Environmental Conservation Office
Office of the Chief Scientist
FROM: Rear Admiral Wesley V. Hull, NOAA
Director, Charting and Geodetic Services
' SUBJECT: DEIS 9007.14 - West Charlotte Outer Loop,
North Carolina
The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of
Charting and Geodetic Services' (C&GS) responsibility and
' experti__ .:.:d in is of the impact of the proposed actions on
C&GS activities and projects.
A preliminary review of C&GS records has indicated the presence
' of both horizontal (H) and vertical (V) geodetic control survey
monuments in the proposed project area. Attached are the
published geodetic control data for quadrangle 350803 (H & V).
This information should be reviewed for identifying the location
and designation of any geodetic control monuments that may be
affected by the proposed project. If there are any planned
activities which will disturb or destroy these monuments, C&GS
requires not less than 90 days' notification in advance of such
activities in order to plan for their relocation. C&GS
' recommends that funding for this project includes the cost of
any relocation required for C&GS monuments. For further
information about these monuments, please contact the National
' Geodetic Information Branch, N/CG17, Rockwall Bldg., room 20,
National Geodetic Survey, NOAA, Rockville, Maryland 20852,
telephone [phone].
' Attachments
cc:
N/
N/CG17 - Spencer

' yL.Jwby 4y
4 I . . i?
P
`f 4
September 7, 1990
v SfP 1'4 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager ???,lytt,NOF V?
Planning and Environmental Branch Y? ?Pr
N. C. Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr.. Ward;
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statements for West and
North Charlotte outer Loop with regard to any potential impact on Charlotte/
Douglas International Airport. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and
offer the following:
A. we prefer the middle corridor with a crossover EW3 to the western
corridor for the West Charlotte Outer Loop. We prefer th.e middle
' corridor alignment of Al plus E1 plus M1 pius M2 plus E3 plus E4
because it will minimize the impact of the roadway on our Terminal VOR
facility and will provide an opportunity for the development of
compatible land u3es on the airport side of the loop. we prefer the
EW3 connector to the western corridor because this routing follows our
flight departure corridor for Runway 36L and would encourage compatible
development in this area.
B. We prefer the north Charlotte outer loop alignment which would coincide
with the western corridor of the West Charlotte Outer Loop. We do not
believe that any of the other proposed ali(;nments for the Northern
Charlotte outer loop would have a negative impact on Charlotte/Douglas
International Airport.
If additional information is required, please advise.
Very truly yours,
i
T. ?J. Orr
Aviation Director
TJO:EJC:cs

Charlotte/Douglas International Airport
R O. Box 19066 Charlotte, NC 28219 704/359-4000

loa?a - Ad():)
_. '

?
v RALEIGH, N.C.
U.S.Department Atlanta Airports trict Office
of Transportation 1680 Phoenix Parkway. Suite 101
Federal Aviation Atlanta. Georgia 30349
Administration

?sso
- ?
AUG 2 : i O

' rtuc 3 1 1994 =
Qp6:?,IUIN OF
1 Mr. L. J. Ward. P.E.. Manager
?Q
xltj-WAYS
?
Planning and Environmental Branch P?G
N. C. Division of Highways RESE
P.O. Rnv 7CIM
r\aitign
NC 27611
.
Dear Mr. Ward:

We reviewed the west and north Charlotte Outer loop environmental impact
statements as to what. or if any. impact the Charlotte Outer Loop will have
on the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport. We do not believe any of
the proposed routing corridors for the west and north portions of the
Charlotte Outer Loop will cause any impact to the airport.
' However. if the eastern corridor is selected as the build alternative for
the west Outer Loop. we request that coordination be maintained with this
office until the alignment of the Outer Loop within the corridor is
finalized.
Sincerely.
Th-'om as 'M?Robe
' Program Manager
' Enclosures: Environmental Impact Statements
cc:
Mr. W. G. Plentl. Jr.. North Carolina DOT
Mr. T. J. Orr. Aviation Director

1 PARTNERS IN CREATING TOMORROWS AIRPOP-rc

Auxiliary Services
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Post Office Box 30035
Charlotte. North Carolina 28230
Telephone: [phone]
August 7, 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P.O.Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
Peter D. Relic
G f- l V Superintendent
6047?
(5 0 Wli..,_3
WIG`
1990
. -'?Sstir
RE: Federal Draft Environmental Impact Statement for West
Charlotte Outer Loop, from I-77 South near Westinghouse
Boulevard to NC27, approximately 13 miles, in Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project F-117-1(5),
State Project No. 8.1672201, TIP No.R-2248(A)
Dear Mr. Ward:
Thanx you Zor the oYpurtuctity tc re5l,o11u to _ne uraft Environmental
Impact Statement for the West Charlotte Outer Loop, TIP No. R-2248(A).
The three proposed routes for the West Charlotte Outer Loop would have
some impact on Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. All the routes pass in
close proximity to the Steele Creek, Kennedy, and Olympic complex with
the middle and western rouges curving around these schools. The Western
route comes very close to Berryhill School and may take several acres of
this property. The Eastern route seems to have the least direct impact
on our schools.
Of considerable importance is the continuation of traffic on all the
major roads in this area during construction. With the possible
exception of Garrison Road, all the other roads which intersect with the
Outer Loop are used extensively by our school buses to pick up students
or deliver them to school. All three routes cross Walkers Ferry Road,
the main access to Berryhill School The only alternative route to this
school is several miles longer and could cause severe scheduling
problems.
It should be noted that other proposed improvements listed in the 1988
thoroughfare plan would improve the traffic flow of our buses. The
Arrowood Road extension to Brown Grier Road would improve service to
Kennedy and Olympic. The Moores chapel Road connector would improve
service for West Mecklenburg area schools.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Charles R. Allis n III
Assistant Supt. Auxiliary Services
Administrative Offices Education Center 701 East Second Street

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
344 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30345
4PM-FAB/DM S E P Mr. L. G. Ward, Manager
Planning and Research
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
' Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
P.O. Box 26806
Raleigh, NC 27611
' Subject: Draft EIS for the West Charlotte Outer Loop;
Mecklenburg Co., NC; Federal-Aid Project F-117-1(5);
State Project No.: 8.1672201; ERP No.: D-FHW-E40733-NC
' Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102 (2) (C)
' of the National Environmental Policy Act, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Draft Environmental impact
statement (DEIS) for the above referenced proposed project. We have
some areas of concern that should be addressed in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
' Air Quality
The section that provides a review of the potential air quality
impact needs some clarification. First, a Hydrocarbon Emission
Burden Analysis needs to be performed for each alternative and the
analysis should use the Mobile 4 computer model. The results of the
modeling analysis should be completed and forwarded to the reviewing
agencies for comment. Also, the information should provide a list of
the modeling assumptions that are used for each model.
This DEIS contains information that is inconsistent with the DEIS for
' the North Charlotte Outer Loop. The reported background carbon
monoxide levels differ. This difference should be explained or
corrected. Also, do the values in Table IV-1 include background
levels? No alternative analysis was given. This analysis should be
completed or a statement should be made that these values represent
the worst case for all alternatives. Next, on page III-29 and page
IV-5 it is stated that data indicate attainment for ozone in the
project area. This is not the case since numerous exceedances of the
ozone standard have occurred in the past three years. Additionally,
this DEIS contains a poor discussion of construction impacts. This
DEIS states that open burning of the construction debris will be
allowed and the West Loop study states that it will not be allowed.
Since it appears that the same restrictions whould apply for the both
' projects, this fact should be clarified.
-2-
Wetlands
The lose of forested wetlands in the Southeast is a major concern to
EPA. The section of the DEIS that discusses wetland impacts needs to
be expanded to provide more detail concerning specific significant
impacts to wetland areas. The description should include information
about the type and locution of each impacted wetland area no, the
reviewer can determine the magnitude of impacts from each bild
alternative on the wetland resources of the area. For example, no
information is provided that would allow the reviewer to determine if
fragmentation of larger wetland areas will occur from the placement
of the highway through a particular wetland area. Additionally, the
discussion of impacts due to wetland losses and potential mitigation
proposals should include information regarding how important wetland
functions, such as wildlife and fisheries habitat and flood water
retention, will be retained in the project area. Specific proposals
for wetland mitigation for each alternative should be discussed.
Although the DEIS discusses the potential for mitigation of the loss
of the wetlands, mitigation is acceptable only after it is
conclusively demonstrated that the selected design represents the
least damaging environmentally feasible alternative. This analysis
should be included in the FEIS.
Since this project will likely require Section 404 permits from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, we suggest close coordination with our
wetland staff to ensure that environmentally acceptable highway
alignments or acceptable mitigation alternatives that offset
unavoidable impacts are selected for the proposed project and
presented in the FEIS. Also, the method used to delineate wetland
areas has not been completely described in the document. The method
described in The Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
"risdictional Wetlands is accepted by federal :regulatory agencies
and should be used to avoid mistakes in estimating the size of
impacted wetland areas. For additional information contact Mr. Lee
Pelej of our Wetland Unit at 404-347.2126 or FTS 257-2126.
Water Oua 1 it_y
The construction of the proposed project has the potential to
adversely impact the water quality of the area since it traverses a
large number of streams and drainways. In ordex to adequately
protect the water quality of the study area, we urge the Department
of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration to
aggressively pursue non-point source pollution control for this
project and incorporate design features to protect the waterways from
accidental spills and run-off of hazardous materials.

1 -3-
Noise
The noise analysis provides a general discussion of the noise levels
' expected to occur from the highway. However, the discussion on the
relationship of airport noise to projected highway noise levels and
impacts is confusing and should be clarified in the FEIS. Also,
' Table IV-S is confusing since footnote 1 and the bracketed values
seem to be contradictory. The DEIS describes a number of mitigation
measures that have been considered but initially rejected due to
cost. We urge you to continue to invewtigate these and other options
to reduce noise levels and provide relief to residences from the
impacts of noise related to this project. Some additional mitigation
methods that should be considered for use are alignment shifts, use
of vegetation and berms, soundproofing individual residences, and
purchase of residences.
' Based on concerns over the potential impacts to area wetlands, water
quality, residents due to noise, and the need for additional air
quality analysis, EPA rates the document as EC-2. This means
the review has identified envi.rcnmental impac-.s that should be
avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective
measures may require changes to some of the alternatives or
application of mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental
' impacts. Also, the DEIS does not contain sufficient information
concerning the potential impacts to wetlands and air quality to allow
full assessment of the environmental impacts that should be avoided
to protect the environment. EPA would like to work with your agency
to reduce these potential impacts.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. if you
have any questions regarding our comments, please call David Melgaard
of my staff at (404)-347-3776 or (FTS) 257-3776.
Yours truly,

' Heins J. Mueller, Chief
Environmental Policy Section
Federal Activities Bunch

cc: USFWS, Raleigh, NC

u

n

LJ
'J

r
11

F 1,1208

NORTH r N! OL INA STATE CL EAp INGHOUSE-
DEPART DEPARTMENT OF AOMINIS"ArRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAPOL INA 27611
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED Tr FROM
N.C. OFPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
WILLIAM INSPAM DIRECTOR
DIV. Or IiI31WAYS N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PPOJECT DESCRIPTION
DFIS - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER
LOOP, F-^OM I-77 SOUTH NEAR WESTINGHOUSE BLVD. TO NC 27,
APPROX. 13 MILES (T.I.P. R-2248(A)l
SAT NO ')lE 422 00059 PRnGRAM TITLE DE IS
i THE APCVE PROJECT HAS CEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CARnLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUB MI TTED ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
' ( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].

u

r

C.C. REGION F
??ervF?
? o
OCT O a 1990 r
D)vISION OF ?v
til6l IWAY S
RESe

State of North Carolina
' Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
0

Ll

C
1

1

James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Doug Lewis S?!) &I"V4
RE: 91-0058 - West Charlotte Outer Loop DEIS, Mecklenburg
County
DATE: October 3, 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. Reviewing divisions have
raised several specific concerns that we believe warrant further
evaluation in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
Our divisions have recognized that threatened and endangered
species or species of state and federal special concern may occur
within the project vicinity. This concern has previously been
mentioned in departmental comments to the Department of
Transportation (DOT) with a recommendation that a qualified
biologist always survey the project area and determine the
impacts on these types of species. Habitat degradation/fragmentation
is also a concern and is inadequately addressed in the DEIS.
Reference is also made to wetland loss and.inadequately
developed mitigation plans in the DEIS. This department has
consistently requested DOT to be more specific when wetland loss
is anticipated. Regardless of whether an acreage figure is
known, there should always be clear explanation of how DOT
intends to avoid, minimize, or mitigate wetland losses.
P.O. Box 27687, Meigh, \orth Carolina 27611-768' Telephone [phone]
nrr 41990

We found that cumulative and indirect impacts were also
inadequately addressed in the DEIS. Impacts attributable to
growth caused by the project should,be identified and evaluated '
to the extent possible.
These and the other concerns mentioned in the attached
comments are important environmental issues. Fully addressing
concerns early in the review process improves the environmental
review and gives greater assurances that adverse impacts are
avoided, when possible. '
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. DOT is encouraged
to work with our divisions throughout the planning stages of this
project and should notify us if additional information is needed. ,
cc: David Foster
attachments

Lj
C

F,

r,
??J

1

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Fred A. Harris, Chief /" a-
Division of Boating and Inland eries
A-A.-
DATE: August 31, 1990

1
I
J
J

1
I?
SUBJECT: Administrative Action Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and Draft Section 4(F) Evaluation for West
Charlotte Outer Loop, Mecklenburg County from I-77
South near Westinghouse Boulevard to NC 27; TIP No. R-
2248(A), State Project 8.1672201.
The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission has reviewed the
document. Our primary concern is the destruction of a
substantial acreage of upland and wetland wildlife habitat in
western Mecklenburg County and the impacts to fish and wildlife
resources. Habitat loss is further compounded due to degradation
from the effects of fragmentation. The document fails to
adequately address the specific impacts this project will have on
fish and wildlife species and other natural resources found
within the project area. Impacts to wildlife resources other
than threatened and endangered species should be addressed in the
"Environmental Consequences" section (Chapter IV).
No mitigation for wetland losses was proposed in the
document other than vague statements of measures which could be
taken to reduce wetland impacts (p. IV-21). Detailed
descriptions of each impacted wetland should be included in the
final document, along with an analysis of measures which will be
utilized to minimize impacts. We do not consider culverts and
fill to be an acceptable means for crossing broad floodplains,
such as those at Paw Creek and Beaverdam Creek. Bridges should
be used at these and other sites to maintain wetland/floodplain
functions. Overall, the Middle alternative would appear to be
our preferred route for this segment of the Outer Loop due to the
smaller amount of affected wetland acreage, but mitigation plans,
when prepared, may alter this preference.

Memo Page 2 August 31, 1990
r
Federal and state listed threatened and endangered species
were also not given adequate treatment in the document. The r
possible presence of several species was dismissed with the
statements "Not observed on site" or "Not likely to occur"; but
we are not given the benefit of knowing who made these
determinations, how qualified they were to do so, survey
techniques, or how much effort was expended in searching. State
listed Special Concern species should also be addressed in the
final document, as some of these would be expected to occur
within the project area. The most current edition of the North
Carolina Administrative Code or the appropriate North Carolina
Register should be consulted.for listings of state endangered, r
threatened, and special concern species, as these are subject to
change periodically.
The promotion of accelerated growth which results in
deterioration of fish and wildlife habitat is not consistent with
the objectives of this agency. Given the extent of environmental
damage which will result from this project and the lack of
acceptable mitigation for wetland losses, the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission will likely recommend denial of
permits required to proceed with this project. Approval may be
granted only after concerns expressed herein have been adequately
addressed. We also note that there is considerable support among
the local public, as indicated in the minutes of the public
hearings, for protection of wetlands, endangered species, water r
quality, and impacts to recreational fishing.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project; '
please feel free to contact us if we may provide further
assistance.
FAH/lp ,
cc: Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
David Foster, DEHNR r
u

11
1
v
?.STAtt ??',1r1 rS1?'>>
'? J n
State of North Carolina r .
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resou /es`
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Griffiths Forestry Center Harry F. Layman
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 2411 Garner Road Director
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
' August 8, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning & Assessment
'
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester ^/n
SUBJECT: DEIS for the Proposed West Charlotte Outer Loop from I-77 South to
NC 27 in Mecklenburg County, N.C.

' PROJECT # 91-0058
DUE DATE: August 30, 1990
We have reviewed the above subject document and have the following comments:
1. We do not have any objections for the proposed project as it appears it
is needed. We do hope eventually in the future that mass transit systems
could be developed to solve the transportation problems instead of new
highway construction.
2. The document needs additional information concerning affected woodland as
follows:
a. The Biotic Communities' Maps in Chapter XI needs to indicate acres
of each type that is indicated. Pages III-20 to III-24 does a good
job of describing the types, but gives no acreage figures. Some
types are more valuable than others and an acreage breakdown would
be very helpful. The document only gives total forest acres that
' are to be affected by the three alternative corridors listed.
b. Provisions need to be indicated that the contractor will take all
efforts to salvage merchantable trees for pulpwood and sawtimber to
permit construction. The affects of Hurricane Hugo may make salvage
difficult, but efforts should be attempted to initiate salvage
whenever possible.

' P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Fqual Oppornmiw Affirmative Action Fmplover
Melba McGee
Page 2
August 8, 1990
C. Provisions need to be indicated that the contractor will take all
efforts to protect the remaining standing trees outside of
construction limits from the following types of damages:
1. skinning of tree trunks from heavy equipment operation.
2. exposing or damage of feeder roots from heavy equipment
operation.
3. fill dirt being placed around the base of trees causing a
smothering affect.
4. petroleum products being accidentally spilled near the base of
trees which could cause mortality.
3. It appears on the basis of information presented so far, that alternative
East would be the best corridor to work with. However, we would like to
see the acreage breakdown requested in paragraph (2a) above before making
any final judgment.
4. We would hope that the final alignment would have the least impact to the
forest and related resources in the area of the project.
gm
pc: Fred White
Warren Boyette
File

u

DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
August 28, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
THROUGH: Carol Tingley C,7-
FROM: Mike Schafale MS
SUBJECT: DEIS - Charlotte Outer Loop
0

C

11
REFERENCE: 91-0058
This is clearly a major project which will accelerate the
urbanization and loss of natural environments in western
Mecklenburg County, as well as directly destroy the project area.
Four to ten acres of wetland will be destroyed, and much larger
acreages of forest land. The minimal discussion of mitigation
possibilities is inadequate. Wetland mitigation plans should be
described and considered an integral part of the project.
Wetland restoration should focus on areas contiguous to existing
high quality wetland or upland habitat, to increase their
viability and value. Mitigation for loss of high quality forest
habitat should also be considered. Permanent protection of other
existing high quality habitat would be the best mitigation.
Appendix A-1 contains a list of rare species with locational
information provided to the consultant by the Natural Heritage
Program. This information was provided for purposes of analysis,
and was not to be published. Publication of rare species
locations increases risk of exploitive collection or vandalism.
Appendix A-1 should be removed from the document or modified to
remove specific directions to rare plant sites.
3169

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Marlin, Governor
William W. Cobey. Jr., Secretary

n
n

n
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Thru:
Subject:
August.7, 1990
Melba McGee
Randy Cotten(k
Gary Thompson
Charies H. Gardner
Director
91-0058, Mecklenburg County, West Charlotte
Outer Loop, from I-77 South near Westinghouse
Boulevaard to NC 27, Federal Aid Proi. F-117-1(5)
TIP No. R-2248(A), State Project No. 8.1672201
We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 10 geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
' Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone] prior to
construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
GWT/ajs
cc: Joe Creech, NCDOT

C

P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Fina! Oooortun!ty Affirmative Action Fmolov-

?J

l

E

aJ' ? ? 3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin. Govemor September 6, 1990 George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. cobey. Jr.. Secretary Dtr+ector
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Steve Tedder
SUBJECT: Project Number 91-0058: Draft EIS for West Charlotte
Outer Loop, Mecklenburg County
The subject DEIS indicates that 404 wetlands and surface
waters will be impacted by this project. It is anticipated that
individual 404 permits will be required by the Corps of Engineers
for at least a portion of the wetlands filling associated with
this project.
As a prerequisite to the Corps permit issuance, a 401 Water
Quality Certification must first be issued by the NC Division of
Environmental Management. DEM will evaluate the acceptability of
this work based on the wetlands Mitigation Guidelines developed
pursuant to Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. Basically,
the project sponsors must be able to demonstrate that there are
no practicable alternatives to filling wetlands, that the filling
has been minimized to the extent possible and that any
unavoidable filling is properly mitigated. For further
information regarding the Water Quality Certification, please
contact Mr. William Mills of the Division's Water Quality
Planning Branch.
ST/ARC
91-0060.Mem/SEPA
cc: William Mills
9
roIlutlon hemidon rays
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Teleohone n10-733-70+5

i
i
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Review'ng lice:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
-DUS- z)
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding tnese permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same I(Noorrm'allPPrrocess
Reqional Office. I -_ I
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct 8 operate wastewater treatment Application W days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater lacilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (NIA
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(NIA)
7 days
Well Construction Permit N/A
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement _ 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources N/A F
days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must,be in compliance with 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition.
(90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation control plan
will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 days before begin activity.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be permited.
AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Mining Permit Less than 5 acres S 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12.500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than live acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90-120 days
Oil Refining Facilities NIA (NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. Qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction 1s according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (NIA)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
PS-105
Continued on reverse
C
C
C
C
C
C

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Of REQUIREMENTS
limit)

Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C.
conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall
upon 10 days
,
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations. (NIA)
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions 6 drawings of structure 6 proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.

401 Water Quality Certification
NIA 60 days
(130 days)

CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$10.00 tee must accompany application 55 days
(180 days)

CAMA Permit for MINOR development
$10.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(60 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 20.0100.
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):

Y s ?•s ; ?.?. y,??,s 90
?(N - „??a? ?VIC of ?..rP?c><c an sx4//ow we/1s oil tX?.c4ed
?
?
a
UST isros,t?c?
nt?

_?//A_
/
\
,
w
`
?t
Jr ?><?R UN rf OI" SH Ois I? ?0rr?f/ Vf?rl. O/IVIQ
(
I [ ??

reviewer signature 'agency { date
?Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
r ((770/4) 251.6208
l? MoOreeville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
REGIONAL OFFICES
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611.7687
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
(919) 2564161

Normal Process
Time
(statutory time
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
f91917F 1.2351

1
•y T
pwr
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
August 23, 1990
1 Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
' P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Re: DEIS for West Charlotte Outer Loop, from I-77
South near Westinghouse Boulevard to NC 27,
approximately 13 miles, Mecklenburg County,
State Project 8.1672201, TIP R-2248(a),
Federal Aid F-117-1(5), CH 91-E-4220-0058
Dear Mr. Graf:
We have reviewed the draft F.-T.S for the proposed undertaking and concur
in all of its findings concerning historic properties and archaeological
sites, except for Federal Highway Administration's recommended finding
of No Adverse Effect for the Dr. Sandifer House. In our letter of July
10, 1990, we stated that the project appeared to adversely affect the
' Dr. Sandifer House and suggested that the alternative alignment and an
evergreen screen could possibly mitigate the adverse effect. Incorporating
these mitigative measures into the alternative does not negate the
finding of an adverse effect. Rather, it provides measures which can be
included in the Memorandum of Agreement which will be necessary for the
undertaking.
We look forward to the future consultation called for in the DEIS and
completion of the Section 106 process for the project. Thank you for
your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning
' the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
I Sincerely,
avi Brook
' Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
Frank Vick
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

F
u

t

I

n

17
L

11

?. 9ATE o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 10, 1990
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
' U.S. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Re: Section 106 Consultation
West Charlotte Outer Loop, Federal Aid
F-117-1(5), R-2248A, Mecklenburg County,
ER 90-8402
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1990, concerning the above project.
We delayed our response to you until we received a set of the latest maps
for the project.
We have reviewed your determinations of effect and concur with the following
findings:
This project will have no adverse effect on the Shopton Road
historic District based on the condition that all widening of
Steele Creek Road takes place on the southeast side of the road
away from the historic district.
This project will have no adverse effect on the Moore-Saddler House
?. if the Federal Highway Administration agrees to provide an evergreen
tree buffer to screen the house from the proposed freeway.
This project will have an adverse effect on the Brown Farmstead.
We do not concur, however, that this project will have no adverse effect on
the Dr. Sandifer House and the Dr. Query House. Rather, it appears that
the project will have an adverse effect on both sites. Mitigation of
this adverse effect could include chosing the alternative alignment and
planting an evergreen tree screen between the Sandifer House and the
' freeway. We do not have enough information to propose mitigation for the
adverse effect on the Dr. Query House. Please send us an aerial photograph
and section drawings that show the Dr. Query House in relation to the
proposed road. This information will enable us to complete our review of
this project.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Page Two
Given the mixture of conditioned no adverse and adverse effect findings,
we recommend that we begin consultation on this project in hopes of
developing a Memorandum of Agreement. We can then include all necessary
mitigation and conditions for historic structures as well as any
archaeological sites needed to complete the Section 106 process.
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 Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
i
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
.Ron Elmore
bc: 106
Southern/i;irkland
C
RF

.. ,
swr
y
? r
w
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
L Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
[phone]
August 2, 1990
MEMORANDUM
To: N.C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
From: J. Russell C , Division of Emergency Management,
NFIP Section
Subject: Intergovernmental Review
-----------------------------------------------------------
Re: State # N.C. 91-E-4220-0058
N.C. DOT - Proposd Improvements to the West
Charlotte Outer Loop, from I-77 South Near
Westinghouse Blvd to NC 27
The Commission is advised that on July 24, 1990, Governor
Martin signed Executive Order 123, a Uniform Floodplain
Management Policy, which must be followed on any site.

t

i An FutnI Omirmnin I Aftimmfivr Actin"! EMPIIAVr

f ?1
ClU ALOTTE
September 24, 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Research Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
SFp 261990 TPr? OF?CIE
subject: Review Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for West Charlotte Outer Loop
Dear Jack:
Enclosed is a marked-up copy of the Draft Environmental Impact
I Statement (DEIS) for the West Charlotte Outer Loop with local
transportation staff comments. Specific comments include:
Figure I-4, 1988 Thoroughfare Plan
This map includes three errors:
Neal
W
ll
ace
a
1) The Paul Brown Boulevard Extension between
Road and the outer Loop is not shown.
2) The Shopton Road Extension should cross Nations Ford Road
and extend to I-77.
t 3) The Airport Entrance Road is shown incorrectly.
Page I-5, Table I-2
The 2010 volumes for Billy Graham Parkway and Tyvola Road are
considerably lower than the existing volumes listed in this
table or the projected 2010 volumes developed by the
Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT).
CDOT has projected the following 2010 daily volumes without a
' Western Outer Loop:
1) Billy Graham Parkway
I-77 to Tyvola 38,000
Tyvola to West Blvd. 50,000
West Blvd to Airport Frwy. 60,000

Department of Transportation
600 East Fourth Street Charlotte, NC 28202-2858 704/336-2261

September 24, 1990
L. J. Ward
Page Two
2) Tyvola Road
NC 49 to Billy Graham 27,000
Figure II1-4, Existing Lane Use
The Coffey Creek Business Park is not shown on the map.
If you have any questions, or need more information, please
advise.
Sincerely,
. N. P essley, Jr., P.E.
Chairman
Technical Coordinating Committee
RNPjr/LOP:mdp
cc: J. Lesch
B Coxe.
L. Meisner
L. Purnell

11

MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Park and Recreation Department
September 20, 1990
W. A. Garrett, Jr., P. E.
Public Hearing Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201 r
Raleigh, NC 27611 (( ca i h ?? '' Z ?:
-vTcR
DPS#9411/9417
DPS Dk. #9
A:CNWOL
? O
Re: North Charlotte Outer Loop/West Charlotte Outer Loop
Dear Mr. Garrett:
Alignments for the above sections of the outer belt road
planned for Charlotte have been selected based on extensive
environmental impact statements and evaluations of both
the northern and western segments by consultants with input
from staff of various local departments and agencies. This
long and exhaustive process has defined three potential
alignments for each segment. The following comments are
forwarded to NCDOT with regard to parks and greenways along
these alignments. The charge and responsibility of the
Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Commission is to
make recommendations which will result in functional, well-
designed and safe park and greenway facilities. The follow-
ing comments are directed toward achieving these ends.
North Charlotte Outer Loop. (1) Recommend using Section A-3
(the middle alignment) to avoid dividing the property
acquired by Mecklenburg County along Johnston-Oehler
Road for Mallard Creek Community Park. Since there
would be no access via the roadway to either portion of
the park if the southern alignment is used in this area,
the park would have to be designed to function as two
separate units.
(2) Recommend shifting that portion of Section B-1 which
is west of Beatties Ford Road in order to lessen the
impact on property acquired by the County for greenway
on Long Creek. This shifting of the alignment slightly
southward (away from the floodplain) has already been
worked out with NCDOT and should be reflected in that
portion of the B-1 alignment.
West Charlotte Outer Loop. Recommend not using Sections
W-3, W-4 and W-5; these sections would bisect tracts
acquired for three parks along the Catawba River. These
tracts are (1) south side of Paw Creek Cove, (2) south
1200 Blythe Boulevard •. Charlotte, North Carolina 28203-5892 [phone]
Garrett/NCDOT
September 20, 1990
Page Two
of US 74 and (3) north of I-85. The acreage within
the alignment(s) in each case was purchased with right-
of-way monies, not park bond funds, so that the 4-F
process has been avoided. However, each of these park
sites would be more suitable for park development if
W-3, W-4 and W-5 are not used.
The above comments and recommendations are consistent with
the alignment corridor recommendations made by the Technical
Coordinating Committee (TCC) to the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) on September 19, 1990.
The ultimate decision on the alignments for the North and
West Outer Loop sections will be based on numerous land use
and environmental issues. We ask that consideration of the
impact on the above mentioned park and greenway sites weigh
heavily in the final decision.
Very truly yours,
R"' '? , J

Humphrey S. Cummings, Chair
Mecklenburg County Park and Recreat on Commission
Copy to: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manage-
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
R. Wayne Weston, Director
I?

itec §@?es Department of the Interior
?'O ?,ICE OF THE SECRETARY
4 -' pFF`tASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
? i
L
ER 90/732 Poole Distribute to: E C
____,_ Vick__
N O'Ouinn
,,vwm Prevatt 8nrton -(?@i? 211990 G
N` Oavi3 Sheller+
' Norwood
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf Elliott
ModUnyyehpSprin erk-' z N0?>
Division Administrator Tewell q 199
Federal Highway Administration Grrimes... _ ,
P. O. Box 26806
4505 Falls of Neuse Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 '?A?
i Dear Mr. Graf:
' This responds to your request for the Department of the Interior's comments on the Draft
Environmental Statement for the West Charlotte Outer Loop, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina.
SECTION 4(f) COMMENTS
Brown Farmstead: We do not concur that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives
to use of the Brown Farmstead. Your Section 4(f) evaluation presents a shifted
alignment with a diamond interchange that would avoid the Brown property at the cost of
a lower level of service. Since this lower level of service is within acceptable limits, we
believe that use of this diamond interchange is a proper response to Section 4(f). If a
higher level of service is desired, then we see no reason that the alignment cannot be
shifted a slightly greater distance and a partial cloverleaf interchange retained without
taking land from the Brown Farmstead.
Dr. Sandifer and Dr. Query Houses: Since the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), the State official with jurisdiction over the Sandifer and Query Houses, believes
that the project would have an adverse effect on those properties, we hold that a
constructive use would occur, and that Section 4(f) would apply. We recommend that
your final statement include a Section 4(f) evaluation for the Dr. Sandifer and Dr. Query
Houses. Adequate landscaping and vegetative screening would appear to satisfy the
second proviso of 49 U.S.C. 303(c).
Greenway Crosier The project will cross the proposed Coffee Creek, Steel Creek, and
Long Creek Greenways.
We concur that the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 303(c) do not apply to proposed Greenway
lands still in private ownership. However, it is our view that both 49 U.S.C. 303(a) and
( (b) do apply to such lands.
In this regard, we congratulate the project sponsors for their commitment to design the
crossings of such lands to accommodate future Greenway activities in accord with the
wishes of the Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department. We further
recommend that the aesthetics of the crossing structures be compatible with Greenway
uses, and that structure and roadway drainage be prevented from directly impacting trail
surfaces and adjacent streams. If such is done, we would concur that a special effort had
been made, and that the project included measures to maintain the natural beauty of the
lands crossed.
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf 2
Berryhill District Park: We note that the West Alternative or Crossover EW2 run on a
"reserved right-of-way" between two parcels of Berryhill District Park. We recommend
that your final statement address the proximity effects of the proposed roadway on these
parcels (including the effects of induced commercial and residential development), and
that it contain the opinion of park officials concerning possible constructive use of
parkland caused by these effects.
Since it appears likely that the "reserved right-of-way" will be incorporated into the ,
District Park if the West Alternative or Crossover EW2 are rejected for highway use, we
think that selection of these alternatives would seriously impact this park and
significantly change its potential use. We consider this kind of restriction placed on park
planning and management options to be a constructive use under Section 4(f).
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT COMMENTS
The enclosed comments from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), on both the North ,
and West Charlotte Outer Loops, detail this Department's position with regard to the
draft statement's discussion of fish and wildlife resources. This enclosure also contains
FWS's comments on the proposed project pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act and the Endangered Species Act.
The draft statement adequately addresses other environmental factors of concern to this
Department.
SUMMARY COMMENTS ,
The Department of the Interior objects to Section 4(f) approval of this project with
regard to the Brown Farmstead, since feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives appear
to exist. We have no objection to Section 4(f) approval of the project's other Section 4(f)
involvements, providing the Section 4(f) issues discussed above are addressed in your final
statement.
For technical assistance on fish and wildlife matters, please contact the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as indicated in the enclosure. For technical assistance on park and
recreation matters, and cultural resources, please contact the Regional Director,
National Park Service, 75 Spring Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 (phone: FTS 242-5835,
commercial 404/221-5835).
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
n
J
than P. Deason
tor
e of Environmental Affairs
Enclosure: Detailed U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Comments

Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
cc:,, Mr. L. J. Ward
Manager of Planning and Research Branch
NC Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25 201
Raleigh, North Carolina

L 7

3

L

t
0

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
75 SPRING STREET, S.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
30303

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Statement) for the
proposed North Charlotte Outer Loop, (ER 90/686) and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (Statement) for the proposed West
Charlotte Outer Loop, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (ER 90/732)
'?0/7.1.Z
We have reviewed the subject documents and are providing the following
paragraphs for the Departmental response. These comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
GENERAL CONVENTS, North Charlotte Outer Loop
we suggest that the report. Inventory and General Overview of Natural Systems,
North Charlotte Outer Loop Study (Biotic Report). published by Greiner, Inc..
August 7, 1989, be made a part of the Statement by reference or by appending
it to the Statement. The summaries of the 9iotic Report provided in the
Statement are too general to allow an adequate comparison of the proposed
construction alternatives. The Statement is :nadvquate in its description of
the streams, wetlands, and related fish and wildlife resources within the
project impact area and of the potential etrecri (direct and indirect) the
proposed project will likely have on thosr •-e-.ounces. The Statement should be
revised to provide a complete description or Lhe..e resources at each site
where potential impacts are likely to occur. a complete description of the
potential impacts, justification as to why the impacts are unavoidable, and a
detailed mitigation plan that provides for full restoration, rehabilitation,
and/or compensation of all unavoidable impacts to these resources.
I
In addition, the Service officially proposed to list ___anth M schweinitzii
(Schweinitz's sunflower) as a federally endangered species on July 2, 1990
(Federal R 55(127):27270-27274). Before the Service can agree that the
Federal HiglMy Administration's responsibilities under Section 7 of the
Endangered $"ciao Act (Act) have been satisfied for this species, it is
necessary that we be provided additional information to support determination
that Helianthus schweinitzii does not occur within the impact area of the
project.
SPECIFIC COIM NT'S:
Section S.6. Pages S-6 and S-7: Based on information provided in
Sections 4.6.3 (pages 4-46 to 4-48), 4.6.4 (pages 4-48 to 4-58) and 4.7.2
(pages 4-77 to 4-81), we find that: (1)'all three of the proposed
construction alternatives cross over and/or parallel major creeks, a number of
reservoirs and lakes, and their tributaries= (2) all of the hydrologic and
floodway crossings associated with the Northern and Middle Alternatives, and
all but two of the crossings associated with the Southern Alternative, are
currently proposed as culvert crossings= and (3) depending on the alternative
selected. as currently proposed. the project will require the filling of from
10.9 to 25.9 acres of bottomland-hardwood forested wetlands associated with
stream and stream floodplain crossings. This information contradicts the
statement in this section that the "construction alternatives will not
adversely impact floodplain elevations, and floodplain encroachment will not
be significant." This statement should be clarified or removed from the
document, and this section should be revised to reflect these potential
impacts.
Exhibit 3.15. "General Distribution of Existing Biotic Communities": This map
is of very little value in comparing the fish and wildlife habitat resources
("biotic communities") present within the alternative corridors. The map
identifies the location of the biotic communities by site number only and
gives no indication as to the exact location, size, or type of habitat
present. Only a few of the sites shown on the map are described anywhere in
the Statement, and the few that are have been described only in very general
terms. This map should be replaced with a map showing the extent and type of
fish and wildlife habitats present within the impact area of each action, and
each of the habitat types shown on the map should be described in detail, by
site number, in the Statement.
Section 3_B..Z_ Pease 3-68 to 3-70: The information provided in this section
is too geneglt to allow an adequate comparison of wetlands present within and
potentially impacted by the various alternatives. This section should be
revised to Op6vide detailed descriptions of the wetland resources. by site,
occurring within the impact area of each alternative.
Section 3.8.3. Pages 3-70 and 3-71: The Statement fails to provide any
information concerning the fishery values of the aquatic habitats present
within the project area. This section should be revised to provide a
complete, detailed description of the fish and other aquatic resources of the
streams and impoundments, by site, present within the impact areas of each
alternative.

' Section 3.8.4. Pages 3-71 and 3-73: The plant. Helianthus schweinitzii, was
officially proposed by the Service for Federal listing as an endangered
species on July 2. 1990. Accordingly, the species' Federal designation should
be changed from "status review" to "proposed endangered."
' Section 4.6.3. Pace 4-46: The criteria used for determining the type of
structure proposed for hydrologic crossings failed to give any considerarinr
to the fish and wildlife habitat values of the streams, impoundments, and/or
wetlands being crossed. Based on information provided in Section 4.7.2. the
majority of the wetlands likely to be impacted by the proposed alternatives
are bottomland hardwood wetlands associated with stream crossings. The
Service places considerable value on bottomland hardwood wetlands and
considers these areas to be habitat of high value to fish and wildlife
species. The Service's Mitigation Policy (Federal Register 46(15):7644-7663,
January 23, 1981) for such habitat calls for no net loss of in-kind habitat
' value. Accordingly. the Service recommends that impacts to such habitat be
avoided to the maximum extent possible and that this section be revised to
provide for bridging of all streams and wetlands crossed by the selected
alternative.
Section 4.6.4. Paqes 4-48 to 4-58: Same comment as above.
Section 4.6.6. Pages 4-59 to 4-63: This section should be revised to fully
assess the potential effects the highway construction may have on surface and
ground water quality in the project area within the vicinity of each of the
hazardous materials sites identified. Measures that will be employed to
' eliminate any potential adverse effects should be described.
Section 4.7.1. Pages 4-76 and 4-77: The Statement should be revised to fully
' described potential habitat losses expected to occur as a result of increased
commercial and residential development of the surrounding area due to project
construction.
' Section 4.7.2. "Wetlands." Pages 4-77 and 4-78: This section lacks much of
the information necessary to make a valid comparison of the alternatives from
a fish and wildlife perspective. This section should be revised to provide a
full description of all potential stream, impoundment. and wetland impacts
associated with each alternative, including a complete breakdown, by site, of
the type, location, and extent water and/or wetland habitat likely to be
affected; the manner in which the waters or wetlands may be affected; and
justification as to why the impact(s) cannot be avoided. A map showing the
location, extent, and type of stream, impoundment, and wetland likely to be
' affected should be included in the Statement.
Adverse impacts to stream and wetland habitats should be avoided to the
maximum extent possible by shifting the centerline and/or constricting the
width of the alternative alignments to avoid crossing or c:onstr'uction
immediately adjacent to these resources; by bridging stream, impoundment, and
wetland crossings when such crossing are unavoidable; and by locating borrow
' sites, staging areas. etc., in previously cleared upland sites where these
activities will not affect these resources. In the Service's review of
applications for any Department of the Army Section 404 permits necessary for
' 3
the proposed action. the Service will recommend that such measures be included
as conditions of any permit issued and will recommend against the issuance of
any permit that will likely result in the elimination and/or adverse
alteration e01water and wetland habitats when practicable alternatives that
would avoid'ai" impacts are available.
Section 4.7.2. "Mitigation for Impacted Wetlands." Pages-4-79 to 4-81: The
final document should provide a 'detailed mitigation plan that fully describes
proposed mitigation sites and specific measures that will be implemented to
restore and/or create habitat to mitigate all unavoidable stream and wetland
habitat losses likely to occur as a result of the action. Restoration or
creation of replacement habitat should be on a habitat value basis rather than
acre for acre.
Section 4.7.3. Pages 4-61-and 4-82: This section currently gives only a very
general assessment of potential terrestrial wildlife habitat losses expected
as a direct result of highway corridor and right-of-way clearing. It fails to
address potential impacts to wildlife associated with spoil disposal sites.
borrow sites, staging areas, etc. It also does not address impacts expected
due to other construction and development within the project area likely to
result from the new highway. This section should be revised to fully assess
both the direct and indirect effects on resident and migratory wildlife
resulting from habitat loss and alteration associated with each alternative.
Mitigative measures that will be implemented in order to avoid and minimize
these effects should also be described in this section.
In addition, no information is provided in the Statement concerning the
potential effects each of the proposed alternatives has on aquatic resources.
The potential loss and alteration of aquatic habitats (stream and impoundment)
associated with each alternative, including the impacts associated with
development and other actions likely as a result of each alternative, should
be fully described in the document, as should the effect these impacts will
have on the fish (game and nongame) and other aquatic species populations
within the project area.
Section 4.7.4. Pages 4-82 to 4-86: The Federal status of Helianthus
schweinitzii in this section should be revised to "proposed endangered".
Section 7 of the Act requires that Federal agencies (in this case the Federal
Highway Administration) determine whether the direct and indirect effects of
their actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species
proposed for Federal.listing as endangered or threatened. Before the Service
can agree that the Federal Highway Administration's obligations under
Section 7 of-the Act have been satisfied for this species, it is necessary
that we be provided additional information showing that adequate surveys.for
Helianthus schweinitzii have been conducted of suitable habitat occurring in
all areas potentially affected by the proposed alignment alternatives.
including disposal areas, borrow sites, staging areas. and all other areas
likely to be affected by construction and development reasonably expected to
occur as a result of this action. If it is determined that the proposed
action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of this species. a
conference must be initiated with the Service's Asheville Field Office,
109 Otis Street, Room 224, Asheville, North Carolina 28801.

Section 4.10.2. Paae 4-90: This section should be revised to include specific
details of the erosion and sedimentation control measures that will be
implemented to avoid/minimize impacts on water quality during construction and
the methods by which these measures will be monitored and enforced.
This section should also address the long-term water quality impacts likely to
occur as a result of the elimination of riparian and floodplain wetlands,
stream relocations, increased runoff of heavy metals and other pollutants,
highway and right-of-way maintenance activities, increased development of the
project area, and other highway-related activities. Mitigative measures that
will be implemented for avoiding/minimizing these impacts, including control
programs for the use of herbicides, pesticides, deicing compounds, etc.,
should also be fully described.
SUN WY COMMENTS:
' The draft Statement inadequately describes the potential direct and indirect
effects of the alternatives on stream, wetland, and other fish and wildlife
habitat resources and the fish and wildlife species associated with these
resources occurring within the impact area of each alternative. Also,
additional information is necessary to support the determination that
Helianthus schweinitzii does not occur within the impact area of the proposed
project and project-related construction and development before the Services
can agree that obligations under Section 7 of the Act have been satisfied for
this species.
' It is our belief that these inadequacies preclude identification of a
preferred alternative. Accordingly, we recommend that a revised draft
Statement addressing the above comments be prepared and recirculated for
' review and comment prior to selection of a preferred alternative.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any
questions, please contact John Fridell at 704/259-0321 or FTS 672-0321. In
any future correspondence, please reference Asheville Field Office log number
4-2-88-103.
GENERAL COMMENTS. West Outer Loop
The Statement is inadequate in its description of the streams, wetlands, and
related fish and wildlife resources within the project impact area and with
' regard to the potential effects (direct and indirect) the proposed
alternatives will likely have on those resources. It is our belief that these
inadequacies preclude identification of a preferred alternative. The
' Statement should be revised to provide a complete description of stream,
wetland, and related fish and wildlife resources at each site where potential
impacts are likely',to occur, a complete description of the potential impacts,
justification as to why the impacts are unavoidable, and a detailed mitigation
plan that provides for full restoration, rehabilitation, and/or compensation
of all unavoidable impacts to these resources.
' In addition, the Service officially proposed to list Helianthus schweinitzii
(Schweinitz's sunflower) as a federally endangered species on July 2, 1990
(Federal Register 55(127):27270-27274). Before the Service can agree that the
5
Federal Highway Administration's responsibilities under Section 7 of the Act
have been satisfied for this species, it is necessary that we be provided
additional information to support determination that Helianthus schweinitzii
does not oceW within the impact area of the project.
SPECIFIC CANTS:
Table S-1. Pace v: In order to correspond with the data provided in Section
IV.8.7, the data in this table concerning total wetland acreage potentially
affected by the East alternative should be changed from 4.2 to 6.2 acres.
Section III.C.6. Pages III-20 to III-24: The Statement fails to provide any
information concerning the fishery values of the aquatic habitats present
within the project area. This section should be revised to provide a
complete, detailed description of the fish and other aquatic resources of the
streams, ponds, impoundments, etc. (by site), present within the impact areas
of each alternative.
Section III.C.7. Page III-26: The plant.(Helianthus schweinitzii) was
officially proposed by the Service for Federal listing as an endangered
species on July 2, 1990. Accordingly, the species' Federal designation should
be changed from "status review" to "proposed endangered."
Section III.C.S. Pages III-26 to III-28: The information provided in this
section is too general to allow an adequate comparison of the wetlands preernt
within and potentially impacted by the various alternatives. This section
should be revised to provide detailed descriptions of the wetland resources,
by site, occurring within the impact area of each alternative.
Section IV.B.3. Pages IV-11 to IV-13: This section should also address the
long-term water quality impacts likely to occur as a result of the elimination
of riparian and floodplain wetlands, stream channel relocations. highway and
right-of-way maintenance activities, increased development of the project
area, and other highway-related activities. Mitigative measures that will be
implemented for avoiding/minimizing these impacts, including programs for
reducing the use and runoff of herbicides. pesticides, deicing compounds,
etc., should also be fully described.
Potential borrow sites, disposal sites, staging areas, etc., should be
identified in the revised document and should be located on upland sites in
areas where they will have no adverse ettect on water and wetland resources.
Section IV.8.4 and Table IV-6 Pages IV-13 to IV-16: The criteria used for
determining the type.of structure proposed for hydrologic crossings failed to
give any consideration to the fish and wildlife habitat values of the streams,
impoundments, and/6,r wetlands being crossed. Based on information provided in
Section III.C.6, the majority of the wetlands likely to be impacted by the
proposed alternatives are bottomland hardwcod wetlands associated with stream
crossings. The Service places considerable value on bottomland hardwood
wetlands and considers these areas to be habitat of high value to fish and
wildlife species. The Service's Mitigation Policy (Federal Register
46(15):7644-7663, January 23, 1981) for such habitat calls for no net loss of
6
u
bit
t
rk
d h
a
a
in
in
value. Accordingly, the Service recommends that impacts to
such habitat be avoided to the maximum extent possible and that this section
be revised to provide for bridging of all streams and wetlands crossed by the
selected alternative. The Service is particularly concerned about those
wetlands associated with Eagle Lake, Beaverdam Creek, Little Paw Creek, and
Paw Creek.
This section should also be revised to assess the effects associated with
increased runoff due to the project-related clearing of 457.2 to 534.2 acres
' of woodlands and the conversion of roughly 75 or more acres of earth to paved
surface. Floodplain and hydrological impacts associated with commercial and
residential development generated by the new highway should also be fully
assessed in this section.
Section W.B.S. Pages IV-16 and IV-17: This section currently gives only a
' very general assessment of potential terrestrial wildlife habitat losses
expected as a direct reoult of highway corridor and right-of-way clearing. It
fails to address potential impacts to wildlife associated with spoil disposal
sites, borrow sites, staging areas, etc. It also does not address impacts
expected due to other construction and development within the project area
likely to result from the new highway. This section should be revised to
fully assess both the direct and indirect effects on resident and migratory
wildlife resulting from habitat loss, fragmentation, and alteration associated
with each alternative. Mitigative measures that will be implemented in order
to avoid and minimize these effects should also be described in this section'.
' In addition, no information is provided in the Statement concerning the
potential effects of each proposed alternative on aquatic resources. The
potential loss and alteration of aquatic habitats (stream and impoundment)
associated with each alternative, including the impacts associated with
development and other actions likely as a result of each alternative, should
be fully described in the document, as should the effect these impacts will
have on the fish (game and nongame) and other aquatic species populations
' within the project area.

' Section IV.8.5.b. Pages IV-17 and VI-18: The Federal status of Helianthus
schweinitzii in this section should be revised to "proposed endangered".
Section 7 of the Act requires that Federal agencies (in this case, the Federal
Highway Administration) determine whether the direct and indirect effects of
their actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species
proposed for Federal listing as endangered or threatened. Before the Service
can agree that the Federal Highway Administration's obligations under
Section 7 of the Act have been satisfied for this species, it is necessary
that we be provided additional information showing that adequate surveys for
Helianthus schweinitzii have been conducted of suitable habitat occurring in
all areas potentially affected by the proposed alignment alternatives,
including disposal areas, borrow sites, staging areas, and all other areas
likely to be affected by construction and development reasonably expected to
occur as a result of this action. If it is determined that the proposed
action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of this species, a
conference must be initiated with the Service's Asheville Field Office,
100 Otis Street, Room 224, Asheville, North Carolina 28801.

Seotion IV.8.7 and Table IV-9 Pages IV-19 to IV-21: The information provided
in this section is too general to allow an adequate comparison of the
alternatives. In addition, at least part of the data presented in Table IV-9
appears to be incorrect. For instance. the table shows that neither
Segment. Al or E1 will impact wetlands; however, Figure A-4A shows these
segments as crossing wetlands identified as "hardwood swamp bottomland."
Also. the table indicates that Segment EW2 will affect only 8.01-acre of
wetland, yet Figures A-4C and A-40 show this alternative segment crossing
rather extensive "hardwood swamp bottomiand" wetlands associated with Little
Paw Creek. Paw Creek, and possibly some wetlands associated with 8eaverdam
Creek. According to Table IV-6, all but one of these proposed stream and
wetland crossings are proposed as pipe or culvert crossings. This should be
clarified, and the statement should be revised to provide a full, accurate
description of all potential stream, impoundment, and wetland impacts
associated with each alternative, including a complete breakdown (by site) of
the type, location, and extent of water and/or wetland habitat likely to be
affected; the manner in which the waters or wetlands may be affected; and
justification as to why the impact(s) cannot be avoided.
Adverse impacts to stream and wetland habitats should be avoided to the
maximum extent possible by shifting the centerline and/or constricting the
width of the alternative alignments to avoid crossing or construction
immediately adjacent to these resources; by bridging stream, impoundment, and
wetland crossings when such crossing are.unavoidable; and by locating borrow
sites, staging areas, etc., in previously cleared upland sites where these
activities will not affect these resources. In the Service's review of
applications for any Department of the Army Section 404 permits necessary for
the proposed action, the Service will recommend that such measures be included
as conditions of any permit issued and will recommend against the issuance of
any permit that will likely result in the elimination and/or adverse
alteration of water and wetland habitats when practicable alternatives that
would avoid such impacts are available.
The final document should provide a detailed mitigation plan that fully
describes proposed mitigation sites and specific measures that will be
implemented to restore and/or create habitat to mitigate all unavoidable
stream and wetland habitat losses likely to occur as a result of the action.
Restoration or creation of replacement habitat should be on a habitat value
basis rather than acre for acre.
Section IVA. Pages IV-30 and IV-31: All borrow pits, disposal sites, staging
areas, etc., should be located on upland sites in areas where they will not
adversely affect streams, impoundments, or wetlands and other important fish
and wildlife habitats.
Section IV.F. Pages IV-31 and IV-32: The impacts addressed under this section
(taking of right-of-way, relocation of tamilies and businesses. displacement
of wildlife, degradation of water quality) are long-term or permanent impacts
and should be identified as such rather than as short-term impacts.
8

' Aooendix A-1. Panes A-1 to A-3: The Federal status of Falco yerearinus
tundr us (tundr us is misspelled in the document) should be "T" (threatened);
the Federal status of Hali_aeetus leucocechalus should be "E" (endangered), and
the Federal status of Helianthuz schweinitzii should be changed to "PE"
(proposed endangered).
SlJNWY COlNIE M
The draft Statement inadequately describes the potential direct and indirect
effects of the alternatives on stream. wetland, and other fish and wildlife
habitat resources and the fish and wildlife species associated with these
resources occurring within the impact area of each alternative. Also,
additional information is necessary to support the determination that
Helianthus schweinitzii does not occur within the impact area of the proposed
project and project-related construction and development before the Service
can agree that obligations under Section 7 of the Act have been satisfied for
this species.
It is our belief that these inadequacies preclude identification of a
preferred alternative. Accordingly. we recommend that a revised draft
Statement addressing the above comments be prepared and recirculated for
review and comment prior to selection of a preferred alternative.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any
questions, please contact John Fridell at 704/259-0321 or FTS 672-0321. In
any future correspondence. please reference Asheville Field Office log number
4-2-88-113.

11

ILI
f United States
Department of
Agriculture

Soil 4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
Conservation Raleigh, NC 27609
Service Telephone: [phone]
January 28, 1991
Mr. Laurence J. Meisner, P.E., AICP
Senior Associate
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Post Office Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3068
' Re: West Charolotte Outer Loop, R-2248(A)
Dear Mr. Meisner:
' This is in response to your request for the completion of SCS part
of form AD-1006 for the West Charlotte Outer Loop. Enclosed are
the completed AD-1006 forms.
If there are any questions, contact Phil Tant at 790-2905.
Sincerely,
ob j. es
' En osures.

I

O The Soil Conservation Service
V is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
a---.. H r r t :I V I A ii
Us. CsperYssawf erf A?rMlltsws
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1 !To be completed by federal A/atePl Oese 01 Was avvemmn flequeee i Z L ( ,-I V
NawM.ol.Projea feseru ^"My ifffeved r , / pj W A
l,Ues+ Ct•a.rlut'iL 0...+e?' Love r
...peers tend taw County Ana am@
?Tl ?I.?IA
Rift- by
PART 11 fro A*own wv :'si::?LT:;iEf•t : c::::i:.^w..:r.::::..
Does the iota contain prime. uniwo. Statewide or local irnpaunt fanNandl.. ;;'<•:::>:::Yey %4te:
no. the FPPA does noc #%WY.- do not comolote bdd/SAmW vefrs o/ Otis farm :" tg& Aft" iww En:f•.•
???efae Goo :::...:....: • ..: :..:•..:..
. • .......?.?::.... NOON Vrar so : awew.aan:•:?•:

Acura..'"
'• Ile w
k?"*Rw Law veowaasSo wo NM evem ri• ;:.;;;;> talaM eepeaAelvwq
.••.
PART III (To be completed brFederai Ayeney/ Sold A Allarwerwre Nr alt
t.ta s ftte C S.100
A. Total Acres To Be Convened Oilel:tly
7
714
8. Total Acres To Be Convened Indirectly (0)
C. Total Acres In Site 7'/Z
PART 1V (roi bu compwedOr SCSI Ltd EvduaooA lnfo-nudon
k, Total Acre Prime And Unique Fun-lend .....
It. '• Total Acres Statewide And Local ImPartant FuriMtlwd•: :: :: ::: :; :. ?: :..
C.:. Pereanta"Of F&nwsrd to Covnty Or focal Govt. Unit To & Convnted : O. Z4"
D.' Veseenisee it rerml..•st Iw Gert. Jwmf?ellem W.111 tame Or Niskef Aetebve Vow
PART V (ro be can.pMeoor SCSI Lard EratuatltNS l.finrion ::;::.:..:::;:; .::•

'Relative Value OtFarmland To BeConverud(Sca/eo(OfolOiOPeklnl :=>,. :........ r .., .•
.: •:•
.::.... ,
•,••••:s;<:::•;::?> •:>:••:;:: •••
PARTVI frobocompleredbrFederviAgemyl
sign Aueanteel cAterir !Three enwAs am epp4inel in s Cl<IS 6W.&W Walmtint
?olnu
1. Area InNont.fben Use 1.5
2. Perimeter in Vertut Son use 10
3. Percent Of Site 6e• Formed o
4. Protection Provided By State And Lora! Government O
6. Distance From Urban 6uiltup Aire MIA - p D

8. Distance To Urban Support Semen
?IA 0
O _
7. Site Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Are 10 /0
6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
8. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Form Investmenu O
It. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Su n Services $
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use /0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 5(?
PART VII (ro be completed br Federal Agtascy)
Relative Value Of Farmland !Fran Pen Vl 100 5!5'
Total Site Asssment (from Part V1 above or • loco
Siff attessmenees{r/
160
5 ?O
TOTAL POINTS Moral of abort 2 /ones/ 260

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection Was A Local S.te Aueumerw thesf
Yete O No ?
Roman fee Gme"W":
See o.\\ e? V-)o?-?. sV ee ..

!SM fnrrnrcburr enre.e.eeawe/ - versa A0.3006 (14431
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

C
0

APPENDIX C
RELOCATION STUDY REPORTS
Segments are shown in Figure H-2 and are defined as follows:
*Al I-77 interchange to south of Arrowood Road interchange
*El South of Arrowood Road interchange to split between east and middle corridors
E2 Split of east and middle corridors to Dixie River Road (north loop)
*E3 Dixie River Road to Old Dowd Road
*E4 Old Dowd Road to north of 1-85
*E5 North of I-85 to NC 27
*Ml Split of east and middle corridors to NC 160
*M2 NC 160 to Dixie River Road (joins east corridor)
W2 NC 160 to Dixie River Road (north loop)
W3 Dixie River Road to Norfolk Southern Railroad
W4 Norfolk Southern Railroad to Bellmeade Road
W5 Bellmeade Road to NC 27
EWl Dixie River Road at W2 to Old Dowd Road at E4
EW2 Dixie River Road at M2 to Norfolk Southern Railroad at W4
EW3 North of I-85 at E4 to Bellmeade Road at W5
East Corridor: Al + El + E2 + E3 + E4 + E5
Middle Corridor: Al + El + Ml + M2 + E3 + E4 + E5
West Corridor: Al + El + Ml + W2 + W3 + W4 + W5
Crossovers: EWl, EW2, EW3
* = Proposed Action
u
u

F

u

11
1
I
RF=l OCA7I0IV REROR7
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
I PROJECT NO. I.D NO. F.A. NO

1
u

1

`d.1672201 R-2248(A)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COUNTY Alternate A-1
Meckienbura
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: West Chariotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
_ ? w` ESfiIMATEO DI i INCOME LEVEL ;
i
i O-15 25-35M
35nQ
M 15-25M
So
iTvpe of Dis ty
nor
olacee ? Owners ITenants ITotal1M I_
M I
LF
!
,individuals
0 ; 0 0 ; 0
;
? ? ? ; 0 ; 0

;Fami i ies ; 4 ; 1 ; 5 ; 0 ; 0 ; 1 . 3 . 1 ; 0 ;
;Businesses 1 0 ; 1 ? VALLE OF DWELLING ;DSS DWEU-INGS AVAILABLE;
;Farms ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; Owners ; Tenants ; For Sale ; For Rent ;

Non-Profit Org. 0 0 0; 0
' ; 0-20M. 01$ 0-150; 0; 0-20M; 11$ 0-150 ; all
ANSWER ALL Q ESTIONB ;20-40M; 11150-250, 0120-40M. 381150-250 ? 0;

;YESINO I EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSERS ;40-70M1 2;250-400; 1;40-70M. 52;250-400 ; 95;

'
,
?
' 1.
Will project have significant impact
'70-100'
1'400-600' 0170-100 69'400-600 86'
,
+
x
2.
Will project be disruptive to community,
_ ;x ; 3. Will community be cut off from services1100 LP; 0;600 LP ; 0;100 LP; 52.600 LP 0;
;_!x
4.
;
Will neighborhoods be separated ,
' x ;
5.
Will special relocation services be
:TOTAL , ,
4, 1, +212, + ,181+
' ; ; necessary
:1
A
_ ;x ; 6. Will schools or r_hurches be affected by; REMARKS (Respond by Number)
displacement
;x ; 7. Will business relocation be detrimental; 2. Project will be disruptive during con-
_
; ; . to community ; struction especially at the York Road
x ; 8. Will business services still be ; interchange) however, no lasting
available after project adverse impact is anticipated.
; r ; 9. Will any business be displaced
If so, indicate size, type) estimated ;
number of employees) minorities) etc. ;
;x ;10. Will relocation cause a housing ; 9. Business Displacement:
shortage (1) Mott's Oil Equipment & Service)
1 ;11. Source for available housing (list) approximately 3)000 square feet,
_
_
•,r. ;12. Will additional housing programs be ; 3 employees) no minorities.
;---; - ; needed ;
x 13. Should Last Resort Housing be ; 11. NLS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
considered ; includes the entire project) newspapers
_ ;x ;14. Is there a significant number of large ; Charlotte Apartment Association) and
; families, disabled) elderly, etc. ; Realtors.
ANSWER THESE ALSD FOR DESIGN ;
_ ;15. Will public housing be needed for ; 13. If needed) last resort housing will be
project ; implement according to State Law.
;16. Is public housing available ;
1- 1- ;17. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS ;
; ; housing available during relocation ;
period ;
18. Will there be a problem of housing ;
within financial means ;
;19. Are suitable business sites available ;
---;-- ; (list source) ;
Number months estimated to complete ;
r ; RELOCATION
Form 15.4 Revised 6/89
"IS/- IP9
,
nt ate
- pvtmd ? ate
Original & 1 Copy. State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
I I
RELOCAT I ON REPORT
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
PROJECT NO. 1.0 NO. F.A. NO.
8.1672201 R-2248(A)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COUNTY Alternate W-1
MECKLE1J3LRG
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES + IRMW LEVEL
1 ,
-
ITvae o f Di salacee IOwners I Tenants, ITotallMinority + 0
ISM l IS-2SM 2S-MM ( M-_4W SO UP

;Individuals ; 0 i 0; 0; 0 , 0 0 0 0;

Fam i 1 i es
0
25 0 25 01
i
0; 0; 5 7 13 ;

;Businesses ; 0 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; VIALLE OF DWELLING ;DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE;

;Farms 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 Owners ; Tenants For Sale For Rent ;

;Non-Profit Org. ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 i 0-20M; Oi$ 0-1501, oil 0-20M,, ill$ 0-150 i 0;

1

ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS - , , I-
,
120-40M1 01150-250; 0',20-4OM; 38,150-250 1 0;
--T-T 1
,YESi EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 140-70M1 2;250-400; 0140-70M1 52-1250-400 1- 951

1x ; 1. Will project have significant impact 170-100; 23;400-600; 0170-1001 69;400-600 1 861
x ; 2. Will project be disruptive to community) 1 -: -; -,, ; -; 1 -;
'x 1 3. Will community be cut off from services1100 UP1 0;600 UP 1 01100 LP1 521600 LP 1 O;
X
4.
Will neighborhoods be separated , , 1 , 1
1x ; S. Will special relocation services be ;TOTAL ; 251 ; 0; 12121 1181;
t 1
t t
necessary 1
t Y 1 1
_ ;x 1 6. Will schools or churches be affected by; REMARKS (Respond by Number)
displacement It
1x ', 7. Will business relocation be detrimental ', 2. Project will be disruptive during con-
; ; 1 to community 1 struction) however, no lasting adverse
x B. Will business services still be ; impact is anticipated.
1 1 available after project 1
1x ; 9. Will any business be displaced 1 4. Anticipated separation expected to be
1 If so, indicate.si2e) type, estimated ; short-term nature and not lasting.
C ; number of employees) minorities) etc. ;
1x 110. Will relocation cause a housing 1 8. Business services will be available with-
; 1 shortage ; out interruption during and after con-
; _ 1 _ 111. Source far available housing (Fist) 1 struction.
112. Will additional housing programs be 1
1 - 1x- 1 needed ; 11. MLS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
1 x 113. Should Last Resort Housing be 1 includes the entire project) newspapers,
1 ; 1 considered Charlotte Apartment Association, and
1x ;14. Is there a significant number of large ; Realtors.
1 1 1 families, disableds elderly) etc. 1
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN ', 13. If needed) last resort housing will be
:-1- :15. Will public housing be needed for implemented according to State Law.
1 1 project 1
,_._ :16. Is public housing available 1
;17. Is it felt there will be adequate OSS 1
1 1 housing available during relocation ;
, period ,
1 _!_ ',18. Will there be a problem of housing ;
1 ; 1 within financial means 1
•. ';19. Are suitable business sites available 1
1 -; - ; (list source) 1
;_!_ 120. Number months estimated to complete 1
i r, I RFJ_OCAT I ON 1
&-?z _71-1-L2 2r,/- if
U. A: McCallum) Area Relocation gent ate r Apprave ate
Form 15.4 Revised 6/89 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

t

L

J
J

L)
OCAT 10" REPORT
REL North Carolina Department of Transportation
-
S
E
I CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
.
.
.
x
PROJECT NO. 1.0 NO. F.A. NO. COUNTY Alternate
8.1672201 R-2248(A) Mecklenburg
OE97RIPTION OF PROJECT. West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
MA DI
LEVEL
I
?-?M1 + SO L
IS-25M
T m of D i s
)Individuals o I acee ,mss, Tenants, Tom I M i nor i ty
0 0 0 0 , O-1,51M
--
,
0 0 0 0 i 0,
;Fami I ies 3 i 1; 4 i 0 i 0; 1 2! 0; 1
0 0 0 0 VIAL.LE OF DWELLING ; DSS DWEI IL-INGS AMAH.ABLE
Businesses ,
'Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners 1' Tenants ; For Sale i For Rent
; 0 ; 0 0 0
-Profit Ors
;N i 0 20MI 0;$ 0-1501 0; 0_ 20MI 1!$ 0__150 1 01
on
' .
ANSWER ALL GLESTIONS X20-40M; 11- 150-250 1'. 20-40M; 38'1150-250 0-1
EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWIERS '140-70M1 1'1250-400 0'140-7OM1 52'1250-400 951-
,
1x ', 1
1
Will project have significant impact
.70-1001 01400-6001 070-1001 69;400-,600 861
.
-
2. Will project be disruptive to community) . -1
!100 LP1 11600 LP 1 0.100 LF1 521600 LF 1 01
i
1x 1 3. ces
Will community be cut off from serv
1x 4.
- Will neighborhoods be separated
1811
. 11 .2121 1
'
1x 1 5.
; Will special relocation services be 0
,TOTAL. ; 31

1x 1 6. necessary
Will schools or churches be affected by; REMARKS (Respond by Number)
-
1x 1 7 displacement 1
Will business relocation be detrimental! 8. Business services will be available with-
.
_
; to community out interruption during and after con-
', x S. Will business services still be 1 struction.
1
1 9
;
; available after project
Will any business be displaced
1 11. ML.S Real Estate. Areas 7 and 8 which 11.
.
-
x
; ; If so, indicate size, type, estimated 1 includes the entire project, newspapers,
a
d
1 1 number of employees, minorities, etc. n
1 Charlotte Apartment Association,
,x 110.
, Will relocation cause a housing . Realtors.
- shortage
Source for available housing (list) 1
1 13. If needed, Fast resort housing will be
1 112. Will additional housing programs be 1 implemented according to State Law.
-,x
, -,
needed '
'
1 x 113. Should Last Resort Housing be
,
considered '
1x 114.
1 Is there a significant number of large 1
_
1 1 families, disabled, elderly, etc. 1
'
,
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
!
115.
1
1 Will public housing be needed for 1
1
_
_
1 1 project '
116.
1
; Is public housing available 1
_
_
117.
1
1 Is it felt there will be adequate DSS ,
1
_
_
' housing available during relocation 1
period '
1 118. Will there be a problem of housing 1
within financial means 1
119. Are suitable business sites available
'---' - ' (list source)
120.
;
1 Number months estimated to complete 1
_
_
1 ; RELOCATION 1
Z=Z-?!
D Ium, Area Re I ocat i on Agent Date - /ZAPy?e? Date
' . A. Mac
Form 15.4 Revised 6/89 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

Rai OCAT ION REP=ORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT NO. I.D NO. F.A. NO. COUNTY Alternate W-3
8.1672201 R-2248(A) Mecklenburg
IP;rIIP'TION OF PROJECT= West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES , I ,
IYM of D i Tota 1
M i nor i tv
sa I aeee I 0yner%I ' 0-15M
15-25 M
SO
25-35M
M-ASM
I
I
,Individuals , 0 , 0 , 0 I
!
'
I
0 , 0 , 0

Families
i i 7, 1, 8, 2 , 1. 2. 2. 21

Businesses 0 0 0 0 VIAL.LE OF DWELLING i OSS DAELLINGS AVAILABLE,

.Farms ; 0 ; 0 0 i Owners ; Tenants I For Sale i For Rent

:Non-Profit Org. 0; 0 0 0 0-20M, 01'7 0-150; 0? 0-20M,' 11$ (3-150 0-,
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS M-40M! 21150-250, O,ZO-4OM. 38,150-250 0,
,YES NO EXPLAIN ALL. "YES" ANSWERS ,40-71)M, 41'250-4001' 1,40-70M,' 52,250-400 , 95,
? - Ix 1. Will project have significant impact I70-100; 0,400-600, 0,70-100; 691400-600 ; 86.
x . . 2. Will project be disruptive to community.
ix . 3. Will community be cut off from servicesi100 UP. 1.600 UP . 0.100 UPI' 5211600 LP . 0.
x I . 4. Will neighborhoods be separated . . -; . -. . -. . -;
Ix . S. Will special relocation services be .TOTAL . 71 . 11 .212. .181.
I . necessary "
.x . 6. Will schools or churches be affected by! REMARKS (Respond by Number)
' displacement ;
Ix 17. Will business relocation be detrimental . 2. Project will be disruptive during con-
I I . to community . struction) however, no lasting adverse
I x . 8. Will business services still be . impact is anticipated.
I available after project
: -,.x 9. Will any business be displaced 4. Anticipated separation expected to be
I I I If so, indicate sizes type, estimated short-term nature and not lasting.
number of employees, minorities, etc. I
_Ix .10. Will relocation cause a housing 8. Business services will be available with-
I I i shortage i out interruption during and after con-
ill. Source for available housing (list) i struction.
i12. Will additional housing programs be
- ix -i needed 1 11. MLS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
x i .13. Should Last Resort Housing be includes the entire projects newspapers,
i considered Charlotte Apartment Associations and
I _ ix I14. Is there a significant number of large I Realtors.
i i families, disabled) elderly, etc. I
i i i ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN 1 13. If needed) last resort housing will be
: -:- 115. Will public housing be needed for implemented according to State Law.
project ,
116. Is public housing available I
I17. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS I
' housing available during relocation
i period '
_ i18. Will there be a problem of housing i
within financial means
.19. Are suitable business sites available
' (list source) '
I20. Number months estimated to complete
in .1, RELOCATION ;
u 4/(,? 44 !- ?34-P9 l l X-/-19

A. McCallum) Area elocatign Agent - ate
Form 15.4 Revised 6/89
ppr
Original & 1
a
Copy: _
ate
State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
RELOCAT ION REPORT x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
PROJECT NO. I.0 NO. F.A. NO

L

3.1672201 R-2248(A)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
OOLNTY Alternate W-4
Mecklenburg
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
--------------€ TIPAfiO6I ---_ - r- -- --I NCO-LEVEL - -
-TM of 0 i so 1 acme Ownerg Ienants i Tota l M i nor i tv ! 0-15M 15-25M 2'3--35M 35-1?SN1 I J e_
,'Individuals 11 0, 0; 0; 0, 0; 0; 0; 0 0;
;Families 13 i 4 17 0 2 5 1 4 6 0 1
;Businesses 4 0 4 , 0 1 VALLE OF DWELLING ,DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE;
;Farms , 0 , 0 ; 0 ; 0 1 Owners , Tenants ; For Sale 1 For Rent ;
,Nan-Profit Ors. 0' 0 0 1 0, 0-20111 0'1$ 0-150; 21 0-20111 i,s 0-150 , D,
-? -ANSWER ALL GLESfIONS 120-40MI 1,150-250, 2120-40M1 38,150-250 , 0;
NO? EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 1'40-70M1 71'250-4001' 0,40-70M1 52,250-400 1 951
x 1 1 1. Will project have significant impact 170-1001 51400-6001 0170-1001 691400-600 1 86"
X , , 2. Will project be disruptive to community, , -,
1x 1 3. Will community be cut off from services 1100 UPI 01600 UP 1 01100 UPI 521600 UP 1 01
x, 4. Will neighborhoods be separated 14 -i
ix ; S. Will special relocation services be :TOTAL 1 131 ; 41, 12121 1181"
1 1 necessary
1x " 6. Will schools or churches be affected by1 REMARKS (Respond by Number)
1 " displacement 1
;r. ; 7. Will business relocation be detrimental; 1. Interchange at U.S. 74 & Interstate 85
1 1 to community " will be built. This will have a
r. :_1 8. Will business services still be ; significant impact during construction,
1 1 available after project ; however, the long-term benefits should
x :_1 9. Will any business be displaced 1 prevail.
1 " If so; indicate size, type, estimated 1
1 1 1 number of employees, minorities, etc. ; 2. During construction only, flyovers and
1 _ix 110. Will relocation cause a housing ; interchanges should help keep neighbor-
1 " shortage 1 hoods and communities in tact.
1 111. Source for available housing (Iist) "
1 112.
1 x 1 113.
!-',x ,14.
1 116.
,17.
,18.
119.
120.
Form 15.4 Revised 6/89
Will additional housing programs be
needed
Should Last Resort Housing be
considered
Is there a significant number of large
families, disabled, elderly, etc.
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
Will public housing be needed for
project
Is public housing available
Is it felt there will be adequate DSS
Housing available during relocation
period
Will there be a problem of housing
within financial means
Are suitable business sites available
(list source)
Number months estimated to complete
n 7--31- Date
8. No loss of business services.
9. Business Displacement:
(1) Trutzschler - manufacturing plant and
administrative offices, approximately
25,000 square feet, 150 employees,
30 minorities.
(2) Fleissner - manufacturing plant and
administrative offices; 20;000 square
feet, employs approximately 100, 20
minorities.
(3) Get-A-Way Lounge, 700 square feet,
2 employees; no minorities.
(4) T & T Services; auto and grocery,
2,000 square feet; 4 employees; no
minorities.
(CONTINUED
Appr ved Date
Original 8: 1 COW State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

ALTERNATE W=4
(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
11. MLS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
includes the entire project; newspapers,
Charlotte Apartment Association, and
Realtors.
13. If needed; last resort housing will be
implement according to State Law.

RaL-OCAT I ON REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT NO. I.D NO. F. A. NO. COUNTY Alternate W-5
8.1672201 R-2248(A) Mecklenburg

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT- West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
_-------------- --- _--__------------------ ------- r- - ?. M - INCOME LEVEL - ----
ESTIMATED DISPI.ACEE? ,
Type of D i so 1 acee Owners Tenants Iola l M i nor i ty 11-15M 15=20 1 25-351 1 35-45M 1 50 LP
;Individuals 11 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0
;Families I 11 I 0 i 11 0 0 5 6: 0 i 0
Businesses 2 0 2 0 VALLE OF DWELLING :06S DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
jFarms 0, 0 i 0 0 Owners i Tenants I For Sale i For Rent
;Non-Profit Org. 0 1, 0 1, 0 1, 0 1 0-20M1 01S 0-150; 0-1 0-20M1, 1,$ 0-150 0
- ---
ANSWER ALL GLESTIONS 120-40MI 1115D-2501 0120-40MI 381150-250 0
1 N•? EXPLAIN ALL "YES„ A4RLUS 140-70M: 10;250-4001 0;40-70M: 521250-400 ; 95
I I 70-100' 0'400-600' 0'70-100' 69:400-600 ' 86
Ix 1. Will project have significant impart
Ir i
2. Will prO,ject be disruptive to
X 3. Will community be cut off from services:100 LF 1, 01,600 LIP : 01,100 LPI 521,600 LIP : 0
,-:x 4. Will neighborhoods be separated
:x 'TOTAL 11' 0' '212 '181.
5. Will special relocation services be ? ? ? ? ? ? ,
: I : necessary
I- ;x ; 6. Will schools or churches be affected by: REMARKS (Respond by Number)
displacement :
:x : 7. Will business relocation be detrimental:
to community I
: x 1 8. Will business services still-be : 9. Business Displacement:
available after project : (1) Dale's Service) 600 square feet,
19. Will any business be displaced : grocery, 2 employees, no minorities
If so, indicate size, type, estimated 1 (2) No name business, 1000 square feet.
number of employees, minorities, etc. : appears to be motorcycle repair,
'_:x :10. Will relocation cause a housing 1, 2 employees, no minorities
shortage '
:11. Source for available housing (list) 1 11. MLS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
: I :12. Will additional housing programs be : includes the entire project, newspapers
:---:x-I needed : Charlotte Apartment Association, and
I x 1-:13. Should Last Resort Housing be : Realtors.
considered
I _;x :14. Is there a significant number of large 1 13. If needed, last resort housing will be
: I I families, disabled, elderly, etc. : implement according to State Law.
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN :
I15. Will public housing be needed for :
project :
I1.6. Is public housing available :
"_I _I17. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS :
housing available during relocation :
: I : period I
I.S. :Will there be a problem of housing :
: I I wi th i n financial means :
: I 19. Are suitable business sites available :
I---I--: (list source) :
:20. Number months estimated to complete I
RFLOCAT LON - - - --
Form 15.4 Revised 6/89
nt Date
Original
rave 1 Date
1 Cory: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy= Area Relocation File

REi_OCAT I ON RaRORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT NO. I.D NO. F. A. NO. COUNTY Alternate W-6
8.1677_201 R-2248(A) Mecklenburg
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
ESTIMATED DI - i INCOME LEVEL
;

T
f D i
1
O
o ,
i
ype o
aree j
no
wners Tenants- ! t
I M i nor i tv
;Individuals ; ? ; 0 ; 0 ; ? 0-15
; M + 15--2SM 25-3&M 3S-4SM , SO UP
0 0 ; 0

;Family ; 3; 0; 3; 0 ; 0; 0; 2; 1; ?;

;Businesses ; 2 ; 0 ; 2 ; 0 ; VALLE OF DWELLING ;OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE;

;Farms
+ ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; Owners to Tenants .For Sale ; For Rent ;
;Non-Pr ofit Org. i 0; 0 i 0 i 0 ; 0-20M; 0;$ 0-150; 0; 0-20MI 11$ 0-150 ; 0;
ANSWER ALL dESfIONS ;20-40M1 0;150-250; 020-40M; 38,150-250 ; 0;
NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS ;40-70M; 2;250-400; 01'40-70M1 52;250-400 ; 95;

_ ;x ; 1. Will project have significant impact ;70-100; 1;400-600; 0170-100; 69:400-600 ; 86;
_ •.r ; 2. Will project be disruptive to community; ; -; ; -; ;--; -
3. Will community be cut off from services; 100 LAS; 0;600 LP ; 01100 LP; 52;600 LP ; 0'
; _ ;x ; 4. Will neighborhoods be separated ; •. -; ; -; ; -; ; _;
:-ix ; S. Will special relocation services be :TOTAL ; 3; ; 0; 1212; 11181,
necessary ; n y + n
;x ; 6. Will schools or churches be affected by': REMARKS (Respond by Number)
' displacement '
;y. ; 7. Will business relocation be detrimental ;
; ; to community ;
r. ; - 1 B. Will business services still be ; 9. Business 0isplacees
available after project ; (1) Judy's Beauty Shop) 500 square
; y. i 9. Will any business be displaced feet) one employee
; If so, indicate size, type, estimated ; (2) Belhaven Automobiles, 300 square
; number of employees, minorities) etc. ; 2 employees) no minorities
_ ;x
r ;10. Will relocation cause a housing ;
; shortage 11. MLS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
;11. Source for available housing (list) ; includes the entire project) newspapers
;-y. ;12. Will additional housing programs be ; Charlotte Apartment Association) and
;-- ; - ; needed
, Realtors.
x ••13. Should Last Resort Housing be ;
considered ; 13. If needed) last resort housing will be
_ ;r ;14. Is there a significant number of large ; implement according to State Law.
families) disabled) elderly) etc. ;
' ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN '
;15. Will public housing be needed for ;
project ;
;16. Is public housing available ;
• _ ;_ ;17. Is it telt there will be adequate DSS ;
Housing available during relocation
period ;
;18. Will there be a problem of housing ;
i within financial means ;
;19. Are suitable business sites available ;
' (list source) '
;20. Number months estimated to complete
' RELOCATION
MGLaIIum) (Area He Iocatian Agent ate A0provPd? ate
Farm 15.4 Revised 6/69 Original i; 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent '
2 Copy= Area Relocation File

' R1=1 OCAT ION REPORT
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
PROJECT NO. I.D NO. F.A. NO.
3.1672201 R2248(A)
OESCRIPTION OF PROJECT- West Charlotte Outer Loop North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COUNTY Alternate M-1
Mecklenburg
from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
MTIFFATO IWAC
- INCOME LEVEL
1 '
T,.? _ of Di s
;Individuals a I aces jOwne Tenants I Total l M i nor i tv
; 0; 0; 0 i 0 0-1SM I ?15-25M 125=MM I ,?+ I SO UN
; 0; 0 1 0 1 Q
'Families ; 14 ; 0 ; 14 ; 0 10 0 0 ; 5 It 9 ; 0 ;
;Businesses ; 0 ; 011 0 ; 0 i VALLE OF OWEL.LING 1'01S'S DWELLINGS ANAII.AR E1

;Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants. to For Sale For Rent
!Non-Profit 1 0; 0; 0; 0
Ors ; 0 20M1 0', $ 0-150; 01 0-20M1 1;Y 0-150 '1 0;
-
'
.
ANSWER ALL GLIESTIONS
0',
1'20-40M, 0 150-250' 0',20-40M1 38 150-250 ',
'YESIND$ EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 140-70M1 3;250-400; 01140-70M1 521250-400 ', 951,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
?
n 1
; 1.
,
Will project have significant impact I
I 1-, 1 1 1?1 1-
170-1001 111400-6001 0 01 170-1001 691400-600 1 86 861
.??
r. 1 2. Will project be disruptive to community) I -: : 1 1 -1 : I
;x 1 3. Will community be cut off from services, 100 LP1 01600 LP 1 01100 LP: 521600 LP I 01
_
- 1x 1 4. Will neighborhoods be separated 1 1 1
1 01 12121 11811
_ ;x 1 S. Will special relocation services be :TOTAL 1 14,
1 a 1 N N 1 1 tl

;x 1 6 necessary 1
Will schools or churches be affected by! REMARKS (Respond by Number)
.
_
'
1 I
•
displacement
Ix 1 7. Will business relocation be detrimental ',
_
I I to community 1 8. No displacement of businesses.
r. I _ 18.
: Will business services still be
available after project I
: 11. MLS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
Ix 1 9.
; Will any business be displaced I includes the entire project, newspapers,
_
' 1
1 1 If so, indicate size, type) estimated I Charlotte Apartment Association, and
1 1
; number of employees) minorities, etc. I Realtors.
' -
:x 110. Will relocation cause a housing I
If needed) last resort housing will be
1 13
I
Ill.
:
; shortage
Source for available housing (list) .
I implement according to State Law.
-
-
; Ix112. Will additional housing programs be I
1
-
--; ; needed
r. 1 :13. Should Last Resort Housing be I

1
considered 1
; _ Ix ;14. Is there a significant number of large 1
'
I 1 families) disabled, elderly, etc. 1
1 ' 1
1 ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR OESIGN
,
'
1 _ 115. Will public housing be needed for I
_ project :
11116. Is public housing available 1
117.
1 Is it felt there will be adequate OSS 1
_ Housing available during relocation ',

' I
period 1
I 118. Will there be a problem of housing 1
- -
I
within financial means 1
1
1 119. Are suitable business sites available I
I' ' 1
-- (list source)
'
:-120. Number months estimated to complete I
I RFLOCAT I ON 1

0. A. McCallum) Area Relocation Agent Date Approv0d Qate
Original 8 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
Form 15.4 R evised 6/89 2 Copy: Area Relocation File

r?iEL_?CAT Z ON REPORT
x I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
PROJECT NO. 1.0 NO. F.A. NO
9.1672201 R-2248(A)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COLNTY Alternate M-2
Mecklenburg
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT- West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES , INCOME LEVEL
iTvoe of Disolaeee lijiTotaliMinority 0-15M 15-25M 25-3SM 3rr-4.5M 50 L.P
;Individuals , ? ; ? , 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 0 ;
,Famiiies i 10, 0; 10 i 7 i 0 5 7 3 0 0;
;Sus.inesses ; 0 ? ; 0 ; 0 ; VALLE OF DWELLING ,DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE;
;Farms ; 0 '1 0 ; 0 ; ? '1 Owners ; Tenants ; For Sale ; For Rent ;
Non-Profit Ors. i 0 ? 0 1 0 i 0 20MI 2;$ 0-150; 0; 0-20M1 1;$ 0-150 ; 0;
ANSWER ALL QIESTIONS 120-40MI 81150-250; 0'120-40M5 381'150-250 ; 0;
- .1-!
;Ypi'NOa EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS ;40-70M; 01250-400; 0'140-70M5 521-250-400 ; 95;
Will project have significant impact 570-1005 05400-6005 0;70-1001 69:400-600 865
- 2. Will project be disruptive to community5 ; -5 ' -; 5 -5 5 -5
?. W i I I community be cut off from services5100 LIP 05600 LIP 05100 UP: 525600 LP 1 0;
_ :< 4. Will neighborhoods be separated
' - < C-. Will special relocation services be STOTAL 105 5212; 5181;
necessary
_ 6. Will schools or churches be affected by! REMARKS (Respond by Number)
displacement ;
x •._ ' 7. Will business relocation be detrimental 8. No displacement of businesses.
to community
_ 3. Will business services still be 11. NL_S Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
available after project includes the entire project, newspapers;
9. Will any business be displaced 5 Charlotte Apartment Association, and
If so; indicate size, type, estimated Realtors.
number of employees, minorities) etc. 5
' _!x ;10. Will relocation cause a housing 13. If needed, last resort housing will be
shortage implement according to State Law.
Source for available housing (list)
12. Will additional housing programs be
- "- needed
x:_ 13. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered
_ `.x 14. Is there a significant number of large 5
families,.disabled; elderly, etc. ;
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
_ _ '15. Will public housing be needed for
project
_ _:16. Is public housing available
Is it felt there w i I I be adequate OSS 5
Housing available during relocation 5
period '
'18. Will there he a problem of housing ;
to thin financial means
19. Are suitable business sites available
(list source)
_ .-:14.0. Number months estimated to complete ;
RELOCATION
L7. A. ?^.rCaIIumI Area Relocation Agent Date Appro ed Date
=orm .4 Revised 6/89 Ori9inai & 1 Copy-- State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

R1=1 OCA-r I ON RaRORT'
' x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
PROJECT NO. 1.0 NO. F.A. NO.

3.1672201 R-2248(A)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COLNTY Alternate E-1
Mecklenburg
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
'
EST IMATED- OISPL A_ M_` -_? '
INCOME [EPEE
'Type of D i so i acee l Owners Ienapf,s ( to I + M i nor i tv D-ISM 15-2SM ! 25-3SM 35-4SM ( SD LP j
;Individuals ; ? ; 0 ; D ; 0 ; 0 11 0 It 0 ; 0 11 ? ;
;Fami I ies ; 1; ?; 1; 0; 0 0; 0 0 1
;Businesses 1 0 ; .0 0 ; 0 ; VALLE OF DWELLING ;DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABIF;
;Farms 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; Owners ; Tenants ; For Sale i For Rent ;
;Non-Profit Org. 0 , 0 , ' 0 , 0 ; 0-2011', 0',$ 0-150; 0; 0-20M; 1!$ 0-150 ; 0;
ANSWER ALL G ESTIONS 120-40M1 0 150-2501 0 i20-4011 ; 38 150-250 Oi
;YESINOI EXPLAIN ALL. "YES" ANSWERS ;40-70M; 0;250-400; O;40-70M's 52;250-400 ; 95,
'
.x , 1. Will project have significant impact ,70-100, 0:400-6001 0,70-100, 691400-600 , ) 86,
2. Will project be disruptive to community,
-:x ; ,
' 3. Will mommunity be cut off from services;100 UP; 1;600 UP ; 0;100 LP; 521600 LP ? 0'.
_ ,x 4. Will neighborhoods be separated
_ ;x S. Will special relocation services be ;TOTAL ; 1; ; 011 ;212; ;181;
necessary
_ ;x ; 6. Will schools or churr_hes be affected by; REMARKS (Respond by Number)
displacement
_ •,r ; 7. Will business relocation be detrimental; 8. No displacement of businesses.
,
to community ,
r. ; 8. Will business services still be ; 11. MLS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
available after project ; includes the entire project, newspapers
_ ;>_ ; 9. Will any business be displaced ; Charlotte Apartment Association, and
If so) indicate size) type) estimated ; Realtors.
number of employees) minorities, etc. ;
'-:x ;10. Will relocation cause a housing ; 13. If needed, last resort housing will be
shortage ; implement according to State Law.
;11. Source for available housing (list) ;
;x ;12. Will additional housing programs be ;
-- ; - ; needed
x ; ;13. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered
•.r. ;14. Is there a significant number of large ;
- ; ; families) disabled) elderly, etc.
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
;15. Will public housing be needed for ;
project
_ 1-:16. Is public housing available
; ;17. Is it felt there will be adequate OSS •.
Housing available during relocation ;
period
• _ ;_ 118. Will there be a problem of housing
' within financial means
;19. Are suitable business sites available
' (list source) '
;20. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION
' D. A. McCallum) Area Relocation Agent Date Approv. Date
Form 15.4 Revised 6/89 Original £„ 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
IJ
RM OCAT I ON F E:POR-r
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
PROJECT NO. I.D NO. F. A. NO
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COLNTY Alternate E-2
8.1672201 R-2248(A) Mecklenburg
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT- West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
---- ESTIMATED DISPLACEES - -T- r IMOONE LEVEL-
. ,
!Type of Disaiarge #QanersijepafTotal`Minority 1___Q== L1 15-25TH 25-35P1 , 35-45M 50 LP
;Individuals ; 0; O i 0; 0, 0; 0; 0; 0 i 0;
;Families ; 6; 1 i 7 i 0; 0 1 0 1 1: 0 1 6;
;Businesses 4 0 4 0 VALLE OF DWELLING OSS DA11LINOS AVAILABLE
,Farms 0 0 ; Owners ' Tenants ; For Sale ; For Rent ;
'Non-Profit Ors. 0 0 0 0; 0-20M1 0;$ 0-150; 0; 0-20M: 1;$ 0-150 ; 0;
, ,
ANSWER GLESTIONS 120-40M: 01150-2501 0;20-40M: 381150-250 ; 0;
-, , -,
;YES1EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS ;40-70M: 0;250-400; 1;40-70M: 52;250-400 ; 95;
Ix 1. Will project have significant impact 170-1001 ?:400-6001 0170-100; 69,400-600 ; 86,
project be disruptive to community,
_ it 1 2. Will
:x 1 3. Will community be cut off from services;100 UP: 61600 LP 1 01100 LPI 52,600 LP : 01
,x 4. Will neighborhoods be separated
I _1x : 'TOTAL 6'+ 1' '212' '181'
_ S. Will.speciai relocation SerVICES be ?
I , , , 7 7 'I :! h B 4
necessary ,
I- Ix 1 6. Will schoois or churches be affected by; REMARKS (Respond by Number)
1 1 : displacement 1
: Ix : 7. Will business relocation be detrimental:
1 I 1 to community I
I x 1 : S. Will business services still be 1 9. BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT:,
available after project : (1) Autry Concrete, approximately.
1 x 1 : 9. Will any business be displaced 4,000 square feet, 12 employees,
If so, indicate size, type, estimated : 6 minorities.
number of employees, minorities, etc. : (2) Newcomb Spring of Carolina, approxi
1 _ Ix 110. Will relocation cause a housing 1 mately 7,500 square feet, 25
: I 1 shortage : employees, 12 minorities
1 _ I -: 11. Source for available housing (list) 1 (3) Shaffer & Max Textile Machinery,
: ;12. Will additional housing programs be : approximately 9,000 square feet,
:-- Ix-1 needed 1 25 employees, 10 minorities.
1 x 113. Should Last Resort Housing be ; (4) E. H. Enterprises, 6)000 square
considered I feet, 20 employees, 6 minorities
I- Ir :14. Is there a significant number of large l
families, disabled, elderly, etc. : 11. MLS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN : includes the entire project, newspapers,
:15. Will public housing be needed for 1 Charlotte Apartment Association, and
project 1 Realtors.
116. Is public inausing available :
I _ • _ 17. Is it fei; there will be adequate DSS 1 13. If needed, last resort housing will be
housing available during relocation 1 implement according to State Law.
period I
18. Will there be a problem of housing :
within financial means 1
1 I ;19. Are suitable business sites available 1
:---;--: (list source) :
I _;_120. Number months estimated to complete ;
RFLO?:AT I ON '

n

7I
ILJ
/ V ?. ?) -15 Lyye:-? n) 3? - ZIT. _ A&Znz 5--1- X_ f
0. A. McCallum, Area :e location Agent Date Appro ed Date '
Form 15.4 Revised 6/69 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy; Area Relocation File

Rai OCAT ION RESORT
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT NO. I.D W. F. A. NO. COINTY Alternate E-3
.?.].672201 R-2248(A) Mecklenburg
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
' i
----- ESTIMATED OISPL.ACEES IMUE LEVEL
-- -- ? ,
i Tyye of D i sa i acee l Owners mss, I Tota l 1 M i nor i tv ' D-15015-25M 1-25=32L-1 i35-ASM I SO LP
;individuals 0 It 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 11 0 11 0 ; 0 ;
-- -
;Families 9 2'i 11 t' 0' 0 6 4 1 0;
Businesses ; 0 ; ? ; 0 It 0 i VALLE OF DWELLING ; DSS DWEU-INGS AVAIL'ABLE'
;Farms ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; Owners ; Tenants ; For Sale ; For Rent '
0 ! 0 ; 0 ; ? ; 0-20M, 11S 0-150; 0; ?2M, li$ 0-150 ; 0;
;Non-Profit Org. ,
ANSWER ALL QLESTIONS 120-40M1 3;150-250; 1;20-40M1 381150-250_10,
;YES3N0J EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS ;40-70M1 3;250-400; 1;40-70M1 52;250-400 ; 951
•.x ; 1. Will project have significant impact 170-100; 21400-600; 0170-1001 691400-600 1 861
_ x 2. Will project be disruptive t0
_ , 3. W i I I community be cut off from services; 100 LP, 0;600 LP 1 01100 U'; 521600 LP 1 0;
4. Will neighborhoods be separated
;x 1 S. Will special relocation services be !TOTAL ! 91 1 2! ;212; ;1811
necessary
_ 'x ; 6. Will schools or churches be affected by! REMARKS (Respond by Number)
! displacement 1
-!x 1 7. Will business relocation be detrimental! *Berryhill Baptist Church Cemetery with appro>
! to community 1 imately 50 graves is within corridor.
Y !_ ! B. Will business services still be !
1 1 available after project 1 8. No displacement of businesses.
!r. 1 9. Will any business be displaced 1
1 If so) indicate size) type) estimated 1 11. MLS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
! number of employees) minorities) etc. ; includes the entire project) newspapers)
_ :x 110. Will relocation cause a housing 1 Charlotte Apartment Association) and
' Realtors.
!?! shortage
-lx !11. Source for available housing (list) !
! l12. Will additional housing programs be ! 13. If needed) last resort housing will be
---'x-' needed 1 implement according to State Law.
r ; _ •. 13. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered
;r. ;14. Is there a significant number of large
_ families) disabled, elderly) etc.
' ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
115. Will public housing be needed for
1 ; project
;16. Is public housing available
!17.
• Is it felt there will be adequate OSS
_
_
' housing available during relocation
period
16. Will there be a problem of housing
within financial means
l19. Are suitable business sites available
--;--' (list source)
l20. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION
Mr_. allum) 'Area Relocation Agent ate Approved ate
Form 15.4 Revised 6/89 Original 9: 1 Copy State Relocation Agent
c
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

RELOCAT I OM REF=ORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT NO: I.D NO. F.A. NO. OOLIVTY Alternate E-4
8.1672201 R-2248(A) Mecklenburg Page 1 of 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: -West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES I
, ;
ITvoe o f Di Minorit
solaree IOwne ITenantsIIatal f 0-i5M
15-25M
25-35M
4EM
Sp
35
y
I
,Individuals 0 11 0, 0, ? 1
1
1
-
I
LF i
0 i 0 0 i 0, 0

,Families , 3 i 50 i 53 i 0 i 0: 7; 25 : 20 1'

Businesses ; 1 0 ; 1 0 VALLE OF DAEL.LING f 06S DWELLINGS AVAILABLE,

;Farms ; ? ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; Owners : Tenants 1 For Sale ; For Rent ;
;Non-Prafit Org. ; 0 ; ? ; 0 ; 0 1 0-20M: 01$ 0-150; 0, 0-2OM: 1;$ 0-150 4,
i ANSWER ALL QLESTIONS 120-40M1 11150-2501'*50120-40M, 38,15D-250 181
_
MLN0 EXPLAIN ALL "YES" AN9+ERS :40-70M: 1,250-4001 0,40-70M1 52;250-400 ; 95,

1 x 1. Will project have significant impact 70-100; 1,400-600; 0;70-100; 691400-600 ; 861
X 2. Will project be disruptive to
:_!.x ; 3. Will community be cut off from services:100 UPI 0;600 UP : 0;100 UP: 521600 UP ; 0;
;x ; 4. Will neighborhoods be separated
:_;x ; 5. Will special relocation services be :TOTAL 1 31 1 50; 1212; ;2031
1 necessary
:x : 6. Will schools or churches be affected by: REMARKS (Respond by Number)
' displacement ;
:_:x ; 7. Will business relocation be detrimental : *Field Ridge Acres Mobile Home Park
: : ; to community : 50 in carridor) construction under way for

1-
I r. I
: 8.
Will business services still be
1
more spaces within corridor.
: : : available after project ;
l r 1 9. Will any business be displaced 1 *Mobile sites are somewhat limited within the
'
+ If so, indicate size) t
ype) estimated
;
immediate area of subject park, however, park
number of employees, minorities, etc. : with available sites are located in adjacent
:x :10. Will relocation cause a housing 1 counties and are reflected in the above avail
: 1 shortage : ability numbers. Given adequate lead time,
111. Source for available housing (list) : it is felt relocation can be accomplished
1 •. :12. Will additional housing programs be 1 with possible aid from the county for zon-
:-- :x- : needed 1 ing relief.
r. :13. Should Last Resort Housing be :
considered 1 1. Project will have significant impact in
: _ •.>c :14. Is there a significant number of large : that it will cross two major east-west
families, disabled, elderly, etc. ; arteries within the area (Wilkerson Blvd.
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN : [U.S. 741 and Interstate 85). Also the

- :15. Will public housing be needed for : relocation of 50 mobile home will be
:
: : project : lengthy due to shortage of sites and
: _ :16. Is public housing available : tight zoning regulations.
117. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS 1
housing available during relocation : 2. Project will be disruptive during con-
, period : struction due to traffic detours) etc.,
116. Will there be a problem of housing : howeveri no lasting adverse impact is
1 : 1 within financial means : anticipated.
1 : 119. Are suitable business sites available 1
' (list source) 8. No loss of business services.
:20. Number months estimated to complete :
RELOCATION : (CONTINUED ON NE)(T PAGE)
0. A. Mr_Caiium, Area Relocation Agent Date
Form 15.4 Revised 6/89
P.pprov .c ate
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

Alternate E-4
(CONTINLED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE)
9. Business Displacement:
(1) Thomason Antique Company, 3;000
square feet) 4 employees, 1
minority.
11. M LS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
includes the entire projects newspapers,
Charlotte Apartment Association, and
Realtors.
13. If needed) last resort housing will be
implement according to State Law.
RaL_0CAT 1 ON ReRC)RT North Carolina Department of Transportation
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT NO. I.D NO. F. A. NO. COUNTY Alternate E-5
8.16722Q1_ R-2246(A) Mecklenburg
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
' E§TIMATED DI , INCOME LEVEL '
'Tvae o f Dis eIacee 'Owners ?Tenants ?TotaIIMInority ! 0-15 M 15-25M 25-35M M-45M 50 LP

;Indivi duals ; 0; 0; 0; 0 ; 0 ? 0 0 0;

;Famili es ; 18 ; 4 22 ; 21 ; 4 13 5 1 0 i 0 ;

;Businesses ; 1 ; 0 ; 1 ; ? ; VAL1.E OF OWEZLING ;066 DWELLINGS AVAILABLE;
;Farms ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; Owner s ; Tenants ; For Sale I. For Rent ;

:Non-Pr ofit Org. 0 0 0 ? ; 0-20M; 01$ 0-150; 0; 020MI 1;$ 0-150 I 0;

ANSWER ALL OU6fIONS ;20-40MI 151150250; 3;20-40MI 381150-250 0;
i O O PLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 140-70MI 3,250-400, 1;40-70M1 521250-400 1 95,

1 1x 1 1. Will project have significant impact 170-100: 0 400-6001 0I70-1001 691400-600 ; 861
1 x 1 1
2.
Will project be disruptive to community, , '
-, , -, , -, , -•
1 1x 1 3. Will community be cut off from services1100 LP: 01600 UP 1 01100 tP1 521600 UP 1 0:
1_1x
4.
1
Will neighborhoods be separated ,
1-:x 5. Will special relocation services be ,TOTAL 18, 4, ,212, 1181'
,
1 1 necessary
1_1x 1 6. Will schools or churches be affected by1 REMARKS (Respond by Number)
1 1 ; displacement 1
1 _ 1x 1 7. Will business relocation be detrimental: 2. Project will be disruptive during con-
1 I I to community 1 struction, especially at major arteries
1 x I 8. Will business services still be 1 however, no lasting adverse impact is
I 1 1 available after project anticipated.
1 x 1 1 9. Will any business be displaced
1 I 1 If so, indicate size, type, estimated 1 S. No loss of business service.
1 I 1 number of employees, minorities, etc. 1
I Ix 110. Will relocation cause a housing 1 9. Business Displacement:
1 1 1 shortage 1 (1) Freda's Lounge and Gameroom) 2,001
1 1 111. Source for available housing (list) 1 square feet, 4 employees, no
1 1-r. 112. Will additional housing programs be 1 minorities.
1 - 1 - 1 needed 1
1 r. 1 _ 113. Should Last Resort Housing be 1 11. MLS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
1 I 1 considered 1 includes the entire projects newspapers
I -IX 114. Is there a significant number of large 1 Charlotte Apartment Association, and
I 1 1 families, disabled, elderly, etc. 1 Realtors.
1 1 1 ANSWER THESE ALSD FOR DESIGN 1
1 _ 1 _ 115. Will public housing be needed for 1 13. If needed, last resort housing will be
1 1 I project 1 implement according to State Law.
1 1- 116. Is public housing available 1
117. Is it felt there will be adequate 0SS 1
1 1 1 housing available during relocation 1
1 1 1 period 1
118. Will there be a problem of housing 1
1 1 1 within financial means 1
1 1 119. Are suitable business sites available 1
i'"--i--i (list source) ,
120. Number months estimated to complete 1
I 1 1_ RELOCATION 1
-A. McCallum; Area Relocation Agee Date / Appro ed ate
Form 15.4 Revised 6/89 Original &: 1 Copy. State Relocation Agent
2 Copy; Area Relocation File

' RELOCAT ION REF=OR-T- North Carolina Department of Transportation
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT NO. 1.0 NO. F.A. NO. COUNTY Alternate _?
8.1672201 R-2248(A) Mecklenburg
OE5CRIPTION OF PROJECT: West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
--? M IMA
,
4 Type of D i s
;Individuals o I acme ? Owners I Tenants ? Iota i ? MI nor i tv
; 0; 0; 0; 0 ? 0-ISM I IS-2-cM_ 25-3S M I ? ALP
, 0; 0; 0 i a
;Families ; 0; 0, 0; 0 , 0 0 1 0 1 0 i 0
;Businesses ; 0 ; 0 i 0 i 0 i VALE OF DWELLING ,'OSS OM LINGS AVAILABLE,
;Farms ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; Owners f' Tenants ; For Sale i For Rent ;

0 ,
Nan-Profit Ors. 0 0 0 1 D 20M1 01$ 0-1501 0; 0-20M1 1'1$ 0-150 '1 0;
' ANSLER ALL QLESTIONS 1-20-40MI 01-150-250-1 0-120-40M5 38'1150-250 i 0-1
;YESIN01 p('LAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS ;40-70M1 0;250-400; 0;40-70M, 52;250-400 ; 95;
1 1. Will project have significant impact 170-1001 05400-6001 0570-100; 69 400-600 861
5
2. Will project be disruptive to community ) 1 -1 5 -1 5 -5 5 -
3. Will community be cut off from services ;100 LPI 01600 LP 1 05100 LPI 521600 LP 1 01
1.4.
; Will neighborhoods be separated 11 -11 -11 - i 1 1 ' 11 11
_
-
' 5. Will special relocation services be "TOTAL ; OS 1 05 1212, 51815
6. Willsschools or churches be affected by ' REMARKS (Respond by Number)
displacement 1
1 7. Will business relocation be detrimental ', To be included in a segment of the Northern
to community
1 Outer Loop as Kimley-Horn Assoc., Inc.
S. Will business services still be 1
', available after project 1
1 9.
•
1 Will any business be displaced 1
_
_
' If so, indicate size, type, estimated 1
number of employees) minorities, etc. ',
_ ',_ 110. Will relocation cause a housing ',
1 shortage
111.
1 Source for available housing (list) '
_
_
112. Will additional housing programs be i
-; -; needed
1 1 113. Should Last Resort Housing be ;
1 considered
_ 114. Is there a significant number of large 1
1 families, disabled, elderly, etc. ',
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN '
115. Will public housing be needed for ;
111 project
,
' 116.
,
1 Is public housing available ;
-
-
117.
; Is it felt there will be adequate DSS 1
- housing available during relocation ;
period
1 118. Will there be a problem of housing ;
within financial means ;
119. Are suitable business sites available ;
' (list source)
' ?
1 ; 120. Number months estimated to complete ;
RELOCATION
ent Date
A
tio
R
l
ll
A
C Appro ed Date
t7. A. Mc
a
4 R
Form 15 g
n
e
oca
rea
um,
evised 6/89 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
. 2 Copy: Area Relocation File

1
Peal-OCAT Z Ol"%l RE3P0RT North Carolina Department of Transportation
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT NO. 1.0 NO. F.A. NO. COUNTY Alternate EF-1
8.1672201 R-2248(A) Mecklenburs
0E5C1IPTION OF PROJECT. West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
tSi IMAIto D15YLPAJzE5 INCOME LEVEL
i
IT~ o f D i so I area I Owners I Tenapu l jntal M j nor i tv D-15M I 15-25M 25-3rM I 35?yN
SD I P
;Individuals ; D; 0; 0; D I
0; 0; 0 0 0;

;Families 13 3 16 0 0 0 3 6 6 1 1;

;Businesses ; 0 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; VALLE OF DWELLING ;OSS DAELLLIN13S AVAILABLE;
;Farms ; 0 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; Owners i Tenants '
For Sale ? For Rent ?

,
'Non-Profit Ors. 0 0 ; 0 ' 0 ; 0-2OM; 0;$ 0-150; 0; 0-2O"I'. 1,$ 0-150 ', 0;
ANSWER ALL GLESTIONS 120-40MI 31150-2501 3120-40M1 381-150-250 to 01-
?YES?NO? EXPLAIN ALL "'YE5" AM 1-'S I40-70M1 6;250-400; 0;40-70M1 52;250-400 ; 95;
_ ;x 1 1. Will project have significant impact 170-1001 31400-6001 0,70-1001 691400-600 ; 861
•_ Ix 12. Will project be disruptive to community) 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1-1
'!-Ix 1 3. Will community be cut off from services1100 LPI 11600 LP 1 01100 LIP! 521600 U' 1 01
;x ', 4. Will neighborhoods be separated
I Ix ; S. Will special relocation services be ',TOTAL 1 13, 1 31 12121 11811
', necessary ; g tl ' d
', Ix 1 6. Will schools or churches be affected by', REMARKS (Respond by Number)
' displacement 1
I Ix 1 7. Will business relocation be detrimental '
I I 1 to community i
I x 1 1 8. Will business services still be 1 8. No displacement of businesses.
I ', I available after project I
-!x 1 V. Will any business be displaced 1 11. M LS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
' If so, indicate size, type, estimated ; includes the entire
so newspap
ers,
I
i I number of employees, minorities, etc. I
Charlotte Apartment Association; and
I Ix 110. Will relocation cause a housing 1 Realtors.
shortage
I _ i- 1,11. Source for available housing (list) 1 13. If neededi last resort housing will be
I12. Will additional housing programs be 1 implement according to State Law.
I -- I x- I needed '
I r. 113. Should Last Resort Housing be ',
I I ' considered '
,
•
;x 114. Is there a significant number of large I
_
; I families, disabled, elderly, etc. 1
', AMR" THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN 1
115. Will public housing be needed for I
', project ,
.-,- :16. Is public housing available 1
;17. Is it felt there will be adequate OSS I
' housing available during relocation '
period- '
I _ [- 118. Will there be a problem of housing I
I I 1 within financial means I
I I19. Are suitable business sites available 1
' (list source) '
120. Number months estimated to complete 1
' RELOCATION '
0. . McCallum) Area Relocation Agent Date Appro??v d Date
Form 15.4 Revised 6/89 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
L

n

E
J
1
l

1
?I?

F?
RE1_OCAT ION REiPOiRT
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
PROJECT NO. I.D NO. F.A. NO.
9.1672201 R-2248(A)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: West Charlotte Outer Loop
- North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COUNTY Alternate EW-2
Mecklenburg
from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
AMM
EffIMA 1519KA LEVEL

' ! Typo of n_ i s o I acep ! Owners Tenants ? TogaI ? M nor i tv ` 0-15M ? IS-2SM_ 125-3SMI I 35-4SM ? sn I-p
0; 0; 0; 0 i
0
'Individuals ; 0; 0, 0; 0 ,
,

;Families ; 6; 2 6; D 1; 4; 2 0 1;
'
i
B ; 0 ; 0 ; D ? 0 ; VALUE OF DWELLING MSS OLk1J-IN05 AVAII.ABIF;
us
nesses
;Farms ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; Owners ; Tenants ; For Sale ; For Rent ;

'Non-Profit
, Org. 0; 0; 0; 0
, 1 0-20M1 0;s 0-150; D; 0-20M1 l;s 0-150 1 0;
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS :20-40M1 3;150-2501 D-120-40M1 38-1150-250 0;
;YES D(PLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS ;40-70M1 1;250-400; 2;40-70M1 52;250-400 ; 95;

Ix 1. Will project have significant impact 170-100; 1 400-600; 0170-100; 691400-600 ; 861
'Ir ; 2. Will project be disruptive to community; ; -; -+ 1 -+ -
;x ! 3. Will community be cut off from servicesl100 LP1 1 600 LP ; 0;100 LP! 521600 LP 1 0;
_
-Ix 4. Will neighborhoods be separated
12121 1181
1_;x 1 S. Will special relocation services be ;TOTAL 1 61 1 21
A h 9 .A { tl
! 1
!x ; 6 necessary
Will schools or churches be affected by 1
! RE?'1AI?CS (Respond by Number)
' .
, displacement
1 1 7.
1 Will business relocation be detrimental!
_
! ! to community ! 8. No displacement of businesses.

L ! x ! ! S.
! 1?1 Will business services still be
available after project !
1 11. MLS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
1x ! 9. Will any business be displaced ! includes the entire project) newspapers)
' If so) indicate size) type) estimated 1 Charlotte Apartment Association, and
! !
! number of employees, minorities) etc. ; Realtors.
I
' -
1x 110. Will relocation cause a housing t
If needed) last resort housing will be
1 13
! !
1 1 111. shortage
Source for available housing (list) .
; implement according to State Law.
;r, 112. Wiii additional housing programs be !
- 1 -; needed
,
1 x 1 _ l13. Should Last Resort Housing be 1
1 considered
,
Ir. 114.
' Is there a significant number of large
families) disabled) elderly) etc. 1
1
! 1 ! ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN 1
1 1 115. Will public housing be needed for 1
project 1
116.
1
1 Is public housing available 1
_
_
117. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS
,
'
1 1 housing available during relocation !
l
1
1
1 118. period
Will there be a problem of housing
-
-
1 within financial means
119. Are suitable business sites available 1

-, --, (list source) '
; 120. Number months estimated to complete 1
' RELOCATION '
Dat?
0. McCaiium ) Area He Iocatton P.gent Date
corm 15.4 Revised 6/89 Original &: 1 Copy; State Relocation Agent
2 Copy-, Area Relocation File

REL_OCPkT 1 CN REF=CRT North Carolina Department of Transportation
x E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT NO. I.0 NO. F.A. NO. OOLNTY Alternate EW-3
8.1672201 R-2248(A) Mecklenburg
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT- West Charlotte Outer Loop from Interstate 77 to N.C. 27
' ESTIMATED OISPLACEES INCIOME LEVEL
Type o f D 1 s o 1 acee + Owners I Temnts Tota II I M1 nor i tv # 0-15 1+1 15-251 ( 25--35M I 3 5M 50 LP I
;Individuals ; Q; 0; 0; 0 ; 0; 0 0 0 0;

Famili es 24 ; 0; 24 ; 0 ; 0 1 4 5 13 I 2;

;Busine sses ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; VALUE OF DWELLING , DSS 0AELLINGS AVAILABLE;

;Farms ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; Q: , Owners ; Tenants ; For Sale ; For Rent ;

:Non-Pr ofit Org. Q 0 0 0 0-20M1 0i$ 0-150, 0' 0-20M1 1,$ 0-150 i Oi
f AN196ER ALL GLE STIONS 1-20-40M1 2,150-2501- 0,20-40M1 38,150-250 + 01'
iT 1 1 EaG'I.AIN ALL "YES" ANSIMM 40-701411 10,250-400, O,4D-7OMI 52oo250-400 95,

1 1x 1 1. Will project have significant impact 170-11313I
- 121400-6001 0170-1001 691400-600 1 861
1 x 1 1
2.
Will project be disruptive to community, ,
-, , -, , -, , -,
'
1 1x 13. Will community be cut off from servicesl100 LP! 01600 LF 1 01100 LP! 521600 LF 1 01
1 1x 1
4.
Will neighborhoods be separated , , , ,
:_ix
, 5.
Will special, relocation services be
'TOTAL '
24' ' 0' 1212, 181,
1 1 1 necessary 1 9 ' S H
:_Ix
- 1 6. Will schools or churches be affected by! REMARK S (Respond by Number)
!
I 1 displacement 1
1x 1 7. Will business relocation be detrimental! 2. Project will be disruptive during con-
! I 1 to community 1 struction, however, no lasting adverse
1 x !_ ! B. Will business services still be 1 impact is anticipated.
! 1 1 available after project 1
!x 1 9. Will any business be displaced ! B. No displacement of businesses.
! 1 ! If so, indicate size) type, estimated 1
1 1 1 number of employees) minorities) etc. 1 11. M.LS Real Estate Areas 7 and 8 which
I -IX 110. Will relocation cause a housing 1 includes the entire project, newspapers
1 1 1 shortage 1 Charlotte Apartment Association, and
: _1 111. Source for available housing (list) 1 Realtors.
1 1x 112. Will additional housing programs be 1
1 - 1 - 1 needed 1 13. If needed, last resort housing will be
1 x ! _ 113. Should Last Resort Housing be 1 implement according to State Law.
1 1 1 considered 1
1 _ Ix 114. Is there a significant number ?f large 1
1 1 1 families, disabled, elderly) etc. 1
1 1 1 ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN 1
,-,- 115. Will public housing be needed for 1
1 1 ! project 1
1 1 _
^ 116. Is public housing available 1
1
_ 1 117. Is it felt there will be adequate LASS 1
1 1 ! housing available during relocation 1
1 1 ! period 1
1 _ 1 _ I18. Will there be a problem of housing 1
1 1 1 within financial means 1
1 l19. Are suitable business sites available 1
1---1 - 1 (list source) 1
1 _ 1_ 120. Number months estimated to complete 1
1 1 1 RELOCATION !
Form 15.4 Revised 6/89
ApOrovd Uate
Original & 1 Copy State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

APPENDIX D
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
D-1 Newsletters
I D-2 Meetings with Public
1

fl

0
11

WEST CHARLOTTE
September 1988
West Charlotte Outer
Loop Study Begins
OUTER LOOP
For approximately the next 2 years, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, in
cooperation with Meckenburg County, the City
of Charlotte, and the Federal Highway
Administration will be studying alternative
routes for the western section of the Charlotte
Outer Loop freeway. The West Outer Loop
will run between I-77 in the South, to NC 27
(Mt. Holly Road) in the North. (See map) The
proposed four- or six-lane western section will
join the South Charlotte Outer Loop at a new
interchange between Westinghouse Boulevard
and Arrowood Road, and will join the
proposed North Charlotte Outer Loop at Mt.
Holly Road, between the Catawba River and
Tom Sadler Road.
Several alternative corridors for the West
Outer Loop have already been identified.
These alternatives, along with others, will be
evaluated in the study to determine their
environmental, social, economic, and traffic
impact on the surrounding area. The study
area for the West Outer Loop is that area
generally east of Lake Wylie and the Catawba
River, and west of Charlotte Douglas
International Airport and Sugar Creek, as
shown on the map.
The study will include data collection, public
involvement, traffic projection, environmental
analysis, archaeological studies, engineering
studies, and coordination with state, local, and
Federal agencies. A project location planning
report and an environmental impact statement
will be published as part of the study.
Ultimately, one corridor alternative will be
recommended.
Concurrent with this study of the West
Charlotte Outer Loop, J.E. Greiner Company
is conducting a study of the North Charlotte
Outer Loop. The North Outer Loop extends
from NC 27 on the west to I-85 on the east, as
shown on the map. Information regarding the
North Charlotte Outer Loop study can be
obtained by calling 535-4233.
First in a
ublic
servesrmati of pon
info
newsletters.
Lssue No.1
N `
Ell' •. -
LOOS t ; .
/ CHARLOTTE
AR ? S
r ? ...M••• 0 t
41
t-
40
61
.•. 00 o
i ?
• _ •, ,
.... Na"
Kimley-Horn and Associates To
Perform Study
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., a consulting engineering,
planning, and surveying firm, has been selected by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to study
several possible routes for the proposed West Charlotte Outer
Loop. Kimley-Horn will develop and evaluate alternatives to
determine which ones are technically feasible, environmentally
sound, and acceptable to the community. Laurence J. Meisner,
P.E., AICP is Kimley-Horn's designated project manager. Project
coordinator for NCDOT is David G. Modlin, Jr., P.E. Mr. Modlin
directs the Special Project Planning Unit in the Department's
Planning and Research Branch.

Public Involvement Encouraged I Hotline Offers Speedy Answers
An extensive public information program is planned to
keep citizens aware of progress on the West Charlotte
Outer Loop study. Citizens will have numerous
opportunities to attend public information meetings and
express their concerns and offer suggestions. The
following public information events are planned:
• Area wide public meetings. There will be a public
meeting in the early stages of the West Outer Loop
study, and another one after alternatives have been
evaluated. At both meetings, engineers, planners, and
NCDOT and City representatives will make
presentations and will address public concerns.
• Small group meetings. Throughout the study,
Kimley-Horn engineers will be available to meet with
groups to discuss the issues. Concerned groups can
arrange a meeting by calling the project hotline. Please
call at least ten days in advance. Groups must supply a
meeting place.
• Public Workshop/Hearing. The consultant will publish
an environmental impact report that will discuss the
impact that each alternative route would have on the
environment. Following the completion of a draft of this
report, a public workshop will be held to discuss in detail
the consultant's findings. Public input will be invited at
the subsequent public hearing.
Dates for these and all other public information events will
be published in this newsletter. Citizens can get on the
newsletter mailing list by calling the project hotline
333-0717.
Information is just a phone call away. Citizens can call
Kimley-Horn's local "hotline" Monday through Friday, from
8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. An engineer will be available to
discuss the project or take comments. The hotline number
is 333.0717.
Letters can be mailed to:
Mr. Laurence J. Meisner, P.E.
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.
901 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
or
Mr. James M. Greenhill, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Research Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
First Public Meeting Set
The first public meeting on this project has been scheduled
for October 25, 1988, at Olympic High School, 4301 Sandy
Porter Road. The walk-through, workshop-type meeting will
be held between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., with a presentation
to take place at 7:30 p.m.
West Charlotte Outer Loop Study
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
901 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606

0

1

I
WEST CHARLOTTE Second is a
OUTER LOOP Series public
information
newsletters.
Februarv 1989 I Issue No. 2
Alternatives Selected for
Detailed Study
After six months of studying possible routes for the West
Charlotte Outer Loop, Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc.
has begun a detailed study of the three principal
alternatives. These alternatives are described below and
illustrated on the map inside this newsletter.
Southern Portion
The southern portion of the West Outer Loop is
common to all three proposed alternatives. To trace this
portion on the map, begin at the Southern Belt
interchange at I-77, and proceed northwest, with an
interchange at York Road (NC 49), approximately
mid-way between Westinghouse Boulevard and Coffey
Creek. This portion of the alignment terminates
approximately 5,000 feet northwest of York Road.
Eastern Alignment
The proposed eastern alignment continues north from
the "Southern Portion" with a proposed interchange at
planned Arrowood Road extension. It crosses Shopton
Road east of Shopton Road Baptist Church, continuing
north between Steeleberry Acres and Eagle Lake. From
there it continues to the northwest after crossing Douglas
Drive, passing east of the Steele Creek Presbyterian
Church and cemetery, to an interchange with planned
West 'Boulevard extension just west of Wallace Neel
Road. The route continues northwest to just south of
Dixie Rivet Road, then continues almost due north, with
interchanges at Wilkinson Boulevard (west of
Tuckaseegee Road), I-85 and relocated Moores Chapel
Road. The West Charlotte Outer Loop terminates at an
interchange with Mount Holly Road (NC 27) just west of
Woodlea Road. This location is being coordinated with
planning for North Charlotte Outer Loop.
Middle Alignment
The middle alignment continues to the northwest from
the Arrowood Road extension interchange. The route
crosses Sandy Porter Road north of Olympic High
School, and crosses Steele Creek Road (NC 160) with an
interchange between Shopton Road West and Dixie
River Road. The alignment continues to the north, with
an interchange at West Boulevard Extension,
approximately 2,000 feet west of Wallace Neel Road.
This alignment joins the eastern alignment near the
northern portion of Dixie River Road.
Western Alignment
The western alignment continues from the "Southern
Portion" and intersects Sandy Porter Road with an
interchange between Meadhaven Drive and Olympic
Junior High School. The route then continues to the
northwest, with an interchange at Steele Creek Road just
east of Shopton Road west. The route continues to the
northwest to an interchange with West Boulevard
extension.
The alignment turns slightly to the north, crossing
Walkers Ferry Road just west of Berryhill Elementary
School. After crossing an arm of Lake Wylie, the
alignment passes west of the Duke Power Training
Center to an interchange with Wilkinson Boulevard.
The alignment then interchanges with I-85 between
Moores Chapel Road and the Catawba River. After
paralleling the powerline to the east, the alignment then
interchanges with Mt. Holly Road, near Mt.
Holly-Huntersville Road. Location of this interchange is
being coordinated with planning for the North Charlotte
Outer Loop.
Crossovers
Several crossovers are included in the routes to be
studied to provide for changes between corridors. Three
crossovers are provided for transition between the
western and eastern or middle routes in the central
portion of the study area.
Further Study
As the next step in this study, Kimley-Horn will analyze
in detail the impacts of each of the alternatives on the
natural and human environment. Among the factors to
be considered are traffic, noise, air quality, wetlands,
farmland, relocations, archaeology, historic sites, and
economic impact. The draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS) will present the impacts of the
alternatives studied. Following the public hearing, one
alternative will be selected. The final environmental
impact statement (FEIS) will discuss the impact of the
selected alternative.

!J ?.)l.l????tJ U???

:l R ?
DOUGLAS
NAL
Alternative Alignment
Arterial Road Extension
Proposed Interchange O
MILES 1 2
Alternatives Selected for Detailed Evaluation
West Charlotte Outer Loop
C?yTAV
\ Clk"
InI,
Public Involvement
Encouraged
An extensive public information program is planned to
keep citizens aware of progress on the West Charlotte
Outer Loop study. Citizens will have numerous
opportunities to attend public information meetings and
express their concerns and offer suggestions. The
following public information events are included-
• Area wide public meetings. There has been a public
meeting in the early stages of the West Outer Loop
study. There will be another meeting after alternatives
have been evaluated. Engineers, planners, and
NCDOT and City representatives will make
presentations and will address public concerns.
• Small group meetings. Throughout the study,
Kimlev-Horn en¢ineers and planners will be available
to meet with croups to discuss the issues. Concerned
groups can arrange a meeting by calling the project
hotline: [phone]. Please call at least ten days in
advance and provide a meeting place.
• Public workshop/bearing. Kimley-Horn will publish
an environmental impact statement that will discuss
the impact that each alternative route would have on
the environment. Following the completion of a draft
of this report, a publicworkshop will be held to discuss
in detail the consultant's findings. Public input will be
invited at the subsequent public hearing.
Dates for these and all other public information events
will be published in future newsletters. Citizens can get
on the newsletter mailing list by calling the project hotline
-- 333-0717.
West Charlotte Outer Loop Study
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
901 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
Hotline Offers Speedy
Answers
Information is just a phone call away. Citizens can call
Kimlev-Horn's local "hotline" Monday through Friday,
from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. An engineer will be available
to discuss the project or take comments. The hotline
number is 333-0717.
Letters can be mailed to:
Mr. Laurence J. Meisner, P.E.
IGmley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
901 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
or
Mr. James M. Greenhill, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Research Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Key Dates
Draft EIS Complete October 1989
Public Workshops October 1989
Public Hearing November 1989
Final EIS April 1990
North Outer Loop Study
Concurrent with this study of the West Charlotte Outer
Loop, J.E. Greiner Company is conducting a study of the
North Charlotte Outer Loop. The North Charlotte Outer
Loop extends from NC 27 on the west to I-85 on the east.
Information regarding the North Charlotte Outer Loop
study can be obtained by calling 535-4233.

WEST CHARLOTTE
OUTER LOOP
July 1990

i

u

1
Draft EIS completed
After studying potential impacts of the three principal alter-
natives for the West Charlotte Outer Loop, Kimley-Hom and
Associates, Inc. has completed the Draft Environmental Im-
pact Statement (DEIS). Among the factors considered for
the DEIS were traffic, noise, air quality, wetlands, farmland,
relocations, archaeology, historic sites, and economic impact.
These impacts are summarized below and quantified in the
environmental comparison summary table inside this
newsletter. In addition, a map of the alternatives and a
summary table depicting impacts and costs are included.
Beneficial and adverse environmental effects
The primary benefits of the proposed Outer Loop are
economic gains resulting from the improvement in highway
transportation. Safety benefits will be realized by the road
users transferring from more congested and hazardous exist-
ing highways. The Outer Loop also should reduce traffic
currently traveling within the City of Charlotte and result in
reductions in travel time, fuel consumption, and vehicle
operating costs.
Adverse impacts include the displacement of 62 to 115
residences and three to nine businesses. There will be an
increase in noise levels in some areas adjacent to the project.
An estimated four to 10 acres of forested wetlands and 18 to
32 acres of floodplain will be affected by the proposed
project. An estimated 70 to 120 acres of prime farmland will
be taken for right-of-way. One historic site may be affected.
Some negative impact to air quality will occur, but air quality
standards in the vicinity of the project will not be exceeded.
Temporary adverse impacts during construction will consist
of erosion and siltation, construction noise, and public incon-
venience.
Comparison of alternatives
The three principal alternatives under consideration are the
East, Middle, and West Corridors (see map on page 2). The
East and the Middle Corridors follow the general location on
the approved urban area Thoroughfare Plan, except for a
change in the section between York Road and Dixie River
Road. This change reduces the impact on historic structures
and problem areas near Steele Creek Road at Shopton Road.
The Middle Corridor is west of the Steele Creek/Shopton
area, while the East Corridor is shifted to the east of the area.
The West Corridor represents a major shift in the Thorough-
fare Plan alignment, running along the edge of Lake Wylie
and crossing fingers of the reservoir in two areas. This alter-
native has met with public opposition from persons living in
the residential area surrounding the lake. In addition, it will
Third in a
series of public
information
newsletters.
Issue No. 3
sever access to properties between the Lake and the West
Corridor.
Land Use
The area west of the Thoroughfare Plan location is planned
for residential uses and the area east of the alignment
(towards the airport) is planned for commercial and in-
dustrial uses. The East and Middle Corridors provide a good
demarcation line for the land use control. The West Cor-
ridor does not conform to the land use goals planned for this
area.
rt
None of the alternatives conflict with the master plan of the
airport. The East Corridor south of the airport is oriented to
overlap the flight paths. The highway would keep new
residences from being adversely impacted by aircraft noise
and would provide noise abatement by encouraging com-
patible land use. The impact of the East Corridor on the
VOR radar south of the airport has been discussed with the
Federal Aviation Administration and appears to be accept-
able.
Industries
The West Corridor will require the elimination of a recently
reconstructed weigh station located near its proposed inter-
change with I-85. The West Corridor also requires the dis-
placement of two large industries. Both the West Corridor
and the crossover (EW-2) will seriously impact ; the Duke
Power Training Center located on Walker Ferry Road.
Wetlands
The West Corridor will involve more wetlands (10 acres
forested, 5 acres open water) than the Middle Corridor (5.1
acres forested) or the East Corridor (6.2 acres forested). The
Middle Corridor has the least impact on wetlands. High
quality wetlands impacted by alternates include Little Paw
Creek and Beaverdam Creek (West), Paw Creek (Middle
and East), and the Eagle Lake area (East).
Trafffic
All of the alternatives will provide adequate traffic service for
the Outer Loop. The East and Middle Corridors, by more
closely paralleling existing NC 160 and Steele Creek Road,
are anticipated to defer or postpone the need to improve
these roads. This should lessen the potential for affecting the
numerous historic structures located close to the existing
highway system.
Communities
All of the alternatives will disrupt scattered residences and
businesses to some degree. The East Corridor would take six

homes in the Steeleberry Acres community and would split
the community. It would also impact the Eagle Lake com-
munity. The East and Middle Corridors are anticipated to
cause relocation of a substantial number of residences in the
subdivision located within the proposed interchange area at
NC 27 and at the Field Ridge Acres mobile home park on
Tuckaseegee Road. They also involve the taking of five holes
at the privately-owned Pawtuckett Golf Course. The East
and Middle Corridors pass close to Olympic High School.
The West Corridor also passes close to the Berryhill Elemen-
tary School, and will require some right-of-way from the
school site. The proposed Garrison Road interchange at the
West Corridor would cause a substantial increase in traffic
on Garrison Road, affecting the mostly minority residents of
that area with both noise and other traffic impacts. This
impact could also serve to increase the property. value, how-
ever.
Historic
Another major consideration is the historic structures lo-
cated throughout the project area. The alignments of the
alternatives have been adjusted to minimize the impact on
historic structures as much as possible. Four structures and
one historic district within the Area of Potential Effect have
been recommended as eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. The East Corridor will adversely affect the
Brown Farmstead_
Beyond the draft EIS
As a part of the decision-making process, public input will
once again be sought. A public workshop will be held to
discuss in detail the consultant's findings. At the public
hearing, public comments will be solicited. Along with
federal and state agency comments, the publics input will be
taken into consideration in selecting an alternative. The final
environmental impact statement (FEIS) will discuss the im-
pact of the selected alternative.
Public Workshop
Date: August 9, 1990
Place: Steele Creek Presbyterian Chrueb
Time: 4.00 to 8:00 , drop-in
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Crossover
East Middle West EW 1 EW-2 EW 3
- Length (miles) 12.1 12.4 14.0 33 3.4 3.2
- Construction Cost
(millions) $124 $129 $127 $21 $24 $21
- Right-of-Way Cost
(millions) $51 $52 $57 $8 $7 $8
- Total Cost
(millions) $175 $181 . $184 $29 $31 $29
- Displacements
Residences (minority) 99*(21 ) 115'(28) 62(2) 16(0) 8(0) 24(0)
Businesses 7 3 9 0 0 0
- Acreage Required
Farmland/Field 82 95 107 0 0 6
Woodland 471 534 457 54 62 15
Developed 98 115 114 22 23 35
Total (including 656 747 684 76 91 56
open water)
- Acres of Wetland, not 4.2 5.1 10.0 0.8 0 2.0
including Open Water
- Acres of Open Water 0 0 5.0 0 6.3 0
- Acres of Floodplain 31.8 31.8 18.4 1.6 11.8 12.5
- Noise Impacts 16 6 7 7 3 3
- Historic Structures
Affected Adversely 1 0 0 0 0 0
* Includes 50 mobile homes in Field Ridge Acres
1
1
1
1
1
.? IT vClt* W n ;
W W ;
_./ if J'Oy{ W Y San
qa A N N a;j a
U. ?Fi:% "n ? W Y f ? W
2' Ie
! o
AP"
?' W
ypayr£S M
19
j wob
I 3:fD?3Sy>b??
by
+ e?b ?
W npt
b %3-0
711 NON
`PS ? ? 1 0
x ? ? ?jln s
\ ? h j., 11 to ? ? ?
J Ala. ?Y ` C.¢iz t
z I ?
f °
? Q 6
1 a ?
? W
V
N
u p 45 0
' W
vob ,ro
P"
'? n J
CCC...... o- `?
?N
b
w
Q
J
Q
W
z
LL
W
w
d
8NN
1.1.
W
O
Public involvement encouraged
An extensive public information program is planned to
keep citizens aware of progress on the West Charlotte
Outer Loop study. Citizens will have numerous
opportunities to attend public information meetings and
express their concerns and offer suggestions. The
following public information events are included:
• Public workshopthearing. A public workshop will be
held to discuss in detail the consultant's findings. The
workshop will be held at Steele Creek Presbyterian
Church activity center, 7404 Steele Creek Road, on
Wednesday, August 8, between 4.00 PM and 8:00 PM.
Public input will be invited at the subsequent public
hearing, which will be held at Olympic High School on
Thursday, August 23, at 7:30 PM.
• Environmental document. Kimley-Horn has published
a draft environmental impact statement that discusses
the impact that each alternative route would have on the
environment. Copies of this document for public review
are available at the following locations:
City of Charlotte
600 East Fourth Street
336-3900
Mecklenburg County
700 North Tryon Street
336-3745
North Carolina Department of Transportation
10016 Newell Hickory Grove Road
596-6900
• Small group meetings. Throughout the study,
Kimley-Horn engineers and planners will be available
to meet with groups to discuss the issues. Concerned
groups can arrange a meeting.by calling the project
Information Line: 333-0717. Please call at least ten
days in advance and provide a meeting place.
Information line offers speedy
answers
Information is just a phone call away. Citizens can call
Kimley-Horn's local "Information Line" Monday through
Friday, from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. An engineer will be
available to discuss the project or accept comments. The
Information Line number is 333-0717.
Letters and written comments can be mailed to.
Mr. Laurence J. Meisner, P.E.
Kimsey-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Post Office Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
or
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environment Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Key dates
Draft EIS Complete July 23, 1990
Public Workshop August 8, 1990
Public Hearing August 23, 1990
Final EIS January, 1991
North Outer Loop Study
Concurrent with this study of the West Charlotte Outer
Loop, J.E. Greiner Company is conducting a study of the
North Charlotte Outer Loop. The North Charlotte Outer
Loop extends from NC 27 on the west to I-85 on the east.
Information regarding the North Charlotte Outer Loop
study can be obtained by calling 535-4233.
Correction: The Public Hearing site has
been changed to West Mecklenburg
High School from Olympic High School
as stated above. The date and time will
West Charlotte Outer Loop Study
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Post Office Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636
still be Thursday, August 23, at 7:30 P.M.

E
1

E

J
WEST CHARLOTTE
OUTER LOOP
Fourth in a
series of public
Information
newsletters. .
December 1990 Issue No. 4
Middle Corridor selected
In November 1990, the North Carolina Department. of
Transportation selected the Middle Corridor for the West .
Charlotte Outer Loop. This alternative conforms closely to
that shown on the adopted 1988 Thoroughfare Plan, which
had been endorsed earlier by the County after a 1986 study.
The selected corridor, shown on the accompanying map; was
selected for the following reasons:
Tragic. The Middle and Eastern alternatives serve a greater
traffic demand than does the Western Corridor. The Middle
Corridor is preferable to the Eastern Corridor, because. it
provides superior service in the Steele Creek Road area and
would provide a route for through traffic to bypass historic
communities and sites on Steele Creek Road. The Middle
and Western Corridor also provide for an interchange with
Paul Brown Boulevard extension, which could be tied into a
future Lake Wylie crossing to Gaston County. The Western
Corridor creates adverse traffic impact on Garrison Road.
Thoroughfare Plan. The Middle Corridor conforms most
closely to the Thoroughfare Plan. It is virtually identical to
the Thoroughfare Plan from I-77 to Arrowood Road
extension and from south of Paul Brown Boulevard to NC 27.
The section where this alternative deviates from the
Thoroughfare Plan was necessary due to a historic district, .
potential hazardous waste site,.and traffic considerations.
The Eastern Corridor also is similar to the Thoroughfare
Plan, but deviates to the east where the Middle Corridor
moves to the west, and does not provide for a Paul Brow
Boulevard extension. The Western Corridor represents a
substantial change from the Thoroughfare Plan.
Airport. The Middle Corridor is compatible with future
airport expansion plans and, unlike the Eastern Corridor,
does not pose a potential conflict with the VOR/DME radar
location.
quality wetlands than the Eastern Corridor.. The.Western
Corridor impacts the greatest wetland acreage, both forested
and open water. .
Noise. The Middle Corridor impacts the. fewest noise .
receptors, while the Eastern Corridor impacts the greatest
number.
Land Use Plannina. The Middle Corridor provides a
boundary between airport-related industrial land east of the
Corridor and residential development west of the Corridor..
The Middle and Eastern Corridors west and north of the
airport conform with the alignment shown in the 2005 Land
Use Plan.. The Middle Corridor also was endorsed by the .
Southwest Dishict Plan for the area south- of 1-85. The
Western Corridor does not provide for this land use planning
objective and conflicts with land use goals.
Recreation. The Middle Corridor does not affect planned
parks near. Lake Wylie, as does the Western Corridor. It
avoids the proposed airport area golf course south of
Steeleberry Acres that would be impacted by the Eastern
Corridor. The Middle and Eastern Corridors impact the
privately-owned Pawtuckett Golf Course, but vacant land
exists that could be used to replace. the impacted area.
Public Input. The portions of the alternatives that generated
the most controversy prior to the public hearing were the
portions of the Western Corridor near Lake Wylie and the
Eastern Corridor near Eagle Lake and through Stceleberry
Acres. The Middle Corridor has generated little public
comment for the portion south of I-85. After the public
hearing, controversy arose regarding the Middle/East
Corridors to NC 27 versus the EW3 crossover to a more
western crossing of NC 27. (See accompanying article.)
Cost. The Middle Corridor costs $2.5 million less than the
Western Corridor. It costs $6.4 million more than the Eastern
Corridor, but provides an additional interchange.
Cultural Resources. The Middle and West Corridors have
no 4(f) involvement and no adverse effect on historic
structures. The Eastern Corridor has 4(f) involvement and
adverse effect on one Section 106 property. The Middle and
Western Corridors also do not affect any archaeological
resources, while the Eastern Corridor would require
additional archaeological studies for one site.
Wetlands. The Middle Corridor affects the least acreage of
forested wetlands and no open water. It affects less high
Community Facilities. The Middle Corridor does not
require school property, as does the Western Corridor, and
does not adversely impact other community facilities.
Business Relocations. The Western Corridor has the
greatest impact on businesses (nine relocations), while the
Middle Corridor has the least impact (three relocations). In
addition, the Western Corridor will require the elimination
of a large truck weigh station on 1-85. The Western Corridor
also impacts the Duke Power Training Center.

? a
W It

7

%'
q.
9
ppp
tl

2 -Z Y
Y
QNgw W W W .

y0a11ES pAVEE PO• W •'
J
1
? •1 i *? a 1 a
?
' y
r
P 1

t1
orow

1 ?w
1?J
OwY"]7?
?
? u ? ?
N `+oswayw

r
/ 311
a
?o ny

a a
s
toy' 0

? i
I ;
c `
f M V o
1 EgIV
j1. M ?1
11 ?r q .
?X

AS y?
s
•
n
avow w
?
{ gad v?
1`
1 •?, PO

r Na ??

s
[Ix
a ? ?O
d

as
N?
6

N
a
W
:a-
.Z
W
a?
LW•
.f '
U
J
W
LL
8
Q
U

u
I

J
l

Selection process
focuses on the north
During the selection process, two variations of the Middle
Corridor became the subject of intense discussion.. While
consensus was generally achieved on the portion of this
alternative from 145 south to 1-71, the merits of the hum and
outer crossings at NC 27 (segments ES vs. EW3-W5) were.
debated This debate centered on both the portion of the
West Outer Loop south of NC 27 and the portion of the North
Outer Loop north of NC V. The outer crossing (EW3-W5)
was endorsed by the City of Charlotte and the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO). The inner crossing was
endorsed by the Technical Coordinating Committee (the
staff for the MPO).
After reviewing the functional designs, Draft Environmental
Impact Statements, and agency and public comments, the
Department of Transportation selected the Middle Corridor
with the inner (E5) crossing at NC 27. The inner crossing for
the West and North Outer Loops was selected over the outer
crossing because it:
1. Allows for a safer interchange design at I-85.
2. Creates less neighborhood division and fewer im-
pacts. The EW3 segment crosses through the
Moores Chapel neighborhood while the Southern
Corridor (of the North Outer Loop) runs on
generally vacant land between the Coulwood and
Stoney Point subdivisions. Although not apparent
on the hearing map, the alignment within the
Southern Corridor will be located north of Long
Creek and will not require right-of-way acquisition
from Coulwood, Stoney Point, or Calvary Christian
Church School. It does, however, take homes at NC
27 in the Woodlea area.
3. Requires 21 fewer residential and four fewer busi-
ness relocations.
4. Has 40 fewer noise impacted units.
5. Does not adversely ailed the historic Moore-Sadler
House.
6. Does not require relocation of 10 graves.
7. Provides better accessibility to West Mecklenburg
County by providing an additional interchange at
relocated Moores Chapel Road.
8. Is 1.7 miles shorter.
9. Costs $8 million less.
Public workshop
A public workshop was held on Wednesday, August 8, IM
at Steele Creek. Presbyterian Church from 4:00 pan. to 8:00
p.m. Hearing maps. and exhibits were posted; and
representatives of Mmky-Horn-and NCDOT were pietent
toanswerquestions. Approximately= people attended"
workshop. Most were concerned with the. efl'ed of tha..
corridor on their property, with the project scbednle,- and '.
with procedures for sight-of-way acquisition.
Public hearing.
The Corridor public hearing for," project was held a0:W ?-l
pm, Avg" 23, 1990 at West Mecklenburg ffigh School . .
Auditorium. Of the approxkimateiy 500 people who attended
the hearing, 30 made comments. The issues and concerns
addressed are summarized below:
¦ Several residents of the Eagle Lake community ex-
pressed opposition to segment E2 of the Eastern Cor-
ridor, due to disruption of their community,
degradation of the exceptionally high water quality,
and damage to wildlife habitat. Residents also felt that.
the projected reduction in airport noise due to quieter
aircraft reduced the advantage of the Eastern Cor-
ridor.
¦ Several people supported the Western Corridor so as
to move out the Outer Loop as far as possible.
¦ Some residents of the Wildwood subdivision and'
nearby areas expressed opposition to the Eastern and
Middle Corridors due to impact on neighborhoods
and recreation facilities, and favored the Western
Corridor north of I-85. The proximity of the Western
Corridor to the powerline was seen as a positive
aspect.
¦ The Southwest District Plan study group endorsed the
Middle Corridor based on land use, protection of
Eagle Lake and Steeleberry Acres, reduction of truck
traffic on Steele Creek Road, protection of Lake
Wylie, and provision for a Paul Brown Boulevard
Extension. The Airport Advisory Committee found
that nothing proposed by the airport would affect the
location of the Outer Loop.
¦ . Residents of the Lake Wylie area opposed the
Western Corridor due to its impact on the lakefront
area -- including public recreation areas and residen-
tial communities -- and the Berryhill Elementary
School
¦ Several persons said that the impact on people living
near the corridor should be considered as well as
those actually displaced by the roadway.
I I t

¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
Some people favored the Middle Corridor because of its
similarity to the previously adopted Thoroughfare-Plan
alignment.
One resident opposed the elimination of the Thorough-
fare Plan alignment near Steele Creek Road.
Several people opposed the Middle Corridor due to its
impact on the Clearview Acres and Olympic Woods
subdivisions.
One resident proposed that the route be a straight line.
It was mentioned that Sandoz has purchased additional
land near Lake Wylie.
A resident of the Coulwood subdivision north of NC 27
expressed opposition to the E-5 segment of the Eastern
Corridor and stated preference for the westernmost ter-
minus at NC 27.
¦ Mitigation of wetland and historic impacts
The FEIS is scheduled to be completed in February 1.991. After
approval by the Federal Highway Administration; a Record of
Decision will be prepared that will explain the reasons for the
project decision and: summarize any mitigation.messures that
will .be incorporated in the project.
Following this action, the Department. of Transportation will
prepare detailed plans for the highway that will ioclttdr actual
right=of--way requirements. A design public .hearint,Will be
held to allow public input before these plans are finalized. All
property owners ft m whom right-of-way will be aogaired will
be notified of the design public hearing.
Key dates
Final EIS February.1991.
The rest of the story: Record of Decision April 1991
Design Public Hearing Mid 1992,
Final EIS underway Right-of--way Acquisition 1992
Construction . 1994
The Final Environmental Impact Statement is now being
prepared. It essentially incorporates the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, along with the following items: Thank you
¦ Identification of the selected alternative (proposed ac-
tion)
¦ Reasons for selecting the proposed action
¦ Discussion on public hearing and public comments
¦ Agency comments on DEIS and responses, where ap-
propriate
Kimley-Horn and Associates wishes to express its appreciation
to the, citizens of Mecklenburg County for. -their courteous
participation in this process. We realize that this study has
occurred after previous studies have been completed, and that
many of you may feel that .the study process was over-extended.
We appreciate your patience and hope that you felt included in
the process.

West Charlotte Outer Loop Study
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.
Post Office Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636

fl

n

WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
R-2248(A)
Meeting Minutes
Date of Meeting: November 13, 1988
Subject: Meeting with Steele Creek Presbyterian Church
Attendees: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. (KHA)
Russ Woodworth
Steele Creek Presbyterian Church
Deacon Group
Discussion
This meeting was held on November 13, 1988 at 2:00 PM at the Steele Creek
Presbyterian Church on Steele Creek Road. Mr. Woodworth presented the preliminary
alternatives that had been developed at that time and discussed the EIS process. The
church group was particularly interested in the two alignments proposed east of Steele
Creek Road. Comments included the following:
o The group opposes any alignment to to the east of the church. They prefer the
County's adopted alignment or a more westerly one. One basis for opposition to
an eastern alignment is the impact on Steeleberry Acres.
o It was noted that the church and cemetery may be eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.
o One citizen stated that his land and home have been in his family for
"centuries", and that he was opposed to any alignment affecting him.
o The group asked what they could do to express their views: They were advised
that any letters received would become part of the official public input record to
be considered in decision-making.
I I
r
r

Date of Meeting:
Subject:
Attendees:
Discussion
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
R-2249(A)
Meeting Minutes
February 16, 1989
Meeting with Berryhill-Dixie Community
Kimlev-Horn and Associates. Inc. (KHA)
Larry Meisner
Russ Woodworth
Berryhill-Dixie Neghborhood Association
Sue Friday, President
(See sign-in sheet, attached)
This meeting was held on February 16, 1989, at 7:00 PM at the Berryhill Baptist
Church on Old Dowd Road at Wallace Neel Road. Approximately 80 citizens attended
the meeting, which was held as a regular community meeting. After Ms. Friday opened
the meeting, the group discussed various business items, including the noise impact
from Charlotte/Douglas International Airport. Ms. Friday then introduced the Kimley-
Horn representatives and asked them to present the status and findings of the study to
date.
Mr. Meisner discussed the background and scope of this study and the EIS process in
' general. He then described the alternatives being studied. (Reduced maps of the
alternatives were available to meeting attendees.) The floor was then opened to
questions and comments. Some of these included:
' o Would there be an interchange at Dowd Road? (None is planned currently, not
shown in thoroughfare plan.)
' o Concern was expressed over impacts on the Cathey Street neighborhood, the
Berryhill Church and Cemetery, and on houses in the Lake Wylie area for the
western alternative.
o The public participation process was discussed. Residents were informed that
their opinions would be considered in developing the recommended action. Public
input could be expressed at this meeting, via the telephone hotline, by mail to
' NCDOT or Kimley-Horn, at the public hearing, or in writing following the public
hearing. A letter submitted by the Association would probably carry more
weight than letters by individuals.
d
o Concern was expressed regarding the Lake Wylie and Paw Creek wetlands an
potential endangered species affected by the western alignment.

o Concern was expressed regarding impact on the new trailer park at Tuckaseegee
road near Wilkinson Boulevard.
Following these questions and comments, the formal meeting was ended at
approximately 8:00 PM. Individual discussions and examination of the V : 1,000' aerial
photo base and corridor map continued until approximately 8:30 PM.
SIGN-IN SHEET
West Charlotte Outer Loop
Public Information Meeting
/G. i, a
Mailing
' Name Address List
Yes I No
fJ

=;I C-01
Sael&
1
J? 1 y 1 e- Dom,
x6a?-?' '?t arc
I?y

?.?:y . ??' G`?%,:C^k/`V ?-•-- c?j ? .f - ?? /?-I?/c'1 GV ca A /?' G'? Z .?' Z c fi
?':c11'.`fCr.??
Ao?

West Charlotte Outer Loop
Public Information Meeting

Name
Mailing
Address L' t
Yes I No
(0132 It GTov.0- rc3 Crln??? ?j rlC
lcA T0-k0A er-.tA, A,a
1
f
J
it( c- _ _•,.? C ?o„?,?, ? 3 ? S F,?E'c ? A-.J t?? . 2 S 2 ? ?
a o 2
'g?/
4 ,4
?d
/GQcEinAn1 1? P" Z ! ?/-
?? l?f -2 V
gd 6 y
G. G2rL/z `????G ? aL?v? Cl} /3 -1?
LIX
IL'11?

Name

STGN-IN SHEET
West Charlotte Outer Loop
Public Information Meeting
% ? ",
Address

7
s Zoe 4
?? ? ` Su ? ? hN (c e.iJ
,
440$ (Roc. vUc1 d I?-L ag a1
Z
-Z
Z y &/Z-4?,?,6
J o??
J c ?? Gj?,--ter ? A-/ t t oo?t ??
WWI ? C/-0 2- S- tic, ?
z9? lip"

A ?a( 4
Mailing
Li?s t
Yes I No
1.--
v

op

SIGN-IN-SHEET
West Charlotte Outer Loop
Public Information Meeting
v
Mailing
Li t
?
Yes Po

' WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
R-2248(A)
Meeting Minutes
Date of Meeting: March 22, 1989
Subject: Meeting with Paw Creek Cove Area Residents
Attendees: Kimlev-Horn and Associates. Inc. (KHA)
Russ Woodworth
' Paw Creek Cove Area Residents
(See sign-in sheet, attached)
Discussion
'
This meeting was held on March 22, 1989, at 7:00 PM at the Patriotic Sons of America
Fish Camp on Midsomer Road. Approximately 15 citizens attended the informal
presentation of the selected alternatives for the West Charlotte Outer Loop. Of
particular concern to the residents are the two alternatives that cross the Paw Creek
Cove near Midsomer Road and Amos Smith Road.
' Following are comments made by the residents:
o Why is it necessary to cross the creek area?
' o On the west end of the cove is a desi
nated nature area
.
g

' o Some of the best fishing on the lake is in the cove area.
o The alternatives shown over Paw Creek may have an impact on the Duke
Power property and Training Center.
Th
i
ali
o
gnment.
e group unan
mously endorsed the eastern
o One resident proposed another meeting in April to discuss the options
' again, as some residents could not attend this meeting tonight.

' o How long will the study take?
0 How can public input be expressed?

1 i
SYDiYEY
?
14 P.
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
o You c-t

a !b 6?.? /64DGocv C,1 -X8a.o?3
?14t??tE? CpIO$ /'l(? ijlE2 T-74?>. zez14- _ _ .:.... fl
6000,„, a gas
z ?.J a 1Ad t vWG-b Z?LI e
n-738

i
i1

0

WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
R-2248(A)
Meeting Minutes
Date of Meeting: April 18, 1989
Subject: Meeting with Paw Creek Cove Area Residents
Attendees: Kimlev-Horn and Associates. Inc.
Russ Woodworth
Paw Creek Cove Area Residents
Discussion
The meeting was held on April 18, 1989, at 7:30 PM, at the Patriotic Order of the Sons
of America Fish Camp on Midsomer Road, with about 40 people attending. The meeting
was opened by Mrs. Sidney Elder. Russ Woodworth of Kimley-Horn and Associates,
Inc. gave a brief overview of the EIS process and the western portion of the Outer
Belt study. More detail was presented to the crowd concerning the two western
options that cross the Paw Creek Cove. After the people had a change to review the
1"=1,000' aerial and a blow-up at 1"=400' of the Paw Creek Cove area, the residents
asked a number of questions:
o What is the time table for -
- the study
- the next step (preliminary engineering)
- construction.
o Why is this study in process when the county did one several years ago?
o When are the public hearings/meetings?
o Why cross this area when it makes sense to stay close to CDIA?
o What can we do to make our views known?
o We are worried about the impact of construction, noise, and air pollution on the
environment.
The meeting ended about 9:30 PM.
dlw

WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
R-2248(A)
Meeting Minutes
Date of Meeting: May 2, 1989
Subject: Meeting with Paw Creek Cove Area Residents
Attendees: Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc
Russ Woodworth
Paw Creek Cove erp? Da;ident
Discussion
The meeting was held on May 2, 1989, at 7:30 PM, at the Patriotic Order of the Sons
of America Fish Camp on Midsomer Road, with about 24 people attending. The meeting
was opened by Mrs. Sidney Elder. Russ Woodworth of Kimley-Horn gave a brief
overview of the EIS study process in general and more specifically to the West Outer
Loop project. The residents were very interested in the options concerning the Paw
Creek Cove area. In addition to the questions raised at the previous meeting of April
18, a resident on the south side of the Cove said that he knew of a "settler's
cemetery". He was asked to respond to Kimley-Horn in writing with a map showing its
location. He said that he would.
The residents were also concerned about the alignment getting too close to the
Berryhill Elementary School.
The group requested that a city map be provided showing the alternatives overlayed
on the existing road network.
The meeting ended at about 9:30 PM
dlw

t

I

r
WEST CHARLOTTE OUTER LOOP
R-2248 (A)
Date of Meeting: January 24, 1990
Subject: Meeting with Eagle Lake Community
Attendees: Kimlev-Horn and Associates. Inc.
Larry Meisner
Russ Woodworth
Julia Parker
Discussion
The meeting was held on January 24, 1990 at 7:30 PM at the Parker residence at Eagle Lake.
Approximately 30 Eagle Lake residents attended the meeting. Mrs. Parker introduced the
Kimley-Horn representatives.
Mr. Meisner described the background of the project, the EIS process, the alternatives studied,
the general findings of the analyses, the public involvement process, and the project schedule.
The floor was then opened for questions and comments. The following items were discussed:
o The overriding concern among residents is preserving Eagle Lake's water quality and
isolated setting. There is concern that the road would disturb the streams and ponds
feeding Eagle Lake and degrade the water quality.
o Will the road decrease the amount of runoff feeding the lake? (There may be a slight
_ decrease due to some absorption in the fill area, but existing water flow and drainage
patterns will be maintained.)
o How will the road affect drinking water quality (water is from well). (Because the section
near Eagle Lake is on fill, it should not affect groundwater. The cut section near Douglas
Drive could affect the community's well. Detailed hydrology studies during design will
determine the 'impact on groundwater. If necessary, the DOT will replace the well or
extend city water lines.)
o What happens if the lake silts up after the road is completed -- say, ten years later? (This
is a legal question involving adverse condemnation. Typically, the state pays damage only
if land is acquired. It could be difficult to collect damages well after construction is
completed. Legal advice is needed to answer.)
o There is concern about oil and other pollutants from the road surface washing into the
lake.
o Many types of wildlife occur at the lake, including various birds, Canadian geese, deer,
and beaver. The Audubon Society conducts visits to observe wildlife at the lake.

o It appears that M alternative is preferable to E or W in this area.
o Did noise studies take into account the fact that aircraft are becoming less noisy? (Yes)
o Would additional information be used if provided by the community? (Yes, it will be '
considered along with other data in evaluating and selecting an alternative.)
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM. '
LIM:dlw

ti