19970451 Ver 1_Complete File_19970522

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 18, 1997
MEM
NNW
E3 EHNF1
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dom O
From: Cyndi Bell CL--o
Subject: Finding of No Significant Impact for SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road), Realign and Widen to
Multi-Lane Facility from NC 136 in Kannapolis to I-85
Cabarrus County
State Project DOT No. 8.2662501, T.I.P. No. U-2833; EHNR # 97-0654
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is
responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which impact
waters of the state including wetlands. The project will involve fill in less than 0.2 acre of wetlands at two
locations, along with impacts to surface waters at three new stream crossings. DWQ offers the following
comments based on the document review:
A) In the EA, NCDOT states that a farm pond bordering the project may be affected if any right-of-
way modifications are necessary. NCDOT should consult with DWQ prior to application for 401
Water Quality Certification to discuss applicability of our Pond Policy (in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H.0506(b)) to this project. This policy is currently undergoing internal review within
DWQ and may be in effect prior to the construction of this project.
B) DWQ asks NCDOT to stipulate that borrow material will be taken from upland sources in the
construction contract awarded for this project.
C) DWQ asks NCDOT to ensure that the sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands. This commitment should be incorporated into the construction contract awarded for
this project.
D) The widening/relocation of SR 2126 will involve three new stream crossings. The EA and FONSI
indicate that each crossing will affect over 150 linear feet of stream channel. NCDOT should note
that stream mitigation may be required in accordance with current DWQ Wetland Rules { 15A
NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)) which were not in effect at the time the EA and FONSI were prepared. In
such a case, a comprehensive stream mitigation proposal should be included with the application
for 401 Water Quality Certification.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Telephone [phone]
{
0
i
FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 509/6 recycled/10% post consumer paper
Ms. Melba McGee Memo
April 18, 1997
Page 2 of 2
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the EA, an Individual Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Final permit authorization will require formal application by NCDOT and written
concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be contingent upon evidence of avoidance
and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the extent practical, and provision of stream mitigation
where necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the FONSi. DOT is reminded that issuance of a
401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality
standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should
be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Steve Lund, COE, Asheville
Beverly J. Grate, NCDOT, P&E
Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ
U2833FON.DOC
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWO - Water Ouality Section
4 I o q a' q? Ilk
MEMORANDUM, '?J FO
TO: Env. Sciences Branch
* Wetlands.
? John Domey (2 , - l
`A6A)
_ ? Greg. Price .(airports, coE).
? Steve Kroel,, (utilities)
ger
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
----- - ? Trish MacPherson
? Kathy Herring (forest/ottw/xQw)
* Toxicology
? Larry Ausley
Technical Support Branch y ?
? Coleen Sullins, P&E ry?s0,
4tio
? ,Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
? Carolyn McCaskill; P&E, State
? Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater -
? Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
?, Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
13
Operations Branch,,,- (? , S
p t
? Tom Poe, Pretreatment
? Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
Planning Branch ? Asheville []Mooresville ? Washington
? ? Fayetteville ? Raleigh ? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
FROiv?i: Michelle Suveri rubbe, Planning Branch
RE: I-r -
i
s
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the Nowt. C aroi_ina
Env;rormental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority.
Please check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if
a-nv, by the date indicated tlt-- , n ,. e IL"
J ?U VV
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are
greatly appreciated!
Notes:
4- Y /b.-- se ?
You can reach me at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567 fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
mIs `c::c ;emo.doc
a
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ill
tt
? F ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ev
e
aye
? Water
? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville ? Groundwater Wildlife ? Solid waste management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
t
? W ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
on
ng
as ? Coastal Management Consultant arks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others 'Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS
L Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Ps 104

SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road)
Realign and Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from NC 136 in Kannnapolis to I-85
Cabarrus County
F. A. Project STP 2126(1)
State Project No. 8.2662501
T.I.P. Project No. U-2833
ADMMSTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (c)
APPROVED:
61- 20/_ 9?
Date
?o r H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
W
Date I, Nich Graf, P. E.
Federal Highway Administration
SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road)
Realign Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from NC 136 in Kannnapolis to I-85
Cabarrus County
F. A. Project STP 2126(1)
State Project No. 8.2662501
T.I.P. Project No. U-2833
Environmental Assessment
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
racy R. rn
Project Planning Engineer
Z46? e?'? 2 G ?C/
Robert P. Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
?jj" CA
KESSQ
.
SEAL =
17282
.adF •?. NE...•• per,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY

1 ...............................................................................................................................
DE .. i
. SCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................... .1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................ 1
A ...............................
General .
.
B ...............................................................................................................
Trans
ortation Plan .1
. p
............................................................................................. . 2
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity .............................................. 2
D ...............................
Accident Record .
. ................................................................................................. . 3
E. Existing Roadway Characteristics .................................
...................
1
T
ical Sectio
.
yp
n ........................................................................................ .3
2. Right-of-Way .......................................................................................... . 3
3. Speed Limit ............................................................................................. . 4
4. Access Control .............:.......................................................................... .4
5. Functional Classification .......................................................................... . 4
6. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .................................................. 4
7. School Buses ............................................................................................4
8. Structures ................................................................................................. 4
9. Railroad Involvement ................................................................................ 4
10. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control .................................................... 4
11. Utilities ..................................................................................................... 4
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................... 5
A ......................................
Len
th of Project
. g
................................................................................................. 5
B. Project Termini ............................................... 5
C .....................................................
T
i
l
. yp
ca
Section ................................................................... 5
D .................................
Ri
ht-of-Wa
. g
y ................................................. ..............
........................................ 5
E. Design Speed ....................................................................................................... 5
F. Speed Limit .......................................................................................................... 5
G. Access Control ..................................................................................................... 5
H. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .................................... 6
1 .......................................
Structures
. ............................................................................................................ 6
J. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control ............................................................... 6
K. Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................... 6
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .......................................... 7
A ........................................
Desi
n Alternatives
. g
.............................................................................................. 7
1. Alignment ................................................................................................. 7
2. Typical Section ......................................................................................... 7
B. Public Transportation Alternative .................................... 7
C .....................................
"No-Build" Alt
rn
ti
.
. e
a
ve ...........
............................................................................. 7
VI. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EMPACTS ..................................... 8
A. Land Use Planning ............................................................................................... 8
1. Status of Planning .................................................................................
.... 8
2. Existing Land Use .................................................................................... 8
3. Future Land Use 8
.......................................................................................
B. Social and Economic Environment
1
Nei
hborhood Ch
t
i
ti
.
g
arac
er
s
cs ................................................................ ... 8
2. Economic Factors .................................................................................. ...9
3. Public Facilities ...................................................................................
. 9
.
.
4. Relocation Impacts ..................-............................. ...
9
.................................
5
Social Im
t ...
.
pac
s ....................................................................................... .11
C. Cultural Resources ............................................................................. 11
................
1. Archaeological Resources .......................................
11
................................
2. Historic Architectural Resources ........................................
.
I I
D. .
...................
Natural Resources .......................................................................... 11
....................
1. Methodology .......................................................................................... 11
2. Physical Resources ................................................................................. 12
3. Water Resources ................................................................................ 12
....
a. Waters Impacted and Characteristics ........................................... 13
b. Best Usage Classification ............................................................ 13
C. Water Quality .............................................................................. 14
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................. 14
4. Biotic Resources ..................................................................................... 14
a. Terrestrial Communities .............................................................. 15
b. Aquatic Communities .................................................................. 16
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources .................. 17
5. Jurisdictional Issues ................................................................................ 18
a. Wetlands ..................................................................................... 18
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects .................................................. 19
C. Anticipated Permit Requirements ................................................ 19
d. Wetland Mitigation ..................................................................... 20
6. Rare and Protected Species ...................................... 20
...............................
a
Federall
Pr
t
t
d S
i
.
y
o
ec
e
pec
es ......................................................... 21
b. Federal Candidate and State-Protected Species ........................... 22
E. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis ................................... 22
F .......................................
Air Qualit
Anal
si
. y
y
s ........................................................................................... 26
G. Farmland .......................................................................... 28
H ..................................
Hazardous Materials Involvement
.
1. ......................................................................
Flood Hazard Evaluation and Hydraulic Concerns .............................................. 28
28
J. Geodetic Markers ............................................................................................... 29
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................... 29
A. Local Officials .................................................................................................... 29
B. Citizens Informational Workshop ............................................ 29
C ...........................
A
enc
Co
di
ti
. g
y
or
na
on ......................................................................................... 29
FIGURES
APPENDIX A - Correspondence
APPENDIX B - NCDOT Relocation Information
TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLE 1. Soils in the Project Area
TABLE 2. Stream Characteristics
TABLE 3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
TABLE 4. Anticipated Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters
TABLE 5. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species for Cabarrus County
FIGURE 1. Project Location Map
FIGURE 2. Aerial Mosaic
FIGURE 3. Estimated 2000 Average Daily Traffic
FIGURE 4. Estimated 2020 Average Daily Traffic without Coldwater Creek Parkway
FIGURE 5. Estimated 2020 Average Daily Traffic with Coldwater Creek Parkway
FIGURE 6. Proposed Typical Section
FIGURE 7. Intersection Configuration for NC 136/Earnhardt Road Intersection
FIGURE 8. Table N1, Hearing: Sounds Bombarding US Daily
FIGURE 9. Table N2, Noise Abatement Criteria
FIGURE 10. Table N3, Ambient Noise Levels
FIGURE 11. Table N4, Leq Traffic Noise Exposures
FIGURE 12. Table N5, FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary
FIGURE 13. Table N6, Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary
SUMMARY
SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road)
Realign and Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from I-85 to NC 136 (Centergrove Road)
Cabarrus County
F. A. Project STP 2126(1)
State Project No. 8.2662501
T. I. P. Project U-2833
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, Environmental Assessment.
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to
realign and widen SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road) to a multi-lane section from the interchange with
I-85 to NC 136 (Centergrove Road) in Kannapolis. This project is approximately 2.3 km (1.4
miles) in total length and has an estimated cost of $ 5,229,000 including $ 2,279,000 for
right-of-way acquisition and $ 3,550,000 for construction. The project will widen existing
Earnhardt Road northward from I-85 for 0.5 km (0.7 miles) and extend Earnhardt Road on new
location to NC 136 (Centergrove Road) for 1.8 km (1.1 miles). To accommodate the extension
of SR 2126 on new location, this project includes a realignment of the at-grade intersection of
SR 2114 (Centergrove Road) and NC 136 (Concord Lake Road) which will require
approximately 0.8 km (0.5 miles) of roadway on new location.
The proposed project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in federal fiscal year 1998 and construction
in federal fiscal year 2000. The total estimated cost included in the TIP is $6,200,000. This
estimate includes $3,000,000 for right-of-way and $3,200,000 for construction.
A five lane curb and gutter section on 24 meters (80 feet) of right-of-way plus
construction easements, with two 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lanes in each direction and one 3.6
meter (12 foot) center turn lane, is proposed for SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road).
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
It is anticipated the proposed project will result in the relocation of ten residences and one
business. The relocation estimate includes four minority residences and one minority business.
Wetlands losses are anticipated to be less than one acre for the entire project. Any erosion and
siltation caused by the project will be short term in effect. Eighteen residences will be experience
increases in highway traffic noise; however, only five of these will experience substantial
increases (see section VI part E). Overall air quality of the area will not be adversely affected. In
the immediate project vicinity, there are no properties eligible for or listed in the National Register
of Historic Places.
4. Alternatives Considered
The recommended alignment was chosen to utilize existing roadway corridors to the
extent possible as well as to minimize the number of residences and/or businesses requiring
relocation. Other alignments would either cause more relocations or would not meet design
criteria for the roadway. Public transportation and the "no build" alternatives were also
considered and rejected, due to the traffic and safety benefits provided by the proposed
improvements.
5. Environmental and Project Commitments
This project Crossetr_ y:ly critical area for Lake{Concord. Lake Concord was the
backup source of drinking water for the area with Lake Fisher as the primary source before the
completion of Coddle Creek Watershed. Coddle Creek Watershed is now the primary water
source and Lake Fisher is the backup water source. However, the designation has not been
changed for Lake Concord as of this time and is not anticipated to change before construction.
Therefore,,ogb ' nand sediinentation willibe controlled through erosion aridTsedimentat on
:control measuresapprvprtate forhigh quality waters, and hazardous.spill, containnrem measures
twill. be provided.
6. Permits Required
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will
be required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United
States." A Section 404 Nationwide Permits 14 (33 CFR 330.5(a) (14)) may be applicable at most
stream crossings found in the project study area. A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 26 may be
applicable for impacts of discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated
jurisdictional wetlands.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DEM prior to the
issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
7. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were consulted regarding this
project. An asterisk indicates agencies from which written comments were received. (Written
comments are included in the Appendix.)
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
* State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N. C. Department of Public Instruction
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* Cabarrus County Commissioner
Mayor of Concord
* Mayor of Kannapolis
8. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and statement can be obtained by
contacting the following people:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Suite 410, 310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road)
Realign and Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from I-85 to NC 136 (Centergrove Road)
Cabarrus County
F. A. Project STP 2126(1)
State Project No. 8.2662501
T. I. P. Project U-2833
L DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to
realign and widen SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road) to a multi-lane section from the interchange with
I-85 to NC 136 (Centergrove Road) in Kannapolis. This project is approximately 2.3 km (1.4
miles) in total length and has an estimated cost of $ 5,229,000 including $2,279,000 for right-of-
way acquisition and $ 3,550,000 for construction. The project will widen existing Earnhardt
Road northward from I-85 for 0.5 km (0.7 miles) and extend Earnhardt Road on new location to
NC 136 (Centergrove Road) for 1.8 km (1.1 miles). The section of SR 2126 (existing Earnhardt
Road) to be widened and the section on new location will be renamed Dale Earnhardt Boulevard.
The section of SR 2126 (existing Earnhardt Road) that will not be widened will intersect Dale
Earnhardt Boulevard approximately 0.5 km (0.7 miles) north of the interchange with I-85. To
accommodate the section of Dale Earnhardt Boulevard on new location, this project includes a
realignment of the at-grade intersection of SR 2114 (Centergrove Road) and NC 136 (Concord
Lake Road) which will require approximately 0.8 km (0.5 miles) of roadway on new location.
The proposed project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1998 and construction in
fiscal year 2000. The total estimated cost included in the TIP is $6,200,000. This estimate
includes $3,000,000 for right-of-way and $3,200,000 for construction.
H. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General
Currently, to travel from NC 136 to the I-85 interchange, vehicles must navigate two
ninety degree turns on Earnhardt Road. The new alignment will eliminate these two sharp curves
improving the safety and traffic operations of the subject section of SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road).
Also, NC 136 is a four lane curb and gutter section roadway at the western terminus and
Copperfield Boulevard is a five lane section roadway at the eastern terminus. Therefore, the
project will provide a continuous multi-lane section relieving traffic congestion at peak hours and
providing improved traffic movements between the I-85 interchange and NC 136.
B. Transportation Plan
The realignment of SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road) is on the 1988 mutually adopted
Kannapolis-Concord Thoroughfare Plan. This transportation plan is currently being updated.
The alignment of the proposed project in the Recommended Kannapolis-Concord Transportation
Plan has been selected at the request of the City of Kannapolis. The recommended plan will also
include a Coldwater Creek Parkway between I-85 and US 601 South paralleling NC 136.
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
Projected traffic volumes anticipated for SR 2126 are as follows*:
1995 Average Daily Traffic = 3,100 Vehicles per day (vpd)
2020 Average Daily Traffic = 7,400 vpd (without parkway)
2020 Average Daily Traffic = 15,980 vpd (with parkway) **
* See Figures 3, 4, and 5 for additional traffic information.
** The traffic projections and turning movements in the design year are highly dependent
upon when or if a Coldwater Creek Parkway is constructed. The parkway is a proposal
which will tee into Copperfield Boulevard on the east side of the I-85 interchange. It is on
the recommended thoroughfare plan for the area, but is not currently included in the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
A capacity analysis was performed to predict the level of service for the project. Level of
Service is an engineering term used to describe the operating conditions of vehicles in a traffic
stream. Operating conditions are based on such factors as speed, ravel time, freedom to
maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are defined
and are designated with letters from A to F. Level A represents the best operating conditions
with free flow and virtually no delay at signalized intersections. level of service F represents the
worst operating conditions and occurs when traffic volumes exceed the capacity of a facility. At
level of service F, long queues of traffic tend to form and delay at signalized intersections tends to
exceed 60 seconds.
Mainline capacity analyses were performed for SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road) within the
project limits in the construction year (2000) and in the design year (2020) both with and without
the proposed project. Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the realigned intersection
of SR 2126 with NC 136 and SR 2114 (Centergrove Road) as well as the intersections of
SR 2126 with the on and off ramps for I-85.
Mainline Analyses
Existing SR 2126 is projected to operate at level of service (LOS) F in the year 2000
without the proposed project. With the proposed project, Dale Earnhardt Boulevard will operate
at level of service A in 2020 both with and without the parkway.
2
Intersection Analyses
The realigned intersection of Dale Earnhardt Boulevard with NC 136 and SR 2114 will be
the only signalized intersection on the project. This intersection will operate at LOS B in the
construction year, (2000), and LOS C in the design year (2020), both with and without the
parkway.
The two intersections formed by the ramps of I-85 and Dale Earnhardt Boulevard were
evaluated for signalization. These intersections will operate unsignalized at a LOS B in the
construction year. By the design year (2020), the intersections will have a level of service F
without signalization. With signalization, these intersections will operate at a LOS B in the design
year. However, signalization is not required at this time and will not be constructed as part of the
proposed project.
The remainder of the intersections on the project are stop sign controlled. The proposed
intersection of existing Earnhardt Road with Dale Earnhardt Boulevard will operate at LOS B in
2020.
D. Accident Record
A total of 11 accidents were reported on the studied portion of SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road)
during the period between November 1991 and October 1994. Of these, no accidents were fatal.
The total accident rate for this section of SR 2126 is 195 accidents per one-hundred
million vehicle miles (ACC/100MVM). This is below the average of 268 ACC/100MVM for
similar facilities in North Carolina for the period from 1992 to 1994.
The proposed project will improve the safety of this section of SR 2126 by eliminating
two 90 degree turns. The continuous left turn lane will reduce conflicts caused by stopped
left-turning vehicles. Turn lanes at the intersections will shelter turning vehicles from through
vehicles while they wait for gaps in oncoming traffic.
E. Existing Roadway Characteristics
Typical Section
Existing SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road) is a two-lane highway with a pavement width of 18
feet and grass shoulder width of 4 feet. At the western project terminus, NC 136 is a four-lane
curb and gutter section. On the east end of the project, Earnhardt Road joins Copperfield
Boulevard, which is a five lane curb and gutter section.
2. Right-of-Way
Existing right-of-way along SR 2126 between NC 136 and I-85 is 18 meters (60 feet).
3
3. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit on SR 2126 is 55 km/h (35 MPH).
4. Access Control
No control of access exists along SR 2126.
5. Functional Classification
SR 2126 is classified as aqWkgq
6. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
No bicycle or pedestrian facilities exist along SR 2126.
7. School Buses
A total of 3 school buses from an elementary school, a middle school, and a high school
use SR 2126 in the morning and afternoon. Kannapolis City Schools are in full agreement with
the proposed project. (See letter in Appendix A.)
8. Structures
Bridge No. 133 carries SR 2126 over I-85. The bridge is 270 feet in length, with a 71.9-
foot roadway width and a sufficiency rating of 100 out of a possible 100.
9. Railroad Involvement
No railroads will be impacted by the proposed improvement.
10. IntersectingRoads and Type of Control
The following roads intersect existing SR 2126 within the project limits: NC 136,
Denwood Street, SR 2242 (Knowles Street), SR 2249 (Roxie Street), and I-85. The intersection
of NC 136 and SR 2126 is the only signalized intersection within the project limits. All other
intersections are stop sign controlled.
11. Utilities
Utility conflicts on this project will be moderate along SR 2126 with high impacts along
NC 136 and SR 2114. Along SR 2126, there are underground water and phone lines with aerial
power and CATV lines. Along NC 136 and SR 2114, there are underground water, sanitary
sewer and gas lines along with aerial power, phone, and CATV lines.
4
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Length of Project
The subject project is approximately 2.3 kilometers (1.4 miles) in total length. The project
will widen existing Earnhardt Road northward from I-85 for 0.5 km (0.7 miles) and extend
Earnhardt Road on new location to NC 136 (Centergrove Road) for 1.8 km (1.1 miles). To
accommodate the extension of SR 2126 on new location, this project includes a realignment of
the at-grade intersection of NC 136 (Centergrove Road) with SR 2114 (Centergrove Road) and
NC 136 (Concord Lake Road) which will require approximately 0.8 km (0.5 miles) of roadway on
new location.
B. Project Termini
The project's eastern terminus is the interchange of I-85 and SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road).
The project's western terminus is approximately 400 meters west of the existing intersection of
NC 136 and SR 2114 along NC 136 (Centergrove Road). SR 2126 will tie into a five lane cross
section east of I-85 and a four lane cross section on NC 136 west of SR 2114.
C. Typical Section
The proposed cross-section for Earnhardt Road is a five-lane curb and gutter section
which is 64 feet from curb-face to curb-face, with 8-foot berms. The roadway will consist of two
3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lanes in each direction and one 3.6 meter (12 foot) center turn lane.
D. Right-of-Way
The proposed right-of-way is 24 meters (80 feet). Additional temporary construction
easements of varying widths will also be required. Approximate easement requirements are
shown in Figure 2.
E. Design Speed
An 80 km/h (50 MPH) design speed is recommended.
F. Speed Limit
The anticipated speed limit for the project is 60 kph (35 MPH).
G. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for the project area.
5
H. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
No special bicycle or pedestrian accommodations are recommended for the project.
1. Structures
No major drainage structures will be required for this project.
I Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
All proposed intersections along the project will remain at-grade.
As discussed in Section II-C, capacity analyses were performed for all of the intersections
in the project vicinity. The realigned intersection of SR 2126 and NC 136 will be signalized. This
intersection provides a signalized level of service B in 2000 and a level of service C in 2020 both
with and without the Coldwater Creek Parkway. The proposed intersection configuration is
shown in Figure 7. Additional turn lanes at this intersection will be considered during the design
phase.
The two intersections east and west of I-85 formed by the ramps of I-85 and SR 2126
were evaluated for signalization. These intersections will operate unsignalized at a LOS B in the
construction year. By the design year (2020), the intersections will have a level of service F
unsignalized and will need to be signalized. Signalization may be considered for these
intersections in the future, but is not required at this time and will not be constructed as part of
this project.
The remaining unsignalized intersections on the project are projected to operate at a LOS
B or better in the design year.
K. Cost Estimates
The estimated costs for the proposed project are as follows:
Right-of-Way $ 2,279,000
Construction $ 3.550.000
Total $ 5,229,000
6
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Design Alternatives
Alignment
Several alignments were considered during project planning. One alternative studied
impacted Bethel Baptist Cemetery located southeast of the proposed NC 136/Dale Earnhardt
Boulevard intersection. However, this alignment did not meet the engineering design standards
and was rejected. In general, the recommended alignment was chosen in order to meet the design
standards while minimizing relocations.
2. Typical Section
In addition to the recommended improvements, consideration was also given to two and
three lane section roadways. However, the five lane cross section was chosen due to future
development anticipated to occur in the area due to the need to maintain continuity of a multi-lane
section, and through coordination with the City of Kannapolis and Cabarrus County. The western
terminus (NC 136) has a four lane cross-section and the eastern terminus (Copperfield Boulevard)
has a five lane cross section.
B. Public Transportation Alternative
Since highway transportation is the dominant mode of transportation and residential
densities are low in this area, a public transportation alternative would not be a feasible alternative
to improving the subject roadway. In addition, the project involves safety improvements by
straightening the alignment along SR 2126 that would not be addressed with public
transportation.
C. "No-Build" Alternative
The "no build" alternative is the least expensive alternative from a construction cost
standpoint. This alternative also avoids the effects of the proposed project on residences,
businesses, utilities, and undeveloped lands in the project area. However, the "no-build"
alternative would provide no positive effect on safety and capacity along SR 2126 and would
cause travel time to worsen. Therefore, the "no-build" alternative has been rejected.
7
VI. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Land Use Planning
1. Status of Planning
The proposed project is located in the jurisdiction of the City of Kannapolis. The City
adopted the Land Development Strategv in 1993 as its land use planning document. The City
adopted a zoning ordinance and enforces subdivision regulations.
2. Existing Land Use
The general vicinity is residential with areas of undeveloped land. There are commercial land uses
around the project beginning at NC 136 (Center Grove Road). The proposed project corridor traversed
through some of the commercial uses at the Center Grove Road. The project area is primarily
undeveloped from Center Grove Road to the connection with Earnhardt Road. The Bethel Baptist
Cemetery is located east of Center Grove Road, south of the proposed corridor. Denwood, Knowles and
Roxie Streets are parallel with each other and intersect with Earnhardt Road extending south. There are
residential uses along each of these streets.
3. Future Land Use
According to the Land Development Strategy and local planning officials, the project area
is anticipated to experience primarily light industrial land uses in the future. The area from I-85
along the south side of Earnhardt Road will most likely remain residential. Light industrial land
uses are expected to grow from Earnhardt Road to the project terminus at Center Grove Road.
The north side of the project corridor is expected to grow more in office\institutional and
residential land uses.
B. Social and Economic Environment
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
The 1990 Population Census Count indicates that Cabarrus County has a total population
of 98,935. In terms of racial composition, there are 85,286 Whites, 12,853 Blacks, 313 American
Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, 375 Asian or Pacific Islander and 108 categorized as other. Cabarrus
County has a population density of 271.48 persons per square mile.
Residential homes, a farm pond, woodlands, and open fields are located along the section
of proposed Dale Earnhardt Boulevard from the intersection with NC 136 to the intersection with
Existing Earnhardt Road. On the southeastern end of the proposed project near the vicinity of
I-85, a minority neighborhood is situated on the west side of Earnhardt Road; directly across from
the minority neighborhood is some vacant land presently zoned as office, institutional, and
commercial. This minority neighborhood was avoided with the proposed alignment.
8
2. Economic Factors
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Forces Estimates (Preliminary Data for
December 1995) indicate that Cabarrus County has a total labor force of 59,720. Out of this
total, 57,220 persons are employed. This leaves an unemployment total of 2,500 or 4.2 percent.
The proposed realignment will improve the efficiency of travel time for not only
commercial vehicles, but for employees and employers who must use Earnhardt Road, NC 136,
and SR 2114 to get to and from their work stations.
3. Public Facilities
Two cemeteries and one church are located in the project vicinity. Centergrove Lutheran
Church Cemetery is located between SR 2154 (Little Texas Road) and SR 2213 (Eastway Street)
north of NC 136. It will not be impacted by the proposed project. Bethel Baptist Church
Cemetery is located in the southeast quadrant of the proposed intersection of Dale Earnhardt
Road and NC 136. This cemetery will be impacted along its front entrance off of NC 136;
however, no graves will be relocated. Faith Methodist Church is located on existing Earnhardt
Road southwest of the intersection of existing Earnhardt Road and proposed Dale Earnhardt
Boulevard. None of these public facilities will be adversely impacted by the proposed project.
4. Relocation Impacts
The proposed project will result in the relocation of ten residences and one business.
Design alternatives to avoid all relocations would not serve the purpose and need of the proposed
project. In addition, other alignments would either cause more relocations or would not meet
design criteria for the roadway. This relocation estimate is based on preliminary design; expected
relocations may change depending on details of the final design.
The relocation program for the proposed project will be conducted in accordance with the
Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through
133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a
replacement site in which to live or do business. Appendix B of this document contains further
information regarding NCDOT relocation programs and copies of the relocation report prepared
for the project.
5. Minority/Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 requires that each federal agency, to the greatest extent allowed
by law, administer and implement its programs, policies, and activities that affect human health or
the environment so as to identify and avoid "disproportionately high and adverse" effects on
minority and low-income populations.
9
Of the ten residential relocations, four can be categorized as minority. Six of the
relocations can be categorized as low-income. In addition, the one business relocation is a
minority business. Alternatives which would avoid the minority/low-income relocations would
cause more relocations, would not meet the design criteria for the roadway, or would not provide
the benefits of the project as discussed in Section H-A.
There are two minority/low-income neighborhoods located along the proposed project.
First, several minority residences are located near the western terminus of the project. In this area
the project proposes to widen the existing four lane roadway along the existing alignment to a five
lane roadway. The roadway has been designed to minimize relocations of minority and low-
income residents in this area. By incorporating design revisions, seven additional minority
relocations were avoided. Of these, six were also low-income. On the eastern terminus of the
project, a minority neighborhood is located on the west side of Earnhardt Road near I-85. This
minority neighborhood was avoided entirely with the proposed alignment. The proposed project
will not segment any of these existing minority/low-income communities or separate residential
areas from nearby services, such as schools, businesses, or parks.
NCDOT's relocation assistance program will be implemented to mitigate for the effects of
relocation. According to the NCDOT relocation policy, no person will be displaced by NCDOT's
state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing
has been offered or provided for each relocatee within a reasonable period of time prior to
relocation. In addition, Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the relocatee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to
allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. For more information concerning the NCDOT relocation
programs, see Appendix B.
This project will involve impacts to the community (including relocation of minority and
low-income residents); however, the project also offers significant benefits to the community.
The project will provide improved access to I-85 by providing a continuous multi-lane typical
roadway section. The project will also provide improved safety for residents traveling in the area
by providing a center turn lane to shield turning traffic. Safety will also be improved with the
elimination of the two ninety degree curves along existing Earnhardt Road.
An informational meeting was held for all residents and business owners along the
proposed project on June 20, 1995. All of the affected minority/low-income relocatees were sent
a meeting notice by mail. No objections arose to the proposed project.
Based on project studies and coordination taken with regard to involved minority and low-
income communities, this project has been implemented in accordance with Executive Order
12898.
10
6. Social Impacts
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion; and it will not interfere with
services and facilities.
C. Cultural Resources
1. Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has stated by letter dated June 8, 1995 that
"there are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area (see Appendix A).
Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which
may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) will be affected
by the project construction." Therefore, no archaeological investigation was conducted in
connection with this project.
2. Historic Architectural Resources
The area of potential effect for historic architectural properties was delineated and the
maps and files of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) were consulted. Within the area
of potential effect, this search revealed no properties listed in the National Register of Historic
Places (NHRP) or on the State Study List. In addition, no properties over fifty years of age were
found within the area of potential effect. No properties eligible for or listed in the NHRP are
within the projects are of potential effect. The SHPO has concurred with this determination (see
Appendix A).
D. Natural Resources
Methodoloav
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in the pre-
field investigation of the project study area include: U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle
map (Concord, NC), NCDOT aerial photography of the project study area (1":2,000) and Natural
Resources Conservation Service soils maps of Cabarrus County. Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR, 1993) and from the Environmental Base Sensitivity map of Cabarrus County (NC
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, 1992). Information concerning the occurrence
of federal and state protected species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate species and from the N. C. Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT biologists
on October 11, 1995. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and
recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the following observational
11
techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars), identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland
determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
2. Physical Resources
Cabarrus County lies in the Piedmont physiographic province. The topography of the
project area, which is located approximately 210 to 238 meters (690 to 780 feet) above mean sea
level, is characterized as gently sloping.
The project area is located within the Enon-Mecklenberg-Poindexter association. This
association is a group of gently sloping to very steep, well-drained soils that have a clayey or
loamy subsoil. Table 1 provides an inventory of specific soil types which occur in the project
study area.
Table 1: Soils in Project Area
Map Unit Map Unit Percent HYdric
.
Symbol
------ -------------------------------------- Slope
* Class_

non-Urban land complex ............... -___
---------
- •--- -
EoB
..... ______
--
2-10 -

loam eroded
Cecil sand c - -laY
------------- --
' ............

CcB2
« ----------
-----------
2-8
.
. ..-
---
--------------------------------------
-----------------
n sand loam
EnoEnD
--- ....---.-
----------------_._
_
8-15
---------------

Eno- sand?' loam EnB
----------------------- ---------
-------------
2-8
----------------------------------------- *----------------
Iredellloam IdB
------------

-
-
- -
-
--
-
- ------------------------------ - -----------*-------------
2-6 € -

Poindexter
lo
am ---------------------------------

poB -----
-: -------------
2_8 ----------
Poindexter loam PoD 8-15 -
Note: "-" denotes a non-hydric soil
Forested habitats within the project area are associated with Enon and Iredell soils. A
comparison of Enon and Iredell soils in the region suggests that these soils rank below average in
woodland productivity when compared to other soils in the county.
3. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted
by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources relationship to major
water systems, its physical aspects, Best Usage Classification, and water quality of the resources.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
12
a. Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the Yadkin-Pee Dee Drainage
Basin. Three unnamed intermittent tributaries of Lake Concord are located in the project area.
These tributaries originate at or near the project area and flow to the north approximately 0.8
kilometers (0.5 miles) where they outfall into Lake Concord. Water resource characteristics are
described in Table 3. A small farm pond is located to the immediate north of the right-of-way
corridor. This pond may have been constructed to serve as water supply sources for agricultural
use. Any modifications to the right-of-way may result in impacts to this pond.
Table 2. Stream Characteristics
Tributary
-------- _Creek Width_ : Creek Depth
------------- Substrate 1 a Flow

UT #1

--------------- -
; 0.6m(2.Oft)---------

-----------------
- _ _ _ - _ _ _

2.Oft
-: 0.6m
-----------

-
--
-
-
Gr -
S
L S,1,CI _ _ _

Slow
?

_UT #2
0.8 m (2.5 ft)

--------- -- ------ ----------

0.- m (1.5 ft)
----------- :
--
--
-
-
-
: Si,C1,Gr -
--
'
slow

UT #3
; 0.8 m 2.5 ft ---
; 0.3 m 0.8 ft --------------------
; Si,C1,Gr ----------
; None
1. Substrate Classifications: S=Sand, Si=Silt, C1=Clay, Gr=Gravel.
b. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM). The best usage classification of unnamed tributaries is the same as the
water body to which they are a tributary. According to the DEM, the current best usage
classification of Lake Concord in the project area (DEM Index 123-17-9-4-2(2) is WS-IV CA.
WS-IV waters are protected as water supplies which are located generally in moderately to highly
developed watersheds; point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted; local
programs to control non-point source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required; suitable
for all Class C uses. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. CA is a supplemental classification indicating
critical area.
The environmental sensitivity base map of Cabarrus County indicates that land
surrounding Lake Concord, which would include the project area, is classified as a Water Supply
Critical Area. According to information recently acquired from the Kannapolis Planning
Department, the best usage classification of Lake Concord should be reclassified in the near future
as a non-water supply area; however, at the time of construction this reclassification is not likely
to have occurred.
According to the DEM best usage classification, no water resources classified as High
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) are located within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) of the project study area.
13
C. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by the DEM and
is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms
are reflections of water quality. There are no monitoring sites located in the vicinity of the study
area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required
to register for a permit. There are no permitted dischargers located in the project area.
Non-point source runoff from agriculture and other farming activities is considered the primary
source of water quality degradation in the water bodies located in the project area.
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction related impacts to water resources include reduced water clarity which can
be attributed to increased sedimentation and erosion during activities conducted in and adjacent to
streams. The increase in impervious surface (roadway) and the presence of roadway construction
machinery and traffic runoff will facilitate the introduction of toxic compounds (i.e. hydrocarbons,
toxic substances, debris, and other associated pollutants) into streams. Toxic compounds may
enter streams as a result of construction work and from precipitation. Increased amounts of these
compounds can adversely alter quality of water bodies.
Activities in the streams often result in alterations of the water level due to interruptions or
additions to surface and/or groundwater flow. In addition, the destruction of natural substrates
often occurs during the installation of culverts and pipes. Removal of streamside canopy during
construction typically results in decreases in dissolved oxygen, temperature instability of the
stream, and increases in sedimentation resulting from devegetation of stream banks.
The three unnamed intermittent tributaries of Lake Concord will be affected by road
construction and widening. Since, the designation has not been changed for Lake Concord as of
this time and is not anticipated to change before construction, erosion and sedimentation will be
controlled through erosion and sedimentation control measures appropriate for high quality
waters, and hazardous spill containment measures will be provided.
4. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those
ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships between fauna and flora
within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the
14
project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and
discussed. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*).
a. Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities are identifiable in the project study area: disturbed
community and mixed pine-hardwood forest. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may
populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
Within the project area, small tracts of mixed pine-hardwood forest occur on xeric upland
sites characterized by a dominant loblolly pine canopy with some short-leaf and Virginia pine
interspersed throughout. Species composition varies with the age of the stand, as both mature
and early successional habitats are located throughout the site.
In young stands (that appear to have been cut over within the last twenty years), the
canopy is typically closed and includes the above-mentioned pines, red maple, red cedar, post oak,
winged elm, black cherry, southern red oak, and white ash. A dense assemblage of opportunistic,
herbs, shrubs, and vines are located in this habitat including Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy,
blackberry, horseweed, strawberry bush, goldenrod, trumpet creeper, broomsedge, silverling,
ragweed, plantain, fescue, wild carrot, bush clover, and rabbit tobacco.
Hardwood species that form the canopy layer in mature stands include the above-
mentioned pines, red maple, white oak, southern red oak, willow oak, privet, red cedar, winged
elm, American elm, tulip poplar, and black cherry. A poorly developed herbaceous layer
including bush clover, ebony spleenwort, and English ivy was observed here.
Mammalian species commonly occurring in forested habitats often include white-tailed
deer*, southern short-tailed shrew, and white-footed mouse. Shrews and smaller mice prefer
forests with a thick layer of leaf litter. The barred owl, blue jay, and brown-headed nuthatch are
avian residents of coniferous woodlands throughout the piedmont. Carolina chickadee*, northern
cardinal*, tufted titmouse*, and blue jay*, all of which are common permanent residents of
deciduous or mixed woodlands, were observed during the site visit. The ground skink and mole
kingsnake inhabit open pine forests.
Disturbed Community
This community encompasses several habitats that have recently been or are currently
impacted by human disturbance. This habitat includes roadside shoulder/maintained yard,
abandoned field, disturbed homesite and pasture.
15
Roadside shoulder/maintained yards are land parcels in which the vegetation is kept in a
low-growing, non- to early-successional state. These areas appear to be regularly mowed and
likely receives frequent herbicide application. This habitat is located primarily along SR 2126
(Earnhardt Road) and SR 2114 (Centergrove Road) and in the Bethel Baptist Church Cemetery
located on NC 136 (Lake Concord Road). This habitat is dominated by several herbs including
bush clover, fescue, nightshade, foxtail grass, clover, dandelion, broomsedge, Bermuda grass,
bushy aster and horseweed. Planted red maple and crepe myrtle are observed in some areas.
Abandoned fields are former croplands that have not been farmed for several years. This
habitat, restricted to two pockets in the project area, has been overtaken by broomsedge,
nightshade, bushy aster, smartweeds, foxtail grass, plantain, and goldenrods. The pasture habitat
is dominated by fescue, crab grass, goose grass, bermuda grass, and plantain.
A disturbed community, that is apparently an old abandoned homestead, is located to the
east of Windermire Drive. The sparse canopy is dominated by Virginia pine, loblolly pine, privet,
winged elm, crab apple, and dogwood. The herbaceous and vine layers were dominated by
pokeweed, trumpet creeper, Japanese honeysuckle, grape, wisteria, poison ivy, yucca, and ebony
spleenwort.
Virginia opossum and raccoon forage nocturnally in this habitat and are often observed as
roadkill on adjacent roadways. The least shrew, eastern cottontail*, eastern harvest mouse,
woodchuck, and hispid cotton rat frequent disturbed or open areas dominated by herbaceous
vegetation which provide foraging and nesting habitat. Snakes such as the black racer and eastern
garter may venture into this community to feed on small mammals and insects. The ground skink
is a reptile that inhabits disturbed roadside habitats. Blue jay, Carolina chickadee, mourning dove,
and killdeer are observed in the above-mentioned disturbed habitats.
b. Aquatic Communities
One type of aquatic community, piedmont intermittent stream, occurs in the project study
area. Physical characteristics of the water body and condition of the water influence floral and
faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly affect aquatic communities.
Intermittent streams often experience interruption of flow during dry spells. Periods of
flow interruption are generally seasonal, with the summer months being drier than the winter.
During dry spells, streams often retain water in shallow pools along their course. It is these pools,
which are influenced in size and depth by climatological events, that provide habitat for a great
diversity of aquatic and semi-aquatic species. A higher diversity of species can be found in
streams which have a dense canopy of trees and shrubs.
Amphibians commonly observed in and adjacent to intermittent streams include northern
dusky salamander and three-lined salamander. Southern leopard frogs, which forage on insects,
are common throughout this community. Fish diversity in intermittent streams is relatively
16
depauperate; however, members of the sunfish genera as well as black crappie and common carp
may inhabit steams located in the project area.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Project construction will result in the clearing and degradation of portions of biotic
communities. Table 4 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities,
resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using a corridor width of 49
meters (160 feet). Project construction will not require this entire corridor width; therefore,
actual impacts will be less.
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community
--------------------------- Impacts -------------- -
------------------------------____
-Disturbed Community (Total) __ ; 6.8 ha 16.7 ac ----•---------------------
_ Roadside Shoulder/Maintained Yard 4.7 ha 11.5 a
c
------------------------------------------------------------
Abandoned Field 0.8 ha (2.0--- - ac)
---------------------me--- -------------------------------------------•----------------------
H
- -----bed o--- 0.4 ha 1.0 ac
asture 0.9 ha (2.2 ac) -•----
---------------
iVlixed Pine-Hardwood Forest ; 2.6 ha (6.5 ac
)
------------------------------------------------------------------ -
---------------------------
TOTAL ; 9.4 ha (23.2 ac
The biotic communities found within the project area will be altered as a result of project
construction. The loss of habitat for terrestrial communities will displace animals from this area as
they search for additional habitat. This may concentrate animals into a smaller area which can
cause degradation of remaining habitat and increased mortality due to disease, predation, and
starvation.
Areas modified by construction, but not paved, will become roadside shoulders and
disturbed habitat. Increased traffic noise and reduced habitat will displace some species while
attracting other fauna by the creation of more early successional habitat. Wildlife crossings will
become less frequent and more difficult for less mobile fauna.
The proposed construction will result in habitat reduction. Individual fatalities are likely
to occur to terrestrial animals (moles, shrews, snakes, etc.) from construction machinery used
during clearing activities.
Strict erosion and sediment controls should be maintained during clearing activities. All
cleared and grubbed areas along the roadways should be revegetated soon after project
completion to reduce loss of wildlife habitat.
Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly attributable to construction
activities. Changes in light incidence and water clarity from sedimentation will affect the
photosynthetic ability of primary producer species inhabiting the streams in the project area. The
17
suspended particles will also impact filter feeders inhabiting the streams. These impacts magnify
through the food chain affecting other organisms such as fish, mammals, and reptiles.
Construction activities often affect water level and flow due to interruption and/or
additions to surface and groundwater flow. The change in water level may severely impact
spawning activities of mobile and non-mobile organisms. Toxic runoff from spills, construction
runoff, and highway spills may result in mortality to aquatic species inhabiting the water resources
located in the project area. Strict adherence to Best Management Practices will be enforced
during the construction phase of this project to minimize these impacts.
5. Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters:of
the United States," as defined Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C.
1344).
a. Wetlands
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. Two sm ph`s wp, l - tlypnds are located in the
project area. A small wetland, dominated by emergent vegetation, (Wetland 1) is located to the
north of SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road). An additional small wetland (Wetland 2), dominated by
hardwoods, is located in a mixed pine-hardwood habitat near the central portion of the project.
This wetland is connected to a series of small interconnected wet-weather channels that outfall
into unnamed tributary #2.
The vegetation of the emergent wetland is dominated by wool grass, soft rush, dogwood,
winged elm, and silverling. The sandy clay loam soil present in this habitat exhibited colors that
are indicative of a hydric soil. Evidence of wetland hydrology included saturation within 30 cm
(12 in).
The isolated forested wetland is dominated by loblolly pine, winged elm, and willow oak.
The sandy loam soil present in this habitat exhibited a color that is indicative of a hydric soil.
Evidence of wetland hydrology included areas of inundation, saturation within 30 cm (12 in),
stained leaves and drainage pattern in wetland.
18
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
The construction of the proposed project will impact jurisdictional wetlands and surface
waters. Table 5 summarizes impacts to jurisdictional wetlands located in the project area in
addition to Cowardin classification and DEM rating.
Table 4. Anticipated Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters
Location ; Wetland Area ; DEM ; Cowardin ; Surface Water Impacts
- Impacted _ _ Rating Rating-**
UT#1
, S2in (170ft)
................
UT #2
---------------------------------
----------
--- 1------------ 52 in (170 ft)
-
r
r -- - - -------?---------- -----
---i-.._..---- ----
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.......
7-------• -__ .
55 m (1 80ft)

et
1" 1

f h??0 1-a??--=
?
2 -
-----

PEM2C _
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
---------...--- -------
f
-
=====

-
% --------
-----
--
W,I h_,(z0 `Vlac) : 39 --- -
-----
; PFO1 C -----
---------------
--------
Note: values for surtace waters are in linear meters (feet).
* The DEM rating scale gauges wetland quality using a numerical rating system (0-100 with
100 being the highest value) that emphasizes water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization,
pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life values, and recreation/education potential.
** Cowardin values are as follows: P=Palustrine, FO=Forested, 1=Broad-leaved deciduous,
C=Seasonally saturated, EM=Emergent, 2=Non-Persistent.
Both ephemeral wetlands had relatively low total scores; however, they scored high in
aquatic life values. Ephemeral wetlands provide excellent habitat for amphibian reproduction.
These areas have standing water from late fall to spring and dry up completely in mid-summer,
which allows amphibians to successfully reproduce without fish predation (DEM, 1995).
Actual impacts may be less than reported because the entire right-of-way is not likely to be
impacted by construction activities. The amount of wetland and surface water impacts may be
modified by any changes in the project design.
Impacts can severely affect the functions that wetlands perform in an ecosystem.
Wetlands influence regional water flow regimes by intercepting and storing storm runoff which
ultimately reduces the danger of flooding in surrounding and downstream areas. Wetlands have
been documented to remove organic and inorganic nutrients and toxic materials from water that
flows across them. The presence of wetlands adjacent to roadways can act as filters to runoff
pollutants and toxins.
C. Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from project
construction. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit will be required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the
United States." A Section 404 Nationwide Permits 14 (33 CFR 330.5(a) (14)) may be applicable
19
at most stream crossings found in the project study area. A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 26
may be applicable for impacts of discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and
isolated jurisdictional wetlands. Final permit requirements for this project will be established by
the Corps of Engineers.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DEM prior to the
issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny
water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
Waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DEM is a prerequisite to
issuance of a Section 404 permit.
d. Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts
(to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
The purpose and need of the proposed project cannot be met without impacting surface
waters. Due to the location of unnamed tributaries 1, 2, and 3 and the two small wetlands,
avoidance is not a practicable alternative.
In order to minimize impacts to the wetlands, the following measures will be implemented.
1. Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction.
2. Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control Best Management Practices for
the protection of surface waters and wetlands.
3. Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies and
wetlands.
4. Minimization of "in-stream" activities.
6. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the provisions of
the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to
adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state
laws.
20
a. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act. As of April 1, 1996, the Fish and Wildlife Service lists two
federally-protected species for Cabarrus County: Carolina Heelsplitter and Schwienitz's
Sunflower. No specimens of Carolina Heelsplitter have been found in Cabarrus County in the
past twenty years.
Carolina Heelsplitter (Endangered)
Habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter has been found in creeks, streams, and rivers.
Individuals are most often found in shaded areas, either in a ponded portion of a small stream, or in
runs along steep banks with a moderate current. Water less than three feet deep and substrates that
are composed of soft mud, sand, muddy-sand, and sandy gravel are preferred. Presently, only three
known populations of this mussel species exists; two of these populations are found in the North
Carolina streams of Waxhaw Creek, Catawba River System, Union County and Goose Creek, Pee
Dee River System, Union County.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Carolina heelsplitter is not located in the project area. The water bodies
located in the ROW are intermittent tributaries that do not exhibit shallow pooled areas which the
heelsplitter would need to survive. Therefore, no effects to this species will result from the
construction of the proposed project. NHP files and maps of the project area were reviewed for
this project. There were no recorded populations of this species at or near the project area.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Endangered)
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows 1-2 m tall from a cluster
of carrot-like tuberous roots. The stems are deep red, solitary and only branch above mid-stem.
The leaves are rough feeling above and resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath. Leaves
of the sunflower are opposite on the lower part of the stem and usually become alternate on the
upper stem. The broad flowers are borne from September until frost. These flowers are yellow in
color and arranged in an open system of upwardly arching heads. The fruit is a smooth, gray-black
achene.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to North and South Carolina. These sunflowers grow
best in full sunlight or light shade in clearings and along the edges of open stands of oak-pine-
hickory upland woods. Common soils that this species is found in are moist to dryish clays, clay-
loams, or sandy clay-loams, often with a high gravel content and always moderately podzolized.
Natural fires and large herbivores are considered to be historically important in maintaining open
habitat for these sunflowers.
21
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this sunflower is located in the ROW, specifically in edges of upland
woods and areas which receive full sunlight or light shade where annual mowing prevents trees or
other brush from growing and shading out successional plants (i.e. pasture, roadside
shoulder/maintained yard, and abandoned field habitats). Known populations of the sunflower
were visited before the site visit and a plant-by-plant survey was conducted during the site visit
(which coincided with the flowering season of September and October). No individuals were
observed during the site visit; therefore, no effects to this species will result from the construction
of the proposed project. NHP files and maps of the project area were reviewed for this project.
There were no recorded populations of this species at or near the project area.
b. Federal Candidate and State-Protected Species
There are two federal candidate species listed for Cabarrus County. Federal candidate
species are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern
(SC) by the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under the
State ESA and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 6 lists federal candidate species, the species status (if afforded state protection) and
the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the project study area. This list is provided for
information purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 5. Federal candidate and state listed species for Cabarrus Coun .
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat NC
Status
Dactylothere Pee Dee crayfish ostracod No SR
peedeensis
Lotus purshianus var. Heller's trefoil Yes C
helleri
SR - Significantly Rare Species (species which are very rare in North Carolina but are generally more
common in the areas around North Carolina).
C - Candidate Species (species which are very rare in North Carolina and are also rare in all of their
ranges, or species which are very rare in North Carolina but are more common in areas not adjacent
to North Carolina).
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these
species observed. A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats did not
reveal the presence of these species or unique habitats in or near the project study area.
22
E. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis
1. Introduction
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed relocation and
construction of SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road) from NC 136 to the I-85 interchange in Cabarrus
County on noise levels in the immediate project area (Table N1). This investigation includes an
inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels
in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise
levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project.
Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway
traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise
abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. Only those existing
natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway sections and
proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the
"worst- case" topographical conditions.
2. Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with various
land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria
(NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement
criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part
772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table N2.
The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and
time period has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating
sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy
content.
3. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine the
existing background noise levels. The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the
existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level
increases. The existing Leq noise levels in the project area as measured at 15 meters from the
nearest roadway ranged from 63.4 to 68.4 dBA. The ambient measurement sites and measured
exterior Leq noise levels are presented in Table N3.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current traffic noise
prediction model in order to calculate existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels
actually measured. The calculated existing noise levels were within 2.1 to 3.3 dBA of the
23
measured noise levels for the locations where noise measurements were obtained. Differences in
dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle
speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
4. Analysis Results
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in Table N4.
Information included in these tables consist of listings of all receptors in close proximity to the
project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are predicted to become
impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N5. These are noted in terms of those
receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA
NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, there are
18 residential impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project area. Other
information included in Table N5 is the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level
contours. This information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the
remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with
the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N6 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors in
each roadway section. Predicted noise level increases for this project range from 0 to +18 dBA.
When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5
dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling
or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED NOISE IMPACTS
Number of Impacted Receptors 18
-----------------
------------ r-------------- -------------
ProLect Section , 72 dBA
67 dBA
___
-T-------------
SR 2154 to NC 136W
-
-
-
---
-
14.7 meters
3
0.1 meters
----------------
___
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
-----------
NC 136S to SR 2126
14.7 meters , 24.9 meters
eters
SR 2126 to I-85
14.7 meters 24.9 meters
Number of Receptors
With a Substantial Impact
5
5. Noise Abatement Alternatives
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a] approach or
exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table
N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of
24
substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2. Consideration for noise abatement
measures must be given to receptors which fall in either category. There are 16 impacted
receptors in the project area.
Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts of the project were
considered. Noise abatement alternatives investigated for the project include: highway alignment
changes, traffic system management measures, and noise barriers.
Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise
impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal
alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise
sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time of
operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic management
measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the capacity
and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied with a
measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may
include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and long
enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the
barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically
unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings
(driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore,
to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8 times the distance from
the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 15 meters from the barrier would
normally require a barrier 120 meters long. An access opening of 12 meters (10 percent of the
area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
The project will maintain only limited control of access, meaning most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct access connections to the proposed roadway, and
all intersections will adjoin the project at grade. In addition, businesses, churches, and other
25
related establishments located along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high
visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow
these two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
6. "Do Nothinyt' Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative were also
considered. If the traffic currently using the network of roads in the project area should double
within the next twenty years, future traffic noise levels would increase in the range of 2-3 dBA.
As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. This small
increase to the present noise level would be barely noticeable to the people working and living in
the area.
7. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling,
grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference
for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading
operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the
limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The
transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed
to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
8. Future Land Use
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
government are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed
highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a
proposed highway project will be the approval date of CEs, FONSIs, RODS, or the Design Public
Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring after this public knowledge date,
local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along
the proposed facility.
9. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, noise abatement is not recommended, and no noise
abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional
noise reports will be submitted for this project.
26
F. Air Quality Analysis
1. Introduction
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial and internal
combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway
construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air
conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when determining the impact of a new highway
facility or the improvement of an old highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead
(Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major
source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned
with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic
flow.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO concentrations
resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology
For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO
concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted of a
level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors,
and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual average
daily traffic projections and the highest volume along the project was used in the CAL3QHC
modeling. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the completion year of
2000 and the design year of 2020 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors"
and the MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer model.
2. Background CO Concentration
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8 parts per
million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental
Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
3. Air Ouality Analysis Results
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be the receptor #3 at a distance of
14.0 meters from the proposed centerline of the median. The "build" one-hour CO concentrations
for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 2000 and 2020 are predicted to be 2.8 and 3.1
parts per million, respectively.
27
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS maximum permitted for
1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of
these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can
be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard.
4. Air Ouali During Construction
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise
disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws
and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that burning will be done at the greatest practical
distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will only be utilized under constant surveillance. Also during construction,
measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is
necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
5. Sum
The project is located in Cabarrus County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Part 51 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
G. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils. These soils are determined by the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS), based on crop yield
and productivity, and the level of energy and economic resources expended during farming.
Because the project area is void of agricultural uses, and has been identified as an area of
urbanized land uses for the future, further research on this subject is not necessary.
H. Hazardous Materials Involvement
Representatives of the NCDOT Geotechnical Unit - Environmental Section performed a
field reconnaissance along the project corridor on February 7, 1995. No potential environmental
problems that should impact the project were found.
28
I. Flood Hazard Evaluation and Hydraulic Concerns
Cabarrus County is a participant in the national Flood Insurance Regular Program;
however, this project will not involve any designated flood hazard areas.
This project does not cross any major streams; however, the horizontal alignment of the
new roadway should be selected so as to cross minor streams perpendicularly, to the extent
practicable, in order to minimize encroachment into the floodplain and to avoid excessively long
drainage structures. The terrain in the project vicinity is rolling with natural draws and minor
streams located such that the project can be drained without difficulty.
Existing drainage patterns will be maintained, and perhaps improved, to the extent
practicable. Groundwater resources will be evaluated in the final design to ensure that measures
are taken to avoid groundwater contamination.
J. Geodetic Markers
The proposed project will have no effect on geodetic survey markers.
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A. Local Officials
The subject project has been coordinated with local government officials. Local
governments were contacted during the initial scoping phase of the project. Written comments
from local officials are included in Appendix A.
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
A citizens workshop on the project was held on June 20, 1995 in the Kannapolis Council
Chambers. Representatives of Kannapolis and Concord attended this meeting. No opposition to
the project was expressed by local officials. Approximately 35 citizens attended the workshop.
No objections arose other than questions about appraisals and relocations.
C. Agency Coordination
Comments have been requested from the agencies listed below. An asterisk (*) denotes
agencies from which written comments have been received. Comments are included in Appendix
A.
29
U. S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
* State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N. C. Department of Public Instruction
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* Cabarrus County Commissioner
Mayor of Concord
* Mayor of Kannapolis
JM/plr
30
r
?.
twos n`
thus 19
!well
I!rsvllle
to
4 1 annapolis M115!
y? r
36 ,001
o, 1 ncord+ ;:T i 1
, .t Moun PI.
20 B I
A 4RUSf
fr??:4d
? u?
l? f ?... ?...5- .
?. '`
..,
R
dial
O? 60
a?
9 pm 01
(1?Ot 55 1927
769
I '0969
NC 6929
136 136
u?op)
20
co
Z
O
co
I n? o
rn?
co
co
T
U I
Z I
116
s
F9
ti9
LEGEND
0000 = vpd
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(%)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW(%)
AM/PM = AM OR PM PEAK
0 = DIRECTION OF D
(5,1) DUAL TRUCKS,TTST (%)
DHV Pm 0D
(1,o)
NOTES: DHV & D IF NOT SHOWN
ARE THE SAME FOR THE
OPPOSING LEG
lbll1161Y
J
00
21 1615
1384
2552
213
602?? )
U-2833 EARNHARDT ROAD RELOCATION
2000 ADT VOLUME
NOT TO SCALE
Q?
OQ
G
Op
C0Z -
FIGURE 3
9?pm A? Qtc ?1
3120 lb
T 1880
NC 9440
136 380 X40
O
LEGEND
0000 = vpd
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(%)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW(%)
AM/PM = AM OR PM PEAK
0 = DIRECTION OF D
(5,1) DUAL TRUCKS,TTST (%)
DHV pm ? D
(1,o)
NOTES: DHV & D IF NOT SHOWN
ARE THE SAME FOR THE
OPPOSING LEG
20 pq
<F
Fq
20
F? RpT 6
o d'?, DLO
20
X99 ??
0 2y 20
F o 90
rn
0o
r
U
2
U-2833 EARNHARDT ROAD RELOCATION
2020 ADT VOLUME
WITHOUT PARKWAY CONCEPT
NOT TO SCALE
0
ss
0
3000
4140
3530
+
420
Zg`3? N
? O
x0l)
00
9°$/
FIGURE 4

9 pm
(2? SS
1 2820
2p880 ??
136 4720
G?
O° 00
60
9S, o?
0
2270
170 ?S8
8p
60 pq?
F?
0
o
0
F a
a
rn
0
U
Z
LEGEND
0000 = vpd
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(%)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW(%)
AM/PM = AM OR PM PEAK
0 = DIRECTION OF D
(5,1) DUAL TRUCKS,TTST (%)
DHV Pm 0 D
(1.o)
NOTES: DHV & D IF NOT SHOWN
ARE THE SAME FOR THE
OPPOSING LEG
qR
160 ?hg94T
N? 60 ?`GO
F9?2 160
?o
U-2833 EARNHARDT ROAD RELOCATION
2020 ADT VOLUME
WITH PARKWAY CONCEPT
?a 'O3
ss
jS
00
O
3310
O
o°
53
9
53
2450
?8100
3020
N
CA
0
CO
3720 AgC9y lvd
22o qY
5 ?
F??\O
Qe
NOT TO SCALE 00 FIGURE 5
a
otf
E is
E tV
O v
E ^ E ti
et ? d
cV m
z
O
_
Z
C) N
r
O?
-w
?
C.) Cl)
? E
? )
V? w c
0 CV
M v

a~
uD

-0
..
CL E _

E CV
?
to
O M ...
z T

wm

N _
tV
O
(L v
Ow
m
z
a
a E
0"
r
J O
U)
c E `m
N `/ 0
m U
E N
Ln
O ..
r-
s
CD
W
V
1..1.E
PROPOSED LANE CONFIGURATION DIAGRAM

1
DALE EARNHARDT BLVD
NC 136 FIGURE 7
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pne,.LTatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 65 kmp 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 k,-,.z- 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD
I
B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)

TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
I
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Le4)
Xannapolis, SR 2126(Earnhardt Road) From NC 136 to I-85 Interchange
Cabarrus County
TIP # U-2833 STATE PROJ.# 8.2662501
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1. SR 2114 (Centergrove Rd), 100 meters Grassy 65.4
west of NC 136
2. NC 136, 90 meters Scuth of SR 2126 Grassy 68.4
(Earnhardt Road)
3. SR 2126 (Earnhardt Rcad) 290 meters Grassy 63.4
North of I-85
I
Note: The ambient noise level sites were measured at 15 meters from the
center of the nearest lane of traffic.
TABLE N4 1/2
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Rannapolis, SR 2126(Earnhardt Road) From NC 136 to I-85 Interchange
Cabarrus County, State Proj.# 8.2662501, TIP # U-2833
' AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
From SR 2154(Little Texas Road) to NC 136
1 Residence B NC 136W 34.0 R 59 Proposed 34.0 R - - * 66 + 7
0
" L 63 " 20.0 L --------- -----------N/A---- ----------
2 Cemetary B 20.
3 Residence B " 30.0 R 60 to 14.0 R - - * 72 * + 12
4 Residence B " 38.0 L 58 '• 30.0 L - - * 67 9
5 Residence B " 28.0 L 61 " 14.0 L - - It 72 * + 11
6 Residence B It 18.0 L 64 32.0 L - - * 66 + 2
7 Residence B '• 50.0 L 56 " 70.0 L - - 59 + 3
0
0 L 58 " 10.0 L --------- ------- ----R/W--------------
12 Residence B .
SR 2114 1
13 Residence B " 28.0 L 6; " 74.0 L 58.8 66.5 * 67 + 6
14 Residence B It 55.0 L 55 " 64.0 L 60.3 56.9 61 + 6
15 Residence B " 30.0 L 60 " 134.0 L 52.1 60.4 60 0
16 Residence B " 36.0 R 59 " 150.0 R 50.6 58.8 59 0
17 Residence B 38.0 L 58 120.0 L 53.4 57.0 58 0
58 Residence B " 30.0 R 60 " 235.0 R 44.6 61.5 61 + 1
59 Residence B " 20.0 L 63 " 177.0 L 48.4 63.0 63 0
60 Residence B " 30.0 L 60 " 215.0 L 45.8 60.4 60 0
61 Residence B " 26.0 L 61 " 265.0 L 43.3 61.2 61 0
From NC 136 South to SR 2126(Earnhardt Road)
8 Residence B NC 136W 32.0 R 64 Proposed 32.0 R --------------------R/W--------------
9 Residence B " 23.0 L 66 It 60.0 L --------------------R/W--------------
10 Residence B " 33.0 R 63 to 90.0 R -------------------- R/W--------------
il Residence B " 30.0 L 64 " 134.0 L --------------------R/W--------------
18 Cemetary B " 170.0 L 46 " 80.0 L --------------------N/A--------------
19 Residence B Cambridge 8.0 L 71 " 0.0 L --------------------R/W--------------
20
21
22 Residence
Residence
Residence B
B
B '•
"
" 16.0
17.0
20.0 L
R
L 48
48
48 '•
•'
" 29.0
26.0
70.0 L
R
L - - 65 * + 17
- - * 66 I * + 18
- - 57 + 9
23
24
25 Residence
Residence
Residence B
B
B "
"
'• 20.0
25.0
20.0 L
L
L 48
48
48 "
"
" 93.0
90.0
141.0 L
L
L - - 54 + 6
- - 54 + 6
- - 49 + 1
26 Residence B •' 25.0 L 48 " 152.0 L - - 48 0
27
50 Residence
Residence B
B "
NC 136 25.0
23.0 R
L 48
66 147.0
230.0 R
L - - 49 + 1
43.4 66.0 * 66 0
51 Residence B " 23.0 R 66 " 190.0 R 45.9 66.0 * 66 0
52
53
54
55
56
57 Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence B
B
B
B
B
B to
to
"
to
"
It 22.0
24.0
20.0
57.0
51.0
25.0 L
L
L
L
L
R 66
65
67
59
60
65 of

"
of
"
to 175.0
140.0
245.0
250.0
185.0
80.0 L
L
L
L
L
R 47.0 66.0 It 66 0
49.9 66.0 65 0
42.6 67.0 * 67 0
42.4 59.0 59 0
46.2 60.0 60 0
56.3 65.0 65 0
NOTE: Distances
All noise
Category E are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-->
levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=>
noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). * _> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Rannapolis, SR 2126(Earnhardt Road) From NC 136 to I-85 Interchange
Cabarrus County, State Proj.# 8.2662501, TIP # U-2833
2/2
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL,
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY
.................... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.......... ....:... LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. -L- -Y-
..... MAXIMUM
........ INCREASE

...:.._.
From SR 2126(Earn hardt Road) to I-85
28 Church E SR 2126 25.0 R 60/40 Proposed 80.0 R - - 60/40 0/ 0
29 Residence B " 41.0 L 56 " 0.0 L - - * 69 * + 13
30 Residence B " 19.0 R 62 " 15.0 R - - * 69 + 7
31 Residence B " 40.0 L 57 " 43.0 L - - 61 + 4
32 Residence B " 13.0 L 64 " 16.0 L - - * 69 + 5
33 Residence B Dinwood 20.0 L 45 " 131.0 L 50.3 45.0 51 + 6
34 Residence B " 20.0 L 45 " 169.0 L 46.9 45.0 49 + 4
35 Residence B SR 2126 20.0 L 62 " 20.0 L - - * 68 + 6
36 Residence B Knowles 40.0 R 45 " 98.0 R 53.5 45.0 54 + 9
37 Residence B " 15.0 L 45 158.0 L 47.8 45.0 49 + 4
38 Residence B " 18.0 L 45 " 158.0 L 47.8 45.0 49 + 4
39 Residence B " 18.0 L 45 " 131.0 L 50.3 45.0 51 + 6
40 Residence B 20.0 L 45 103.0 L 53.0 45.0 53 + 8
41 Residence B " 15.0 R 45 " 64.0 R 58.2 45.0 58 + 13
42 Residence B " 15.0 L 45 " 57.0 L 59.3 45.0 59 + 14
43 Residence B SR 2126 30.0 L 59 " 30.0 L - - 64 + 5
44 Residence B " 23.0 L 61 " 23.0 L - - * 67 + 6
45 Residence B it 23.0 L 61 " 23.0 L - - * 67 + 6
46 Residence B Roxie 15.0 L 45 of 68.0 L 57.7 45.0 57 + 12
47 Residence B to 15.0 R 45 " 90.0 R 54.5 45.0 54 + 9
48 Residence B " 25.0 L 45 " 105.0 L 52.8 45.0 53 + 8
49 Residence B " 18.0 L 45 to 141.0 L 49.3 45.0 50 + 5
i
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
Description
TABLE NS
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Kannapolis, SR,2126(Earnhardt Road) From NC 136 to I-85 Interchange
Cabarrus County, State Proj.# 8.2662501, TIP # U-2833
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
1. From SR 2154(Little Texas Road) to NC 136W 69 65 60
2. From NC 1365 to SR 2126(Earahardt Road) 70 68 64
3. From SR 2126(Earnhardt Road) to I-85 70 68 64
14.7m 30. lm 0 6 0 0 0
<14.7m 24.9m 0 6 0 0 0
<14.7m 24.9m 0 6 0 0 0

Total 0 18 0 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dEA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
Kannapolis, SR 2126(Earnhardt Road) From NC 136 to I-85 Interchange
Cabarrus County, State Proj.# 8.2662501, TIP # U-2833
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >= 25 Increases(1)
i Criteria(2)
1. From SR 2154 to NC 136W 6 3 4 2 0 0 0 2 2
2. From NC 136W to SR 2126 9 2 3 0 2 0 0 2 1
3. From SR 2126 to 1-85 1 4 13 4 0 0 0 1 1
TOTALS 16 9 20 6 2 0 0 5 4
` (1) As defined by only a substantial Increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
APPENDIX A
'State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Governor p E H N F?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM -f-,
TO: Chrys Daggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0833 - Earnhardt Road Improvements, Cabarrus County
DATE: June 27, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed scoping notice. The attached comments list and describe information that is necessary
for our divisions to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project. More specific
comments will be provided during the environmental review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is encouraged to notify our
commenting divisions if additional assistance is needed.
attachments
1EGS,*'?-0
JAN 2 P, 1995
". pPJE C`EARINC6CUSE
N•C
P.O. Box 27687, Roeigh, North Ccrciina 2761 1-7687 Telephone [phone]
An y , .: Cc-.. . nir/ Affir-mc ive AC7iCn-?r-900;0. eCyc!ed, 10°.o CCS7-C::r.sur-er pccer

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Con mssion
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fvllwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co ator_.
Habitat Conservation Program/ k- _
DATE: June 21, 1995
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for SR 2126 (Earnhardt
Road), from NC 136 to I-85 in Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, North
Carolina. TIP No. U-2833, SCH Project No. 95-0833-
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCUOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.G.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDo,r proposes to realign and widen SR 2126 to a five-lane curb and gutter
facility. The existing intersection of NC 136 and SR 2114 will also be realigned.
At this time we have no specific recommendations or concerns regarding the
subject project. However, to aid in document preparation, our general informational
needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area.
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
RC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Jun 21'95 14:25 No.004 P.11
Memo 2 June 21, 1995
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
(919).733-7795
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need
for channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by
the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and
indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the
environmental effects of highway construction and quantifies the
contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will
result from secondary development facilitated by the improved road
access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state,
municipal, or private development projects, a description of these projects
should be included in the environmental document, and all project
sponsors should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please me at [phone].
cc: Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne: Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nougame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
Howard Hull, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 27, 1995
?EHNR
-„,
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0833; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to Earnhardt Road, Kannapolis,
TIP No. U-2833
The Water Quality Section. of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams 'potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4)* Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer pcper
Melba McGee
June 27,--1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall.obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT°'-utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the_401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10961.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
Clayton, North Carolina
May 18, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Leg. Affairs
FROM: Don ItRobbins, StaffForester VA ?^P
SUBJECT: DOT EA/Scoping for Realignment of Earnhardt Road in Kannapolis in Cabarrus
County
PROJECT: 995-0833 and TIP # U-2833
DUE DATE: 6-15-95
To better determine the impact to forestry in this urban setting, the Environmental Assessment should
contain the following information concerning the proposed project:

1. The total forest land acreage by types that would be taken out of forest production
as a result of new right-of-way purchases and all construction activities.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series that would be
involved within the proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber that is to
be removed. This practice is encouraged to minir„ ize the need for piling and burning
during construction. If any burning is needed, the contractor should comply with all
laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning.
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent
erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-
way and construction limits. Trees outside the construction limits should be protected
from construction activities to avoid: '
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that impairs
root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances over
the root systems of trees.
We would hope that a route could be chosen that would have the least impact to forest and related
resources in that area. -
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File
DEP:r\l•l"NAT OU FINI 'IRc?NI N/1F--N 1, i i AL.11-1,
. 'AND NA"C'UI,AL. RESOURCES
.DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEt\.LTH
Inter-Agency Project Review. Response
Project Number
? -O 83
County .
>ject Name Type of Project 59a/d
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications far all water system
J improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to.the award
of a contract or'the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et, seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
-? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
state and federal drinkin- water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of ?_ feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish sanitation progra
m, the applicant should contact the`Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
-? The spoil disposal-area(s) proposed' or this project may produce a mosquito breeding-proble:n.
For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should.
contact the Public Health Pest ivlanage=neat Section at [phone]. litio -.? The applicant should be advised that pr o gam ma.l be necessary, essary inoo den tof prevaeathe the -? structures, an extensive rodent control p gr y
migration of the rodents to adjaa or taress. -- rodent- cntrol,
he PubliceHinformation. concernin,,
ealth Pea- Manage:r_ent Section pot (1 )
contact the local health department
733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
U requirements for sepuc.tank installations (as required under 15A INCAC 18A .1900 et. seg.).
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at (919) 733-'_S95.
The applicant should be advised to ccntrac: the local health department regarding the sanitar-f
t-J facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
M?r relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public 9t Su
bl?
Section Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Marys Street, Raleigh, North Carol . (919) 3
,
/ o?xs
Revie ??e:
Date
Secu n, _ranch
Uwisicn ui L•nvu:::aun;al f-icai•i.
? C?Vi,?
State of North Carolina ?'?? aY 17 1995
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Reso es ?
DMsion.'of Land Resources i By
James G. Martin, Governor PROJE= RSVIEW C0194ENTS Chades H. Gardner
W Iflam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: 3 County:
Project Name:
Geodetic Survev
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be* contacted prior *to construction at P.O. Box* 27687,
.Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
r
Date
No comment
This proje-t will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land=disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act .(SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan. i
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
'04" ' s// 9 / 9 s
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
Pn E.-quai Opportunity.Ananadve Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Dep..rtment of Ernironment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Project Number. Due Date:
9.:5 -0,F3 3 /_ _, r

ter review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
der for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
....i.?e-A in tha Maninnal inffice indicated on the reverse of the form.
Jesuons mfgaroing mesa painiiaa 661vuiu .+? o.....?......- ._ ...- •-- - - -
I applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Normal Process
Igional Office. Time

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
ermit lo construct b operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 says
icilittes, saver system extensions, d sewer construction contracts on-site inspection. Post-application
rstems not discharging into state surtlACe waters. technical conference usual (90 says)
POES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
emit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
iseftarging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
Vater Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(NIA)
7 days
veil Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issues
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 aays
)redge and Fill Permit owner. 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.
'ermit to construct b operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 aays
acilities anelor Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 211-1. NIA (90 days)
1ny open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
3emolition or renovations of structures containing
60 aays
rsbeslos material must be in compliance with 15A
VCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
arior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
319.733.0820. (90 aays)

:omplex Source Permit required under 15A VCAC 20.0800.
the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1573 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion b sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sec:.) at least 30 20 days
days before bedinnin activity A fee of 530 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or can must accomoanv the Dian (30 davs)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrencea Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permfied. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
(NIA)
exceeds A days
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.O. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
(NIA)
count!" in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities NIA INIA)
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 is according to EHNR soprov
d
A
160 days)
n
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program.
a a0a permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces.
sary to verity Hazard Ctassificanon. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total protect cost will be required upon completion
Continuea on reverse
n +a.
c t a,.5iw*go '
'North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 8, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transpp?ation
? ?'--r"-'= tc 1
FROM: David Brook'
Deputy State His Qo'ic Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
SUBJECT: Improvements to SR 2126 in Kannapolis from NC 136
to 1-85, Cabarrus County, 0-2833, Federal Aid STP-
21260), State Project 8.2662501, 95-E-4220-0833
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. However,
since the survey of historic architectural resources in Cabarrus County is over a
decade old, there may be historic structures of which we are unaware within the
project's area of potential effect (APE). We recommend that an architectural
historian with the North Carolina Department of Transportation survey the APE and
report the findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-E.arley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: 'State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
TIP r U' 2$ 53 Federal Aid # -V?T Z J Z6 (1 County ? ?u5
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
Q N N o f S? 2t 2Co ItoM tq C- 13 (a lb S_-_
On_, l°IftS , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? .North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at

A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All pantie present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential.. effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
/ considered not eligible for the National Register and nor further evaiuation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:'
ve, NCDOT
FHwA, for the
'D AA
Representative,
ivision Administrator, or other Federal Agency

State Historic Preservau-on 0
r
Date
Date
(o-E-
Date
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
TAKES i
United States Department of the Interior PRIDE ICA
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE L
Ecological Services
Post Office Boy: 33726 ? C+ F I jI
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 ?O
May 5, 1995
1AY Q 8 1995
z s
Mr. H. Franklin Vick tVISIO!V OF
Planning and Environmental Branch v?? IGHWgYS P?6Q?
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201 ?/?? ?
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Proposed realignment and widening of Sr 2121, Cabarrus County,
North Carolina, TIP No. U-2833.
e -
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of February 21, 1995 requesting information from
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) calls for realigning and widening SR 2126 from NC 136 to I-85. This
work would convert SR 2126 to a five-lane curb and gutter section which is 64
feet from curb-face to curb-face, with 8-foot berms, on 160 feet of right-of-
way with no control of access. The NCDOT also proposes a realignment of the
existing intersection of NC 136 and SR 2114 (Centergrove Road). A typical
section for the proposed realignment is a two-lane, 44-foot curb and gutter
section with 8-foot berms, on 100 feet of right-of-way.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2. A list and acreage of the wetland types w:.;ch Ill be impacted. 4ietland
types should follow the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. This list should also give the acreage of each
wetland type to be affected by the project as determined by the Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Engineering techniques which will be employed for designing and
constructing any wetland crossings and/or relocated stream channels
along with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage of each type which would
be impacted by the proposed project.
5. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce,
or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the project.
These measures should include plans for replacing unavoidable wetland
losses.
6. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after construction
as a direct result of the proposed project (secondary impacts) and an
assessment of the extent to which the proposed project will add to
similar environmental'impacts produced by other, completed projects in
the area (cumulative impacts).
r
The attached pages identify the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species which occur in Cabarrus County, North Carolina. The section
of the environmental document regarding protected species should contain the
following information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
affected by the action;
3. An analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by CFR 402.02, on
the species and habitat including consideration of direct, indirect,
cumulative effects, and the results of related studies;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any species
or critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of potential effects;
and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
Candidate species refers to any species being considered by the Service for
listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed
rule. These species are not legally protected under the Act or subject to its
provisions, including Section 7, until formally proposed or listed as
threatened or endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a -
candidate species. This change would place the species under the full
protection of the Endangered Species Act, and necessitate a new survey if its
status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for
the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their habitat.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard Hall, the
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 27).
Sincerely your
L.K. "Mike" Gantt
Supervisor
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Cabarrus County
I
Clams
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmiaona decorata) - E"
Plants
Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Plants
Heller's trefoil (Lotus ourshianus var. helleri) - C2
Crustaceans
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod (Dactvlothere oeedeensis) - C2

"Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
4

J I
Ap,q
ONE COUNTY
' NORTH CAROU NA
March 28, 1995
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
SUBJECT: Kannapolis , Realign SR 2126 (Dale Earnhardt Boulevard), from NC 136 to
I-85, Cabarrus County project # U-2833
In response to your letter of February 21, 1995 I appreciate the opportunity to
comment on the above listed project. We are looking forward to its completion and
extend our deepest gratitude for the work your department has contributed. I have no
further information to provide your office but would ask that you consider the following
comments:
Structures demolished within the right-of-way would require the application of a
demolition permit, at no charge, to clear out tax records. This, I would assume, will be
handled by the contractor awarded the construction contract.
Additionally, I would encourage an amicable settlement between the State and the Bethel
Baptist Church Cemetery located along NC 136 in the path of the realignment. Local staff
has been working with the Church officials towards that end.
Again, on behalf of the Cabarrus County Commissioners I thank you for your
department's efforts to give us this badly needed project.
Sincerely,
fe&ey Barnhart, Chairman
Cabarrus County Commissioners

Office of the Col -.1v Mam2cer
P.O Box 707 Concord `+C 2.__ U. 1 6 ._ :?-1 ?hanol:e : -C3_S
I NORTH CAROLINA
-?DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building BOB ETHERIDGE
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825 State Superintendent
March 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
FROM: Charles e`? r
Assistan rintendent
Auxili Services
C E
O
MAR 2 3 1995
z
2c o?visrcv OF
HIGHW yS
NrAE P?6
:^A 1R0
RE: Kannapolis, Realign SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road), from NC 136 to I-85,
Cabarrus County, U-2833
Please find attached communication from Ernest M. Macon, Assistant
Superintendent for Kannapolis City Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Enclosure
.1
An Equal Opportunity ' Affirmative Action Employer
anna ? atis ?t.ltt r4ljvls Edward B. Tyson
KCB ?" 1lj QQ?? Superintendent
P. 0. BOX 1268 Ernest M. Macon
100 Deliver Street Assistant Superintendent
KANNAPOLIS, NORTH CAROLINA 28082-1268 Jo Anne A. Byerly
E,!"Kids + Assistant Superintendent
Can Succeed"
[phone] 9 FAX [phone]
March 15, 1995
h1f;R2l15??
Dr. Charles H. Weaver
Auxiliary Services
Dept. of Public Instruction
301 North Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
RE: Kannapolis Realign SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road), from NC 136 to I-85,
Cabarrus County, U-2833
Dear Dr. Weaver:
The proposed highway improvement project is fully consistent with the operation of the
Kannapolis City Schools. We have reviewed the proposals with our city officials and are in full
agreement with this project.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this important project for our community.

Sincerely,
Ernest M. Macon
Assistant Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
cc: Dr. Ed Tyson, Superintendent
6

I
"We are an Equal Opportunity Employer"
APPENDIX B
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and
prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to
allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards.
The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT;pur-
chases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in
areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will
be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving
to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the dis-
placee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate
in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such
as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if
applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for
replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last
Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, includ-
ing incidental expenses, on thepurchase of a replacement dwelling. The
down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the
rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing
is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's finan-
cial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program
will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
s
i
f
i

rRELOCATION REPOATI-F-
:i
iy North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
x I E.I.S. n CORRIDOR F7 DESIGN:. , .. _ ....,... ,
QIROJECT: 8.2662501 COUNTY CABARRUS Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I. D. NO.: U-2833 F.A. PROJECT STP 2126 1
QESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: REVISED: Realignmen t of SR 2126 from NC 136 to 1-85, Cabarrus County
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 9 1 10 4 6 1 2 1 0
Businesses 1 0 1 1 :VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE.
Farms 0 0 0 0 owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 1 $ 0.150 0 0-20M 1 $ 0.150 0
ANSWE R.ALL QUESTIONS 20-+WM 6 160-250 1 20-40M 37 150-250 1
Yes No Explain al! "YES" answers. 40-70M 1 250-400 0 40-70M 40 250400 15 .
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 1 400-600 0 70-100M 67 400-600 3
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 600 up 0 100 uP 165 600 uP 0
displacement? TOTAL 9 1 310 19
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by N umber)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. There will be no permanent displacement of businesses.

` indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
4. BLUE LANTERN CLUB:
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 2300 square feet, five employees, nightclub, minority
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 6. Homes and Land publication, Real Estate Resources,
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? The Concord Tribune, MLS, and Realtors®.
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families? 8. Last resort housing will be administered in accordance
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? with State law.
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 11. Section 8 is available.
housing available during relocation period? ,
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 12. Given current housing trends, comparable housing
financial means? should be available during the relocation period.
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATIONS 1Z months 14. Same as number 6.

n
Mon ca S. Long, R l atin ent Date Approved'b Date
n.:-:--1 O 4 r......- Sgt-t- R-lnrntinn Anent
crarm 10.4 movisea Ulu= a - ? -
2 Copy Area Relocation Office

61
4
SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road)
Realign and Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from NC 136 in Kannapolis to I-85
Cabarrus County
F. A. Project STP 2126(1)
State Project No. 8.2662501
T. I. P. Project No. U-2833
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
2-261-9 7? Ak,??
Date ?r H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
I Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
r
Z ?? 7 A? ??. "JAI
!! Date G Nich L. Graf, P. E.
?ivision Administrator, FHWA
SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road)
Realign and Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from NC 136 in Kannapolis to I-85
Cabarrus County
F. A. Project STP 2126(1)
State Project No. 8.2662501
T. I. P. Project No. U-2833
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
C6" wt??w 4 Av?
Beverly J. Grate
Project Pl 'n En ' eer
Robert Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Unit Head
oea?voet,
It. atoms
?` ` Oo?6=`9?1!ep0! !' ? d
1 1" C??t/
• SEAT.
17282 .?
'•?.?'01
P ii N'
?Z
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. TYPE OF ACTION .................................................................................... ......... I
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................ ......... 1
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS .......................... ......... 2
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS .................................................................................................. ......... 2
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ...................................................... ......... 4
A. Circulation Of The Environmental Assessment ................................. ......... 4
B. Comments Received On The Environmental Assessment ................. ......... 4
C. Public Hearing ................................................................................. ......... 6
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................... ......... 7-
A. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control ........................................... ......... 7
B. Corrections to the Environmental Assessment .................................. ......... 7
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .......................... ......... 7

SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road)
Realign and Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from NC 136 in Kannapolis to I-85
Cabarrus County
F. A. Project STP 2126(1)
State Project No. 8.2662501
T. I. P. Project No. U-2833
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on the human
environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment, which has been
independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the
environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental Assessment
provides sufficient evidence,and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement
is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the
Environmental Assessment.
11. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to realign and widen SR 2126
(Earnhardt Road) to a multi-lane section from the interchange with I-85 to NC 136 (Centergrove
Road) in Kannapolis. This project is approximately 1.7 km (1.05 miles) in total length and has an
estimated cost of $ 5,829,000 including $ 2,279,000 for right-of-way acquisition and $ 3,550,000
for construction.
The project will widen existing Earnhardt Road northward from I-85 for 0.3 km (0.18
miles) and extend Earnhardt Road on pew location to NC 136 (Centergrove Road) for 1.4 km
(0.87 miles). To accommodate the extension of SR 2126 on new location, this project includes a
realignment of the at-grade intersection of SR 2114 (Centergrove Road) and NC 136 (Concord
Lake Road) which will require approximately 0.3 km (0.2 miles ) of roadway on new location.
The proposed project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in federal fiscal year 1998 and construction
in federal fiscal year 2000. The total estimated cost included in the TIP is $6,550,000. This
estimate includes $3,000,000 for right-of-way and $3,550,000 for construction.
A five lane curb and gutter section on 24 meters (80 feet) of right-of-way plus
construction easements, with two 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lanes in each direction and one
3.6 meter (12 foot) center turn lane, is proposed for SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road).
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and minimize
environmental impacts. Impacts will be minimized using Best Management Practices during
construction.
This project crosses a water supply critical area for Lake Concord. Lake Concord was the
backup source of drinking water for the area with Lake Fisher as the primary source before the
completion of Coddle Creek Watershed. Coddle Creek Watershed is now the primary water
source and Lake Fisher is the backup water source. However, the designation has not been
changed for Lake Concord as of this time and is not anticipated to change before construction.
Therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through erosion and sedimentation
control measures appropriate for high quality waters, and hazardous spill containment measures
will be provided.
In accordance with provision of Section 404 of the CWA (33 U. S. C. 1344), a permit will
be required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the Untied
States." A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14 (33 CFR 330.5(a) (14)) may be applicable at most
stream crossings found in th* project study area. A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 26 may be
applicable for impacts of discharges of dredged or fill materials into headwaters and isolated
jurisdictional wetlands. Final permit decisions, however, are left to the discretionary authority of
the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DEM prior to the
issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Currently, to travel from NC 136 to the I-85 interchange, vehicles must navigate two
ninety degree turns on Earnhardt Road. The new alignment will eliminate these two sharp curves
improving the safety and traffic operations of the subject section of SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road).
Also, NC 136 is a four lane curb and gutter section roadway at the western terminus and
Copperfield Boulevard is a five lane section roadway at the eastern terminus. Therefore, the
project will provide a continuous multi-lane section relieving traffic congestion at peak hours and
providing improved traffic movements between the I-85 interchange and NC 136.
It is anticipated that the project will result in the relocation of ten residences and one
business. The relocation estimate includes four minority residences and one minority business.
In the immediate project vicinity, there are no historic properties eligible for or listed on
the National Register of Historic Places.
2
Wetlands losses are anticipated to be less than one acre for the entire project. Any erosion
and siltation caused by the project will be short term in effect. No species afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act will be affected by the proposed project. Cabarrus
County is a participant in the national Flood Insurance Regular Program; however, this project
will not involve any designated flood hazard areas. Overall air quality of the area will not be
adversely affected.
In accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed
highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a
proposed highway project is the approval date of this FONSI. For development occurring after
this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible
designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
This project's traffic noise analysis predicted eighteen residences will experience highway
traffic noise impacts; however, only five of these will experience substantial increases from
existing noise levels. Noise abatement measures were evaluated, but noise abatement is not
considered appropriate for this project. The following table shows the predicted maximum extent
of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours:
I SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED NOISE IMPACTS I
I Number of Imoacted Recentors 1 18 1
i Contours * i
------------------------------r--------------i---------------
__--_--_- Project Section___ _72 d_B_A 67 d_B_A
SR 2154 to NC 136 West 1 14.7 meters T 30.1 meters
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
14.7 meters ____24._9 m_ete_rs
_______N_C_ 136 South _to_S_R_2_1_2_6------ __ <
------------
SR 2126 to I-85 -i_ < 14.7 meters 1 24.9 meters
* Measured from the center of the proposed roadway.
This information was included on Table N5 in the Appendix to the Environmental
Assessment and is shown here to assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the
remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdictions.
3
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation Of The Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was completed for this project on June 28, 1996. Copies
of the Environmental Assessment were sent to the following federal, state, and local agencies for
review and comments. An asterisk (*) indicates a written response was received from the agency.
Copies of the correspondence received are included in the Appendix of this document.
* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
* N. C. State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Mayor of Kannapolis
Mayor of Concord
Cabarrus County Commissioner
Centralina Council of Governments
B. Comments Received On The Environmental Assessment
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Comment: A review of information provided and available maps indicates that there may be
impacts to unnamed tributaries. Any discharge of excavated or fill material into these streams
and/or any adjacent or isolated wetlands that may be present will require Department of the Army
(DA) permit authorization. This authorization may include various Nationwide Permits,
depending upon the amount of jurisdictional waters of the U. S. and their associated wetlands to
be impacted, and the type of construction techniques to be employed.
Response: A permit will be required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into
"Waters of the United States." Section 404 Nationwide Permits 14 and 26 may be applicable on
the proposed project; however, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the
United States Army Corps of Engineers.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service believes other alternatives to the project
should have been considered. What about widening Centergrove Road or NC 136 (Concord
Lake Road), both of which connect to I-85?
4
Response: As noted on page 1 of the Environmental Assessment, the proposed project will
eliminate two sharp curves along existing SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road). Widening other roads in
the area would not address this safety issue. In addition, Earnhardt Road is the best alternative
for the proposed improvements because it provides the most direct access to I-85. There is no
interchange on I-85 for Concord Lake Road (NC 136); proximity to the US 601 interchange
would likely prevent construction of an interchange at this location. The traffic projections for the
proposed project are based on the approved thoroughfare plan for the area which includes the
widening of NC 136. Centergrove Road crosses Lake Concord. Widening Centergrove Road
would involve environmental issues associated with crossing Lake Concord. Currently, there is
no interchange at I-85 and Centergrove Road.
Comment: On Page 14 there is a summary of anticipated impacts to local streams -- "activities
in the streams often result in alterations of the water level due to interruptions or additions to
surface and/or groundwater flow. ; . the destruction of natural substrates often occurs during the
installation of culverts or pipes." Yet, the assessment never specifically presents what types of
impacts will occur to the unnamed tributaries located in the project area. Will there be any stream
relocations? Will there be a major installation of culverts or pipes? These types of impacts should
be spelled out.
4
Response: Presently, it is anticipated no stream relocations will be required for the proposed
project. As noted on page 6 of the Environmental Assessment, no major drainage structures will
be required for this project. The proposed realignment will cross three unnamed tributaries.
These minor crossings will require pipes be installed.
Comment: On Pages 18 and 19 there is information on two small wetland areas located within
the project. The Service encourages avoidance of these wetlands if at all possible. The Service
also recommends caution in using the Division of Environmental Management's wetlands rating
scale without sufficient explanation on its heavy emphasis on water quality functions (e. g., we
found this rating system would actually give an urban pond a higher score than a mountain bog!).
Finally, we concur with the statement that "ephemeral wetlands provide excellent habitat for
amphibian reproduction:"
Response: Both of these wetland impacts are estimated at less than 0.1 ha (0.1 ac). Due to
design constraints and due to the location of the two small wetlands complete avoidance is not a
practicable alternative; however, efforts to minimize impacts will be taken as described on page 20
of the Environmental Assessment. NCDOT recognizes that the DEM wetland rating scale is
heavily weighted in favor of water quality; however, it is only one of many factors considered in
evaluating wetlands.
Comment: We have reviewed our files, and our data indicate that no federally listed proposed
threatened or endangered species would be affected by the proposed action. In view of this we
believe the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under
Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if : (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
5
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
Response: Noted.
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Comment: A 401 Water Quality Certification may be denied if wetland and water impacts
have not been minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Response: As discussed in an earlier response and on page 20 of the Environmental
Assessment, due to design constraints and due to the location of the three unnamed tributaries and
the two small wetlands, complete avoidance is not a practicable alternative; however, efforts to
minimize impacts will be taken as described in the Environmental Assessment.
C. Public Hearing
Following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment, an open forum public hearing
was held in the Kannapolis City Council Chambers located at 314 South Main Street in
Kannapolis on November 14, 1996. Interested citizens were given the opportunity to review
preliminary designs of the project, talk to NCDOT engineers and right of way agents, and make
comments concerning the proposed improvements. Approximately 30+ persons attended the
public hearing. NCDOT addressed the concerns of all of those who commented on the proposed
improvements, either in person or by written letter following the public hearing. The following is
a list of comments received during and following the public hearing, along with NCDOT's
responses.
Comment: Will my property have driveway access to Centergrove Road?
Response: Driveway accesses will be determined during final design.
Comment: Can the proposed alignment be shifted to avoid residential property?
Response: Shifting the proposed improvements to avoid residences will be evaluated and
determined as final plans are completed.
Comment: What is the relocation process if ones property is taken and compensation for
damage to property value.
Response: Relocation agents were available to answer questions concerning relocation and
compensation for damage. Information concerning relocation programs is found in Appendix B
of the environmental assessment,
6
Comment: When are citizens notified that their property is within the project limits so that
they may voice opinions and/or concerns in the selection of alternatives?
Response: Citizens are given the opportunity to voice their opinions concerning proposed
highway projects at informational workshops and design public hearings. Workshops, though
very preliminary, allow citizens the opportunity to see early in the planning process whether their
property may be impacted by the project. The design public hearing provides a more detailed
design and impacts are more defined. In addition to the processes mentioned above, once citizens
are made aware of a proposed project, written comments or telephone calls are other avenues for
making comments.
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
SR 2154 (Little Texas Road) was not evaluated for signalization during planning studies;
however, it is recommended that Little Texas Road be signalized.
B. Corrections to the Environmental Assessment
Summary Section 2, Section I, and Section III-A: The length listed for the widening of
Earnhardt Road on existing and new location is incorrect. The project will widen existing
Earnhardt Road northward from I-85 for 0.3 km (0.18 miles) not for 0.5 km (0.3 miles) and
extend Earnhardt Road on new location for 1.4 km (0.87 miles) not for 1.8 km (1.1 miles). To
accommodate the extension of SR 2126 on new location, this project includes a realignment of
the at-grade intersection of SR 2114 (Centergrove Road) and NC 136 (Concord Lake Road)
which will require approximately 0.3 km (0.2 miles) of roadway on new location and not 0.8 km
(0.5 miles) as mentioned in the EA.
Summary Section 2, Section I and Section III-K: The total estimated cost was listed
as $5,229,000 in the EA. The correct,total estimated cost is $5,829,000.
Section III-J. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control: Eastway Avenue which
presently intersects Centergrove Road will be cul-de-saced as a part of the proposed
improvements. The traffic now using Eastway Avenue to access Centergrove Road will access
the proposed Earnhardt Road Extension via Little Texas Road.
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and coordination with appropriate federal, state, and
local agencies and with the public, it is the finding of the Federal Highway Administration and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation that the proposed action will have no significant
7
impact upon the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact
statement will not be required.
The following persons may be contacted for additional information regarding this proposal and
statement:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Suite 410, 310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Telephone [phone]
BG/plr
8
FIGURES

c
+rs?
rr
r, •
a
?t
A

ali

Ltutivu
?...?.. EXISTING HIGHT OF WAY
,?'
APPENDIX

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
nrrENTTIONOF October 1, 1996
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
OCT 1996
z
Div,"
This is in response,to your letter of August 5, 1996, requesting our comments on
the "Federal Environmental Assessment for Realignment and Widening of SR 2126
(Earnhardt Road) from NC 136 in Kannapolis to 1-85, Cabarrus County, F.A. Project
STP-2126(1), State Project #8.2662501, TIP Project U-2833" (Regulatory Branch
Action I.D. No. f'99604312).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. There are no
Corps projects which would be impacted by the proposed improvements. Enclosed are
our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Sh ord, Jr., E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
A-1
October 1, 1996
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for Realignment and Widening of SR 2126
(Earnhardt Road) from NC 136 in Kannapolis to 1-85, Cabarrus County, F.A. Project
STP-2126(1), State Project #8.2662501, TIP Project U-2833" (Regulatory Branch
Action I.D. No. 199604312)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional limits of the city of
Kannapolis, which participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. From a
review of Panels 39 and 40 of the November 1994 Cabarrus County, North Carolina
and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map, the roadway does not appear to be
in an identified flood haaard area. This is confirmed by a review of the pertinent United
States Geological Survey topographic map (Concord, NC). Even though the new
location would cross a small tributary, it does not appear to have sufficient drainage
area to cause flooding.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Steve Chapin, Asheville Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at (704) 271- 4014
. A review of the information provided and available maps indicates that there may
be impacts to unnamed tributaries. Any discharge of excavated or fill material into
these streams and/or any adjacent or isolated wetlands that may be present will require
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization. This authorization may include
various Nationwide Permits, depending upon the amount of jurisdictional waters of the
U.S. and their associated wetlands to be impacted, and the type of construction
techniques to be employed.
Any questions concerning Department of the Army permits should be directed to
Mr. Chapin.
A-2
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
August 23, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental -Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
e V,
F?
Q3?2a1946
S1C,N OF ?4r
?2 UN1G
? N??1 ?. ?5 ??•?
FNVIRc
Subject: Federal environmental assessment for the widening and realignment of SR 2126
(Earnhardt Road) from NC 136 in Kannapolis to I-85, Cabarrus County, North
Carolina, TIP No. U-2833
In your letter of August 5, 1996, you requested our review of the subject project. The following
comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the environmental assessment this project will involve the widening of existing
SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road) from I-85 for a distance of 0.7 mile and will then extend SR 2126 on
a new location to NC 136 for 1.1 miles. The project will also involve the realignment of the
intersection of SR 2114 (Centergrove Road) and NC 136, which will require construction on a
new location (0.5 mile). Wetland losses associated with the project are anticipated to be less than
1 acre. No major drainage structures will be required. The purpose of the project is to provide
improved traffic movement and safety between the I-85 interchange and NC 136.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) believes other alternatives to the project should
have been considered. What about widening Centergrove Road or NC 136 (Concord Lake
Road), both of which connect to I-85? We offer the following additional comments on the
environmental assessment.
o On Page 14 there is, a summary of anticipated impacts to local
streams--"activities in the streams often result in alterations of the water level
A-3
due to interruptions or additions to surface and/or groundwater flow ... the
destruction of natural substrates often occurs during the installation of culverts
or pipes." Yet, the assessment never specifically presents what types of
impacts will occur to the unnamed tributaries located in the project area. Will
there be any stream relocations? Will there be a major installation of culverts
or pipes? These types of impacts should be spelled out.
o On Pages 18 and 19 there is information on two small wetland areas located
within the project. The Service encourages avoidance of these wetlands if at
all possible. The Service also recommends caution in using the Division of
Environmental Management's wetland rating scale without sufficient
explanation on its heavy emphasis on water quality functions (e.g., we found
this rating system would actually give an urban pond a higher score than a
mountain bog!). Finally, we concur with the statement that "ephemeral
wetlands provide excellent habitat for amphibian reproduction."
o On Page 19 there is a summary of anticipated impacts to surface waters. As
noted above, what are the specific impacts? Culverts or relocation?
We have reviewed our files, and our data indicate that no federally listed or proposed threatened
or endangered species would be affected by the proposed action. In view of this we believe the
requirements of Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the
Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that
may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action
is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We appreciate the opportunity to. review this environmental assessment and request a copy of the
"finding of no significant impact" (FONSI). In any future correspondence concerning this
project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-96-118.
Sincerely, J. Allen Ratzlaff
Acting Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 320 S. Garden Street,
Marion, NC 28752
A-4
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGH010SE
DEPAR
TMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET -
FM2a3 Ft
09-19-96 RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603 8003
'?c
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED T0:
FROM. 1PROGRAN-1 CEVEL G? 1N U'r li
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
WHIT WEBB DIRECTOR
PROGRAM DEV. BRANCH N C'STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSPORTATION BLDG-/INTER-OFF
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENV. ASSESS. - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO EARNHARDT RD. (SR 2.126) IN
KANNAPOLIS FROM NC 136 TO I=85 TIP #U-2833
SAI NO 97E42200095 PROGRAM TITLE - ENV* ASSESS.
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSt PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C• REGION F

A-5
?TQTe OT ivorrn Larolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs A4 Ad
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ®? H N FZ
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee \K -
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 97-0095 EA Earnhardt Road Improvements, Cabarrus County
DATE: September 17, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The• attached comments are for the applicant's
consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
RECEIVED
SEP 18 1996
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE "

P.O. Box 27687, FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 NvfC An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
919-715-4148 50% recycled/ 100% post-consumer pccer
A-6
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ?l
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DEHNR
FROM
DATE
David Cox, 1.1ighway Project Coo c.>r
llabitat Conservation Program
August 30, 1996

SUBJECT; North Carolina Department of Transportatiun (NC DO'l) Environmental Assessment
(EA) for SR 2126 (Earnhardt Road) improvements, from NC 130 in kannapolis to 1-85,
Cabarrus County, North Caroling. TIP No. U-2833, S(.H Project. No. 97-0095.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject RA tnd
arc familiar -with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to assess project
impacts it.) fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions
of the National Fnvironmcni l Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the. Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen SR 2126 to a five-lade curb and gutter facility from I-85 approximately
0.7 miles and extend SR 2126 on new location to NC 136 a distance of 1.1 miles. Wetland and waters
impacts are associated with stream crossings and two small isolated wetlands and will likely be covered
under nationwide "404" perch its.
Thu l:A provides an adequate discussion of anticipated impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
project area. Due to the disturbed nature of the project area, we feel that impacts to natural resources
will be minimal.
We will concur with the EA for this project and anticipate our concurrence with the Finding of No
Significant lrilpact (FONSI). NCDOT should continue efforts to minirmzc impacts and should employ.
NCDOT Rest. Management Practices to protect off-site resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. If we can be of any further assistance please
call me at [phone].
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
A-7
Project located In 7th floor library
OfficQ'af Leg,isla.tiye;'and fntergovernmenta! Affairs
IProilectReview Form " .
Project Num' ber. County'`. Oates Date Response Due (firm deadline);
7 a V.? L_
"
!71
ZZ/
V' A
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: '
I !?
Reaional bf-ti.cefPhone R:egibnaf Office' Area
use Review
In-14o
C Asneviile C.,AIIt R10. Areas C Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries

f ayeitevitte
O Air .
`? C coastal Management I ? Water:Plartnin W .11
9
?.
.

ePooresv.irle
C?1TWater:. ,
[I Water. Resources j ' ? Environmental Health
Groyndwater Wildlife ?; -]Solid Waste Management
?:Rateigh tand Quality Engineer ,Forest Resources ti . D Radiation Protection
i

Wasningtoii [)Aec`reational Consultant C Land Resources [ Oavid.Fos:er
l .

? Wij
a
i CCoastal Management, Consultant
j Parks and Recreation JGther.(spec'fy)
ng
on
m COthers environmental Management
Winston-Salem pyvg
. Monica swihart
I.

Manager SiSn'OfflR.eg:iori, Date: In-Ho-jse Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check 411 dpplicaole) F j
Rerforial Office: response to to corrpiled. and completec by Regionai Manager. In-House Reviewer;comp,ete individual response.
1. No oCjection to p'oj'?Ct as prop 0see Not recommended.for further development toe reason,
i stated ir, attached. comments (BUtROrity(ies) cite
c)
LD 'No Comment i `Applicant has been contacted
C insufficient i.ntormaticn to complete review C Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attacnec)
EJ Approve
Permit(s) needed (permit tires nave! been checked)
C Recommended for further development with recommendatioris for
strengthening (comments attached)
Consistency StateHnent needed (comments attached)
Consistenoy Slatsrnent not needed .•
Full EIS must be rdquired under the provis;ons.of
NEPA and SEPA `, •
C Recommended for further development if specific & substantive tither (specify and lattach ommen!g)
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments ! G
attachedlaut.horlty(ies) Cited)d vje"C?c L.
RETURN T0: n/ lti?L[ G- .?° -
Melba McGee
office of Legislative and Inter vernmental A!falrs
's'to. A-8
PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. uue uate:
INTERGOVE:?NMENTAL REVIEW C91- ,0 I
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law. __ .?_ .s.,e._s ......e ......,
Ouestions regarding these permits snouto oe aauressau .v -- -W,,.,•°• -- • -- •••_.__._- _..
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office.
Normal Process
Time

PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
tion or award of
i
t 30 days
? Permit to construct b operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer system extensions. b sewer
systems not discharging into state surface waters. ruc
n cons
Application 90 days before beg
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
technical conference usual
(90 days)

LJ NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters. Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection.
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES 90.120 days

(NIA)
permit-whichever is later.

30 da
s
y
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(N/A)
7 da
s
? Well Construction Permit Complete pplication must be received and permit issued
prior to thae installation of a well. y
(15 days)

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

(90 days)
60 days
? Permit to construct b operate Air Pollution Abat6ment
facilities ar.dfor Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 N/A (90 days)

Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.

? Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
NCAC 2D 0525 which requires notification and removal
prior to demolition Contact Asbestos Control Grov-.
NIA 60 days

90 days)
919.733-0820
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
ntano
b
sedime
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity An erosion
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 beoinnino activity A fee of S30 for the first acre and S20 00 for each adoitional acre or cart must accompany the plan 20 days
l3C davsi
s)
30 da
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance. y
(

?
Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area
mined greater than one acre must be permited The appropriate bond
must be received before the permit can be issued
30 days
(60 days)
1 day

El North Carolina Burning permit
On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit
exceeds 4 days
(N/A)

El
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils
On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "i1 more
than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned day
)NIA)

90.120 days

?? Oil Refining Facilities NIA
(NIA)
w

?

Dam Safety Permit If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. Qualified engineer to: prepare plans.
Inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv.
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces•
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of SM.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percent !2e or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
30 days

(60 clays)
V9 tp
Continued on reverse
A-9
I Normal Process
• !` ,
?

C

?(st
orv time
atytor,v
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS It
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall,: upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
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 or, structure size is charged. Must (4clude 15.20 days
descriptions 5 drawings of structure b proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. 11 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 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if -orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Sformwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary. being certain to cite comment authority).

r^I_,4?
•"
- Al. 1. OPC?.s 6:,vr-?tw ?F l./-r*LO c.l_G-4?ir-c, r-?-gz?7 sH-9't,? 6? rror.:G- ii..t 4cc.orz.i?r}?c?
-??Q ,? ZC.'E?co.

REGIONAL OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
- nal Office
? Asheville Re ? Fayetteville Regional Office
g
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
(704) 2514208 - [phone]
Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
101
i
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 te
3800 Barrett Drive, Su
Mooresville. NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone] A-10
..
w
4
Department of Environment, Health, and Nattjra: 'e--.ounces
,-" •^ ?
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Project located in 7th floor library
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
7?v? s Z
CDT/?- ?(z ?! z ( ?LLw, /•??
r/
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ill
? F
tt Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning I
ev
aye
e

Mooresville Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
Groundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh (Land Quality Engineer aForest Resources ?Radiation Protection

El Washington
Recreational Consultant
?
? Land Resources ? David Foster

? Coastal Management Consultant i
Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington
? Others
Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
I
i
i
i
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
I
Response (check all applicable)
I Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager. In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
I_1 No objection to project as proposed ? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? No Comment P1,50 ? Applicant has been contacted
? Insufficient information to complete review ? Applicant has not been contacted
Sip " q 1996
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Approve ? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked) ? Consistency Statement not needed
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for ? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
strengthening (comments attached) NEPA and SEPA
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive .Other (specify and a]ttach -comments) j
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments qz0I ? hL C O v,,e fl lh cf
attached/authority(ies) cited) 171
RETURN TO: &X4? Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Inter rei'Vernmental Affairs
PS-104

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE'
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
nnT
IV1?. ?r??? L?a?ark4 F. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
?M
FROM:
AC ION REF O:.OR ROOM, BLDG.
?.NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
?TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ?.. INVESTIGATE AND. REPORT
COMMENTS:

.;
R

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF. HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
January 5, 1995
RECEIVED
JAN 131995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
BRA NCH
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Kannapolis, SR 2126
(Earnhardt Road) from NC 136 (Centergrove Road) to
I-85, Cabarrus County, State Project No. 8.2662501,
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-2126(1), TIP No. U-2833
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for February 15, 1995 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of
If there are any questions about the meeting or the
call Ted Devens, P. E., Project Planning Engineer,
TD/plr 03a"?l i.
Attachment w UJS
our planning process.
scoping sheets, please
at 733-7842.
13 /7- 9 - ?4-i- (Z)
Ad
?101
. k
' ? J .. + r
r ? C
y
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date: January 3, 1995 Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # U-2833
Lro;ject #::8..2662501
F.A. Project # STP - 2126(1)
Division 10-
Cabarrus County
Route SR 2126 (Earnhardt Rd.)
Functional Classification: Rural Local Collector
Length 1.4 miles
Purpose of.Project: Improve access from I-85 to Kannapolis and relieve
traffic between Concord and Kannapolis, by-straightening/realigning SR
2126 (Earnhardt Rd.) and the NC 136 intersection.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements
of work: Realignment of SR 2126 from INC 136 (Centergrove Rd.) to I-85:
Type of environmental document to be prepared: Federal EA/FONSI
Environmental Study Schedule: EA June, 1996
FONSI May, 1997
Type of funding: Federal
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No -X-
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or 'M
How and when will this be.paid?
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
K
U-2833
Existing Facility: 2-Lane
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None _X_
Number of: Interchanges 1 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 0.
Typical Section of Roadway: Multi-lane Curb and Gutter or shoulder
Traffic Projections:
Construction Year (2000) 2,000 vpd Design Year (2020) 16,000 vpd
% TTST _0_ % DUAL % DHV
Design Speed: 50 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,210,000
(including engineering and contingencies)
Right of Way Cost . . . . . . $ 3,000,000*
(including rel., utii., and acquisition)
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $ 200,000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,410,000
*TIP Right-of-Way Cost
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . $ 3,100,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,000,000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,100,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
U-2833
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could
affect cost or schedule of project:
Project may, require removal/relocation of a cemetery.
Construction: COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement:
X Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 810,000
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders:
Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 370,000
Subsurface Items . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Subgrade and Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 205.000
X Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . . . . . $ 425,000
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x $
New Bridge x . . . $
Widen Bridge x . . . $
Remove Bridge x . . . $
New Culvert: Size Length $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. ft $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures . . . . . . . . $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 160,000
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . . . . . . . $
X Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 25 , 000
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 35,000
Signing:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Signals:
X New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 120 , 000
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RR Signals:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms . . . . . $
If 3R:
Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . . . . . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . . . . . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade . . . . . . . $
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
U-2833
X Pavement Markings:
Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Thermo and markers . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 55,000
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Other
X clearing and grubbing. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 560,000
X Mobilization and miscellaneous . . . . . . $ 25,000
Contract Cost: $ 2,790 3000
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 420,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 200,000
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: $ 3,410,000
Right of Way:
Existing Right of Way Width: 60'
Will Exist Right of Way contain Improvements?
Yes No
New Right of Way Needed: Width 100-120' . . ... . . $
Easements: Type Width . . . . . . . $
Utilities: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RIGHT OF WAY Subtotal: $ 3,000,000*
* TIP Estimate
Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 6,410,000
Other Comments:
I am unsure if a multi-lane section is absolutely needed for this
project. The multi-lane recommendation from the 1993 feasibility study
was based on a preliminary 2013 traffic projection of 24,800 vehicles
per day. However, recent traffic projections received from Statewide
Planning show a 16,000 ADT on Earnhardt Road for the design year of
2020. This volume could be handled by' an good two-lane highway that
has additional auxiliary lanes at the proposed, relocated intersection
with NC 136. From year 2000 to 2020, traffic would predominantly
operate in a LOS C to LOS ,D range. The last 3 or 4 years of the design
period may reach LOS E.
Please come to the scoping meeting prepared to discuss the need
for a multi-lane vs. a two-lane section.

U-2833
The above scoping information has been reviewed and approved by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
.Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precon
Chief Engineer-Oper.
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Others
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for
handling.
If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your
proposed revisions in below and initial and date after comments.

Prepared By: Ted Devens. P.E. Date: January 3. 19,95
JIMMY C LN• e W a
a IP',W4 f N _ '? = W. 91h, a x ST 5T. ow o ^ a a ljOq AV c c LO ELKHOA z'
S. CV W MARTy , O z TAAI ER PARK
" ?, -?STC?' 1 Z?. F `?s W. TIh ,( ? E+? 0?! a O Ie W a Iith A ?
AIIiEYCm _51. e m? Way a STZ z
Q S w a E. eti z e? ' e o 5
3 coo 8FU _ ST ASTON- a PK , PST SL a?lOfha u r° ca > OR R o c?
w T ,, ? o ? OF g ?• m ? ST MO
Y W r p S1 ,? 3 O CR AV C j p?. Q BROOKD yAWTy J > Q t
?. H1Ns0 v c 2 AAN Fj p??? µURC _ MpoL`?CKA? IS ALE ORNf o FRq z . , c
o Si 4 p?• S`? Q? ??? C tlOE?t . 6th _ Upjr hT? S? r WOODIA WN Q sL C S > T
v? I UNf ST Y a' T p0O sr A?. QI E APLE a pV . POPLpp . ST SI m y J4OKS ON = 5Tc ,? SOR q u n 1 a GLENW o
ti c ECH 0 z a M4Y WOQp ?' LP ?? ! k y SR = z W0001AWN G??
r. Ny n S, C-? Aps POP 1 ??? F !F ?a a c Q-- ° P RK LE z`
NQRTNSIDE 2 W pq
A $T.
a ,? n T, j t t wQ' ,? Stys RO R g o y EN ? Q? ? n < mQ KATHE RIND 5i W Zf a S t`' J. ANTE Si o - LIS Dk. SC • a 9 "'
r WiE5 Sr c, S T. x ? HOI{E ST.
DUE
R a ° wv k J'. Np? NONMILLSj6wkl .o Q ?, e y c A DR._ SI ENGLEWO z W
?v4 'a f 5• WpLN UT- ST oo ? R ?? e >\ ?o 'IELEN ? c - m ? o > ?: _ OD
m E t f ST ( W kCE ' Z d? ST
?n a e N I Al' r a a --?•
o KIV DON 1PER ° ST ???v ?oQ 5 D? µtP S ?' ?' f ?p ptb o . S IOLWOO l,m A v y "
v $ ? S• n ? ? ? ?' f P? ISB 1 ???, ? O O f Zo ST. yILLC BR d ST•1. ? hQ ? W ????
y PINE y v $T AV sr Y DLIS?u AV. 4Nrf Q? " ?' ST. .. c
~ ?? ` NBZ,. ?y tG S F?q td. ADI TUT TLEW OD £ Yct v aCLAY.z 3 FCOR CLA
81 h W
JA a u Q, eNC, YST
UAI
r Cq ' ST3 BtR LH ST a rn o55 B P.o Q' ti? N Sl < Ep GEWp 0 15 Q COB e° y JOE a w 5T. x . >' EDIygR
e a i ABE ):T Q JEIJNI p ?W a D
W A- ?Q a I
t ;_4s IL F WILLO a> ?? 1 W S yAV x 1 r W ST u c
ON ST. o T LER Vp?O °•, i AN Q HI, a . ??I SSt.
DR. z° ¢ EB ?1.. DEBBI c?' DON 8R NIr o , o r? w
MILL RS R R ST. NA r 81ES f r Q ?o
c RF0 s ?• y p? . l P P of + Ns SIf W yEl ?, C R. s ' r I `` o J Q v Q
l Q Q O `? st o Ei a
Z OR. Si\. N 9( ? S1>? ? F KAL ? C LIA DO ? q D ? ?p rl h qN?j - W ti W
N 841LEY ?p oe? NNO NNAPA
> P?.?• O??p CITY S T ?3 ° sEfyy ° sH P RD a y tst Q AOUEEN
z a p?? t, ,P G uP e `? O`? Q S. 0 Lq ST. YLER (E GAT
-k- s T Al. CHiP
= e 5 0? p?. ? o e F ., e e? ACA V R ?? ? sr, n - r..
' 1p ?? ?C, r P?? ??H a• W o v Sl ?, p ,, ?O a? ?' C f?dEOL 9,a? F, j S T' c KI 5J Rq
ENOq
A tK ?OV PN PJ. C " rr F „ ??T P F?? pJ' P? V FJ ~ 3 ?9 t^ JAMGST I J? 4J
r 9j R P .00 BPS SE Sr y' Sj c .S 5? < F?9F09FF G Po ?~ >COJ fgJ S?A RD,DR
N sl `E
Os? StpV, p, P S? S ROJ ROfROSR A rFh.CS \? ?eP,' 3 ??Oy p9G >IEpLE10
LO v? C? v ? ?0 C E ?s ? `` ? t+t E z ST 0? ?p?' ?? yGG A50 <?N? D? '
srust Q '? p ?`? p? P f s? P yPR
° m ??, s1,?y ?0? 8F •? " ? 5P St. v •a0 ?p? ?? ?a Spy ?ti ly2p, S r EL o 1R_ \ 3
AGE eo ?P RD. s2 ( ? ??,coL? ? ?S o Nq? SMRH? sI cARARAU??s 0p a I51 1 E sr
C a Q 0, o_ ``J' CAOLLPG ?Snr??? Sl Q•1?5?• pa SHOPSOQO ?q p D
F J c E ?`? o FAIR ! Mc S
'° <T. >
4 ? ? "' GQA 0?? ? RQ P; ? PINfV1E ? 9 9? C?5' ?P ?5 S} 6V1 r^? r'DRz m ?
$ S ppy Qom. ?0 4 y? 9? ?5 ??0 5T. L<' G?^ ?y? qr a ti eh oq Nrgp! ,
fV ; _ SrS? CAP ??? Y FO 9 9p s S? N -Wet,
F o` S? SWE pV. y ?. _
u CHERRYW 9 c ?' 0? 2 ST. p U L x 0E R f RR P GUM ?. Fo o W 3 a..
TBE J?0 m Q0.
r' P M 9s .00 5? R1 t5 55. apEL 5T 0 01K??
S . 0 z OST ST Y co
\ i y Na t. CH to v
?NWO PIA B V 0 5
N v Os a0 w
°pCRE CIR. W OD 'a ER A NCE SX '??0?0 p H YRE ?? CONCOR LAKE oe
0 ? 4LIf a AlK p z PR l F pE ?e ? W x.
c ?0 I o o e NNW R a AV W P55 ANN p o c alp w1 L ?\ o ST. ?+I DEIANE g
DAYBRO?? o ° 000 ° v 04 g5.? c^ m n
o\ 3 I sy MgP(fW AVo
oMt1r ?9 WILLIA ST ST' COOK oo ?n n ROT BEGIN IwoDD.;z .
w 1 nA. 4j` ApP ° w ON 9? E n? SS m D
RE =RD. z o V DD AV W ID y9?FWAS RuSSBLL A NN S5. z SEAR PROJECT S iE k
w 2123 e
Y ° z SPRU o f ?? ?' lA E 1. ° E S ?m o p c .,
B . T IU.A`9 t ? ,
z CfwO p, e Q R S ?Nt V 8 y S5. NEt ??- L
w <rn n OD $ DA E Rp w n 6? ?" d ;v
m ,? AV. 3 a 3 W s ?pG E y$ ! n COAL ? S. P ? 9G n n 1 . _
o 4ERS IAKE g a'?'a R ? W UNIVE RSA>, no ??s • I'-, tr SST FO S BIZOD
HAOYKI BR zao D S N p00 K RTSHOP, ' (1i St s. / L N
081N 3 E O IgRO Zr TR. a ` C? O
o HODDLN StrN ST' DELC Q CE BROOK \' ?P r ? n9?r °ve y0
o a 3 0 c ST. ST. LANDMARK OQ 5 5 v ??? 9y' ?' CI
m o .ti
m ti FRl LITTLE N Oa DR LAND 3 c ao OCR Y JCY TQGEA W p ° TR CRETD Y AV. E DLEMq d MAY R J W S?EFP 94 E D V1
°R SST 0 0p DR' Z CDB Z ° H R N °R n INDIMA ST. ppl ST PR JECT
m o° z m e,P 9 SUMNER • ARE
ST
QN1GN b. o? o 0 0 . prk 00 Kq? RSb ND y ` c HOLLAND
. ` a ,B?N°°p'.
x
Lp h N ° z o 0 N ° AV. I < AV. T c > ST. F9?y 1w B9 a > 85
vw - o W a y y 0
pO
13
r Rp5 0 o? zLp RRY
o q (\? ??h
°n
rn fT R° n CODE mSL OR n ?? ??T
71
rt '?
m' c? Q? 5t. p A K 'T o < ST.' a 60?°0 J A v
O ° r- a
ET " D a ANNAPOLY o D a CA IFORNIA ST. z °r ti5 .Q
a c NITAR < ROYAL a o yt4 0 LLJ
Q l DIST. A OAKS TEN NE S E Eo ??0 5t
RCLE BRIAR If T SCH.
R. 9 pRN HONES• DS,o ALA M" ?Q '`?
COVENTRY
R0. 1LE ST. T %AS ` S . g AKS J ?
i. a SZ. S • 4 ?•'I
° W BRIARCLIff o,KwW Rrr LI '~ AN SL
CD ° EF ST MI H G 136
0 2 Z ,.SO11 A?WQO? ?oLE ; •/'?
c:> w
3 z z a9 PA OR SMALI ST KEN T C KY 5 T. o APS a
x 3 941i s
G ?f 1E? TON ST. !? <' I L`5 a I r•
UN
1
Kaooapolis Imenhe
19 ? r
? 12
13 * ocord+ -
'file
7 I Mount
e 29 ? 49 5
ZA 4 R. U S

m NOIt1'H CAROLINA DI-' 11AWMENTOF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PI,ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
1111ANCH
F?,LIGIeU CF St 2126 MMAMT ID.)
FRM IV~ 336 (CIISUEFISFOIE RD.) 7D I-85
CAS CaRff
U-2833
A
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, AT:R;TA
Health and Natural Resources •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
? E H N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 27, 1995
NMQORANDIIM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica `Swihart'; Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0833; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to Earnhardt Road, Kannapolis,
TIP No. U-2833
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A.. Identify the.streams'potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and conf:rol measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands. .
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted,.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers, requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] lAY, 919-733-2496
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumor paper
Melba McGee
June 27, 1995
Page 2 .
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a.401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2:. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10961.mem
cc: Eric Galamb