19970975 Ver 1_Complete File_19971110

f ,
??-
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James & Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan BL Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A 4
ED EHNR
April 25, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Cyndi Belly/
FAXED
APR J G 1997
Subject: Addendum to Finding of No Significant Impact for Rea Road
Extension (SR 3624) from Southern Charlotte Outer Loop to NC 16
Mecklenburg County
State Project DOT No. 9.8100352, T.I.P. No. U-2506; EHNR # 97-0667
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. DWQ previously commented on this project in correspondence dated
August 1, 1994. NCDOT has since changed the project alignment in the vicinity
of the proposed Rea Road/Marvin Weddington Road intersection. This design
change will eliminate the need for a new crossing of McBride's Branch. This
alignment shift will reduce impacts to water quality, compared to the design
previously proposed, and is therefore preferred by DWQ.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Addendum to 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
Byron Brady, P.E., NCDOT, P&E
Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ
U2506FON.DOC
Environmental Sciences Branch • 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycLKV101/6 post consumer paper
I--
State of North Carolina 'FRMA,
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
E H N F=1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
_
Jhrt
Monica Swxtension from Charlotte Outer Loop to NC 16
Subject: EA for Rea Road E
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
State Project DOT No. 9.8100352, TIP #U-2506
EHNR # 95-0007, DEM # 10673
From: Eric Galamb 9
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetland.
The subject project may impact 1.8 acres of waters including wetland.
DOT apparently has made no attempt to avoid the 4 wetland locations. There were 4
alternative alignments at the southern terminus but only one build alternative north of
the 4 altematives. In accordance with Section 404 (b)(1), DOT must avoid wetland to
the maximum extent practicable. This is especially important since the COE warned
DOT of the high quality forested wetlands within the project area adjacent to Lower
Flat Branch and Six Mile Creek. DEM suggests that DOT investigate extending Reid
Dairy Road to Blakeney Heath Road (see attachment) in order to minimize stream
crossings and wetlands and shorten the road. The wetland impacts for these new
alignments should be discussed.
One wetland is located below headwaters and therefore will probably require an
Individual Certification. DOT will probably be required to mitigate for all wetland
impacts for this project. The COE will probably determine that this road has no
useable segment since the project begins in the "middle of no-where" instead of an
interchange location.
DOT did not identify the access control for this project. DEM recommends that there
be full access control to minimize the impacts to the high quality wetlands associated
with Lower Flat Branch and Six Mile Creek.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Planning Branch.
rearoad.ea
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer %% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
'A?r>tirlrreta >tlrrYr rrrr?rr>wrr<rrrrrrr¦rrrrrr?
!yam
lyycc '.
BEGIN PROJECT
?a1?1 GOFD
ST. MATTHEW
CATHOLIC CHURCH
v
4
.9!!S ?NFY .• ,
9090 :? o
PROPOSED EAST-WEST CIRCUMF
u?
ro
-^?t ROAD WES
?????????? 11111p3ED
Cady Lake !-
o?
?r
11
11
• ?1
11
?.M..`111
0
0
a
a I
o A?
Gte os?
OJ??? S?XRiJe •`.
0-
CI
2
?. \\ , ..
.:. o
?edc? F9 909
0
FOXWC)nn
END

' Rea 'Road Extension (SR 3.624)
Southern Outer Loop to NC 16
' Mecklenburg and Union Counties'
State Project No. 9.8100352
TIP No. U-2506
1
ADMUMTRATWE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
in compliance with the North. Carolina Environmental Policy Act r
For further information contact: "
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
Of, A40
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch
' North Carolina Department of Transportation
f

Rea Road Extension (SR 3624)
Southern Outer Loop to NC 16
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
State Project No. 9.8100352
TIP No. U-2506
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
A

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act

For further information contact:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
Date
11
Z. )Q o
H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation

1

Rea Road Extension
Southern Outer Loop to NC 16
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
State Project No. 9.8100352
TIP No. U-2506
11

r
r
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation Prepared By:
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
III/ nr It #,,,`
-ARO
?AL
8435
aurence J. e' ner P.E. AICP %
Environmenta Study Manager .,? ,?c? •••••• ??,
Ot JAI

For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
i

. A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Unit ad
Consulting Engineering Unit
!e -L:64 -
yr Brady, P.E.
Proj ct Manager

1.

4.

SUMMARY
TYPE OF ACTION
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Administrative Action,
Environmental Assessment.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following person can be contacted for additional information concerning this action:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
Permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are anticipated to be required under the
provisions of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management will be required.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA
The project area is located south of the city of Charlotte in Mecklenburg and Union
Counties. The northern terminus is the proposed Providence Road West relocation
(approximately 1500 feet north of existing Providence Road West) and the southern
terminus is Providence Road (NC 16) at Weddington Road (SR 1316). Most of the study
area is zoned residential and consists of subdivisions and single-family dwellings.
The project area contains several significant environmental features including Sixmile
Creek, Flat Branch, McBride Branch, and Cady Lake. Also included in the project area
are the Saint Matthew Catholic Church, Wesley Chapel, and Jonesville Zion Church.
S-1

1

6.

PROPOSED PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to build a roadway
from the proposed Providence Road West relocation to NC 16 in southern Mecklenburg
and northern Union Counties. The proposed project is referred to as the Rea Road
Extension. The extension will be constructed as a four-lane roadway, primarily on new
location. The length of the project is approximately 5.5 miles. The proposed project is
designated U-2506 and is included in the 1994-2000 NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program for right-of-way acquisition in Fiscal Year 1995 and construction in Fiscal Year
1997. NCDOT estimates the cost of the project at $11.9 million, including $1.6 million
for right-of-way and $10.3 million for construction.
SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Construction of the proposed project will help meet traffic needs and fulfill the goals of
the 1988 Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. Rea Road is
designated as a major thoroughfare between the proposed Charlotte Outer Loop and the
Union County line.
Construction of the proposed project will also help meet the traffic needs of Union
County. Union County does not have an adopted thoroughfare plan, however, the
Recommended Thoroughfare Plan for Union County includes the Rea Road Extension on
approximately the same alignment as that being proposed for this project. It is designated
as a proposed major urban thoroughfare between the Mecklenburg County line and
NC 16.
Adverse environmental impacts from the proposed project include the following: four
stream crossings (two of McBride Branch, one of Sixmile Creek, and one of the unnamed
tributary to Flat Branch), potential impacts to approximately 37.9 acres of forested habitat,
and potential impacts to wetlands in four areas (totalling approximately 1.8 acres). In
addition, two populations of the federally endangered species Schweinitz's sunflower
potentially will be impacted by the proposed project. Under federal law, any action which
has the potential to result in a negative impact to federally protected plants or animals is
S-2

subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Coordination with the
USFWS will be maintained regarding the potential impacts to this species.
Adverse social impacts from the proposed project include the division of the Raeburn
subdivision, however, the proposed roadway was included in the original subdivision plan
and a corridor has been preserved. Several other existing and proposed developments will
also be impacted by their relative proximity to the proposed project. No residences or
businesses will be relocated by the roadway.
7. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The typical section being considered is a four-lane divided facility with a 22-foot raised
median on a 100-foot right-of-way. This typical section is required based on projected
traffic volumes. Several alignment alternatives were investigated in the southern portion
of the project. The selected alternative minimized wetland impacts, endangered species
impacts, and project cost. Other alternatives considered and found not viable were the no-
I build alternative and postponement of the proposed project.

S-3
r

1

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary S-1
1. Need for the Proposed Project 1
A. General Description 1
B. Project Status 1
C. Characteristics of Existing Facility 2
1. Typical Section Description 2
2. Right-of-Way 2
3. Speed Limit 2
4. Access Control 2
5. Degree of Roadside Development 2
6. Intersection Treatment 2
7. Railroad Crossings 3
8. Drainage Structures 3
9. Utilities 3
D. Accident Analysis 4
E. Traffic Volumes and Level-of-Service 5
F. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community 6
II. Description of the Proposed Project 7
A. General Description 7
B. Summary of the Proposed Project 7
1. Typical Section Description 7
2. Right-of-Way 7
3. Bikeways/Sidewalks 7
4. Proposed Design Speed 7
5. Access Control 8
6. Intersection Treatment 8
7. Drainage Structures 8
8. Permits Required 8
9. Cost Estimates 9
III. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 10
A. No Build Alternative 10
B. Postponement of the. Proposed Project 10
C. Alternatives Considered but Rejected 10
IV. Social, Economic, and Environmental Impacts 14
A. Social Impact 14
1. Land Use 14
2. Neighborhood Impacts 14
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses 15
4. Public Facilities and Services 15

m
i
i
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
B. Economic Impact 15
C. Cultural Resources 16
1. Historic Architectural Resources 16
2. Archaeological Resources 17
D. Environmental Impact 17
1. Vegetation and Wildlife 17
2. Protected Species 22
3. Wetlands 26
4. Water Quality 29
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation 31
6. Soils 32
7. Farmlands 34
8. Traffic Noise Analysis 34
9. Air Quality 40
10. Geology 47
11. Mineral Resources 47
12. Potential Hazardous Material Sites 48
13. Visual Impacts 49
14. Construction Impacts 49
15. Secondary Impacts 51
16. Permits Required 51
17. Geodetic Markers 52
V. Public Involvement 53
VI. Comments and Coordination 54
APPENDIX
ii
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Following Page
Figure 1 Project Location Map 1
Figure 2 Proposed Alignment 1
Figure 3 Thoroughfare Plans in Study Area 1
Figure 4 Projected 1996 and 2016 Average Daily Traffic 5
Figure 5 Typical Section 7
Figure 6 Protected Species, Wetlands, and Floodplains 24
Figure 7 Noise Monitoring Locations 38
Figures 8A-F Proposed Right-of-Way 54
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Accident Rate Comparison 4
Table 2 Level-of-Service Summary 6
Table 3 Preliminary Alternatives Comparison 11
Table 4 Distribution of Impacts to Vegetative Communities 20
Table 5 Wetland Impact Areas 28
Table 6 Soil Summary 33
Table 7 Typical Sound Levels 36
Table 8 Noise Abatement Criteria 37
Table 9 Summary of Existing Noise Levels 38
Table 10 Traffic Noise Contours 39
Table 11 Summary of National Ambient Air Quality Standards 42
Table 12 Summary of Air Quality Impacts 46
iii

1 I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
t A. General Description
This report presents the results of a study of the proposed construction of the Rea Road
Extension (see Figures 1 and 2). Rea Road Extension is proposed to be constructed as
a four-lane divided roadway, primarily on new location. The study area begins at the
proposed Providence Road West Relocation (approximately 1500 feet north of existing
Providence Road West) and ends at the intersection of Providence Road (NC 16) and
Weddington Road (SR 1316), a distance of approximately 5.5 miles.
I The Rea Road Extension is classified as a major thoroughfare in the 1988 Charlotte-
Mecklenburg County Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, shown in Figure 3. The
Recommended Thoroughfare Plan for Union County (also shown in Figure 3) includes
a proposed major urban thoroughfare on approximately the same alignment as the Rea
Road Extension. The proposed alignment varies from that shown on the thoroughfare
plan in order to minimize the impact on residences south of Weddington Road.
The project is needed to serve projected traffic volumes and to provide access. The traffic
will be primarily north-south oriented, between existing and planned residential
communities and the Charlotte Outer Loop interchange currently under construction at Rea
Road. The planned and partially completed subdivisions along the alignment have been
developed in anticipation of this project. The projected traffic volumes of over 20,000
vehicles per day on Rea Road cannot be accommodated without this facility. Rea Road
provides an important link between rapidly urbanizing portions of northern Union and
southern Mecklenburg counties and the Charlotte Outer Loop.
B. Project Status
The project is listed in the 1994-2000 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) as U-2506. The TIP shows right-of-way acquisition beginning in Fiscal Year 1995
and construction beginning in Fiscal Year 1997.
11

r
' REA ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT LOCATION MAP Figure
U-2506 1

0

I

H
Reeeeeel??eeee?itu?eeeeeelee?elllleel
BEGIN PROJECT ---?? ILO
ST. MATTHEW -?
CATHOLIC CHURCH
v
N?rh
9O? Fq? ^
PROPOSED EAS,T-WEST CIRCUP
¦r¦ ¦rrrrrr¦¦rrrr¦
a
0
a
}
o `
a
0
3

U'
C•
4

a
9
0
m
m
9
0
0
0
9
ew
Gee
F,`6
.? SN
0
?1 ?• O
G
r??n•••••• e?
EO???aPG
• C1013 POI
y 130011
PE y
SCyOOL
\\\ 9O9° WESLEY CHAPEL
C. ;,,2, ; ,• 2
u? ?, ?, Bray
1
/ yaida
Lake
FOXWOOD
END PROJECT
LOOP
--??+°??e ? 1 111111111111
Cady Lake
REA ROAD EXTENSION
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
U-2506
LEGEND
® SUBDIVISIONS
1, ?.I-- OTHER ALTERNATIVES
STUDIED
rrrrrl
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT

1000 0 1000 2000
Scale Feet
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT
FIGURE 2
t
MECKLENBURG CO. LEGEND
LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED'
FREEWAY-EXPRESSWAY W M M
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
MINOR THOROUGHFARE --- -
INTERCHANGE
GRADE SEPARATION 0
UNION CID, LEGEND

s
HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION EXISTING PROPOSED
PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS
INTERSTATE -
OTHERS
MINOR ARTERIALS n¦ImIwImI ¦u Imu ICI
MAJOR COLLECTORS illlllllllilllllllllll 1111111 IIIIIIIII 111111
MINOR COLLECTORS •???-???. ??? ??? ??.
MAJOR URBAN
THOROUGHFARE
URBBAN FREEWAY
OR EXPRESSWAY „„„„?„ •,?, ;,?,? „?
URBAN THOROUGHFARE
PLANNING BOUNDARY
1.3
/312 131
1313
1479

1110
J

10
f

N ED[
IDIAL

10
- -41
?? <.... 8
:.. < A
. ?O 3 rz:
.0 - X4
"
4
f...
? s
WEDDIN
1 ,
pQ`p,, y 4
:
Jim a%SIM 1983)
,
.
6
2516 .3 X12 1309 i`w
1316
1315 .Q .? 8
SI Marvin 1315 ;
1307
1992 RECOMMENDED THOROUGHFARE PLAN UNION COUNTY
REA ROAD -EXTENSION
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
U-2506

2000 0 2000 .4000
SCALE FEET
-THOROUGHFARE-PLANS
IN STUDY AREA
L FIGURE 3
1988 CHARLOTTE MECKLEMR"RG THnRn11G114FOR1r P11 AM

I C. Characteristics of Existing Facility
1. Typical Section Description
Existing Rea Road ends just north of the Charlotte Outer Loop (currently under
' construction), approximately 0.6 mile north of the northern terminus of this
project. It is a four-lane divided roadway. The portion between Rea Road's
current southern terminus and the northern terminus of this project (including an
.a interchange with the Outer Loop) is to be built as a four-lane divided roadway.
Weddington Road is a two-lane roadway with grass shoulders. The pavement is
typically 18 to 20 feet wide.
2. Right-of-Way
The right-of-way width on existing Rea Road is 100 feet. The right-of-way width
on Weddmgton Road is 60 feet.
3. Seed Limit
The existing speed limit on Rea Road north of the Outer Loop is 45 miles per
hour. The existing speed limit on Weddington Road is 55 miles per hour.
4. Access Control
Existing Rea Road has partial access control. Weddington Road has no control
of access.
5. Degree of Roadside Development
Development along Weddington Road consists of subdivision entrances and
isolated single-family dwellings.
6. Intersection Treatment
t All intersecting roads connect with Weddington Road at-grade and have stop sign
control. Weddington Road also has stop sign control at NC 16.
-2-

r
[J

Ili

1

7. Railroad Crossinjas
There are no railroad crossings on existing Weddington Road in the study area for
this project.
8. Drainage Structures
The portion of existing Weddington Road to be used by the proposed roadway
does not include any drainage structures. As the remainder of the project is on
new location, no drainage structures currently exist:
9. Utilities
Existing Providence Road West is paralleled by overhead power lines and
underground water lines on the south side, as well as underground phone lines
along the north side. Overhead power lines and underground phone lines parallel
the south side of Parks Farm Lane. In the area of the proposed intersection
between Rea Road Extension and Parks Farm Lane, there are storm sewer and
sanitary sewer systems. A high voltage power line right-of-way crosses the
proposed project between the Raeburn and Landen subdivisions. There is also a
waste water treatment plant adjacent to the west side of the proposed roadway near
Sixmile Creek in the area of the Landen subdivision.
Weddington Road has underground phone lines paralleling it on both sides west
of the Walden subdivision, and underground phone lines on its north side from
east of Walden to NC 16. There are overhead power lines along the north side
of Weddington Road from east of the Walden subdivision to Reid Dairy Road and
along the south side from Reid Dairy Road to approximately 1200 feet west of NC
16. From this point, they continue on the north side to NC 16.
There are overhead and underground phone lines along the east side of NC 16.
Overhead power lines are along the east side of NC 16 north of Weddington Road
and on the west side to the south. There is also an underground water line along
the west side of NC 16.
-3-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
There is an underground phone line along the southwest side of Reid Dairy Road
and overhead power lines along the east side of Crane Road. All utilities in the
Walden and Foxwood subdivisions are underground.
D. Accident Analysis
A traffic accident rate analysis was prepared for Providence Road West, NC 16,
Weddington Road, and Elm Lane West. The analysis, summarized in Table 1, covers the
period from January 1990 to December 1992. This table indicates the actual accident
rates on these roads and compares them with the average statewide accident rates for
similar types of roadways.
TABLE 1
ACCIDENT RATE COMPARISON
(accident rate per 100 million' vehicle miles)
Total Fatal Injury
btal Accident ' Fatal) Accident Accident
..
:::::-t Mate Rate:
CLaSStCtiOt?'" Facility $etwen Ac?idet?ts hate A
Rural state NC 16 NC 51 and 216 325.35 1 1.51 118.99
highway Weddington Road
1990 - 1992 STATEWIDE AVERAGE (193.9) (2.6) (92.3)
Rural Providence Road NC 16 and 62 178.88 0 0.00 69.24
secondary West Community House
route Road
Weddington Road NC 16 and Joe 4 121.21 0 0.00 30.30
Kerr Road
Elm Lane West NC 51 and 62 299.95 1 4.84 120.95
Providence Road
West
1990 - 1992 STATEWIDE AVERAGE (302.7) (3.3) (137.8)
Source: NC Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering Branch
As shown in the above table, the total and injury accident rates on NC 16 are higher than
the statewide averages for similar facilities. All of the other rates for facilities examined
within the study are below the statewide averages for similar facilities, with the exception
of the fatal accident rate on Elm Lane West. This high fatal accident rate on Elm Lane
-4-

West is due to one fatal accident that occurred in February 1992 in which two people
were killed.

A new four-lane divided facility would be expected to have a lower accident rate, as
indicated by the 1992 statewide average rate of 105.4 accidents per 100 million vehicle
miles for four-lane divided rural primary routes with partial control of access versus the
average rate of 190.4 (per 100 MVM) for two-lane undivided rural primary routes.
E. Traffic Volumes and Level-of-Service
The existing (1991) average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume on Weddington Road
in the project study area is 1,300 vehicles per day (VPD). The 1991 AADT volume on
NC 16 near the Weddington Road intersection is 6,300 VPD.
The projected year 1996 AADT volumes for the proposed Rea Road Extension vary from
a low of 4,400 VPD near NC 16 to a high of 6,200 VPD near the proposed Providence
Road West relocation (see Figure 4). For the design year 2016, AADT volumes range
from a low of 12,800 VPD near NC 16 to a high of 26,400 VPD near the proposed
Providence Road West relocation (see Figure 4). Truck traffic on Rea Road Extension
is estimated to be five percent of the AADT.
A detailed analysis was performed to determine level-of-service (LOS) for the future
traffic conditions. Levels-of-service are designated with letters from A to F. LOS A
represents the best operating conditions with free flow and virtually no delay. LOS F
represents the worst operating conditions and indicates long queues of traffic tend to form
and delay at intersections exceeds 60 seconds per vehicle. The results of the analysis for
r the year 2016 indicate a need for. Rea Road Extension to have four lanes from the
proposed Providence Road West relocation to NC 16. Signalization will be required at
the following intersections in the design year and the LOS of these signalized intersections
will be the controlling factor along this facility: proposed Providence Road West, existing
Providence Road West, Blakeney Heath Road, the proposed East-West Circumferential,
and NC 16. Each of these intersections will operate at LOS C or better with year 2016
-5-
k )r.,. PKOVm_._ 1 F- i

n

C

` vkf ROAD WEST
r?rl?rrrre?r ?,rrr 9,900 ?rrnrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr r PR° CNA
(12,4 01 lyy? **''4,500) 600 (1'6'io rlrrrriiirrii?rr1esr`ier
( 1,200) r r rrrrrrrrrrrl
BEGIN PROJECT --- * ???s?• Cady Lake
6,200 -? 0 2,800
(13,400) ; (5,800)
a ?
2,200 # 6,200
(5,600) ° (26,400)
° 5,800 0
`* (23,200)
m
z
6,200 0
(15,800)
4,400
(11,400) M Q o
n
Pp `NESS q hr+ l o? j 10
r 4; m
;
GPO 99 p?E ;'f mr 00
? ee
e
0
4,900 r. // +® ;,
i? (21,200) aw ® 5t+'°`
q e
4? ?? ?Fyy 2,200 * ¢ eee ??
s?o \ Far (4,800) * w? e 4U v??. \
f pCt \.
6,200 ?0q a ?? a
(23,400) 0 .0
«M ?8?' OvGC ???OPQ
??*;Ar u?i SED E7 T WEru?RCUMFERrNTIAL # ??e?t?¦ 'S00000
° ?? a
q i > ?c
a g r
o 00
Q 8 90
w qp
1
BOA NC 64
\ fl-30
e
0??qa S'ixmfl !? 4600
000) uarla
G'
V . ? v
9,600
ti? 90 4,400 (17,800)
?? vo (12,800)
/ 9,200
QQ .• ???.. OIL .4.00 \ aC??
END PROJECT--/ (15,800)
REA ROAD EXTENSION
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
U-2506
LEGEND
X,XXX 1996 ADT
(X,XXX) 2016 ADT

1000 0 1000 2000
Scale Feet
PROJECTED
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
FIGURE 4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
traffic, with the exception of the proposed Providence Road West relocation which will
operate at LOS D (see Technical Memorandum Traffic Analysis, October 1993). Table
2 summarizes the projected year 2016 LOS for Rea Road Extension for each proposed
signalized intersection, as well as for each roadway segment between these intersections.
Providence Road West (existing) C
Blakeney Heath Road B
East-West Circumferential C
NC 16 B
C
B
B
B
F. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community
This project enhances the safety and general welfare of residents of Mecklenburg and
Union Counties by providing more travel lanes and a more direct route for the flow of
goods, services, and traffic. The project is expected to enhance economic growth and
development in the project area and favorably affect the local tax base.
-6-
Providence Road West (proposed) D
t
1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
NCDOT proposes to build an extension of Rea Road from the proposed Providence Road
' West relocation in Mecklenburg County to NC 16 in Union County along both existing
and new right-of-way (see Figures 2 and 8A-F). The facility will be constructed as a
' four-lane divided roadway. The length of the project is approximately 5.5 miles. The
proposed project is referred to as the Rea Road Extension.
B. Summary of the Proposed Project
1. Typical Section Description
The typical section consists of two 12-foot lanes in each direction separated by a
typical 22-foot raised median. The typical section is shown in Figure 5.
2. Right-of-Way
The acquisition of adequate right-of-way to contain the four-lane section is
proposed. The right-of-way width is to be 100 feet, with additional right-of-way
at intersections as necessary.

3. Bikeways/Sidewalks
There are no special accommodations required for bicycles on this project as per
coordination with the NCDOT Office of Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation.
Any sidewalks would be provided by others.
1 4. Proposed Design Speed
The design speed for the proposed roadway will be 50 miles per hour. The
anticipated posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour.

1 -7-

c

0

- w
71 0
>

O
w
m

J ?
w
d
W
O

cn m

O
o
N
N

0
t0 1_
1-
'' U

C)i
N

J
N
,
a

0 0
O N
to
N

O ? fV
O.
'- O
3
in t
i?
3

ti
ito
0
8
W
U
'.r
Z
O
us
w
W C
to
N
O
w
W
m

t
P_J

5. Access Control
Access on the portion of the project on new location is to be limited to designated
areas.
6. Intersection Treatment
All intersections will be at-grade, with stop sign control for intersecting side
streets. Based on future projected traffic volumes, signalization will be warranted
at the following intersections: the proposed Providence Road West relocation,
existing Providence Road West, Blakeney Heath Road, the proposed East-West
Circumferential, and NC 16. In addition, future signalization may be required at
other locations as dictated by future development traffic. Private driveways will
not abut the proposed new roadway, but would remain on Weddington Road.
7. Drainage Structures
All stream crossings, including the two of McBride Branch, the one of Sixmile
Creek, and the one of the unnamed tributary to Flat Branch, are proposed to be
culverted.
8. Permits Required
Permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) will be required for all
stream crossings, including Sixmile Creek, McBride Branch, and the unnamed
tributary to Flat Branch. Permits will also be required for any encroachment into
any isolated wetlands within the project area. These impacts may qualify under
the Nationwide Permit program and General Permits issued by the COE; however,
because Sixmile Creek is a "below headwater" stream, if the COE determines that
the wet hardpan forested wetland is considered an "adjacent wetland" to Sixmile
Creek, an Individual Section 404 permit may be required for the project. In
addition, Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) will also be required.
-8-

9. Cost Estimates
The total cost of the project is estimated to be $11.9 million, including $10.3
million for construction and $1.6 million for right-of-way.

11

t

? -9-
t
? B.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
No Build Alternative
The "no build" alternative would avoid some negative impacts of the proposed project,
such as the disruption of the natural environment by the use of additional land for
roadway purposes. However, benefits of the proposed action, such as providing a more
direct route for the flow of traffic, increased safety, user cost savings, and completion of
a major thoroughfare, would not be realized. The long-term benefits resulting from the
construction of the proposed project -- including increased accessibility, enhanced
economic development, and provision of a more efficient route -- would more than
compensate for any unavoidable adverse impacts.
Postponement of the Proposed Project
The southern portion of existing Rea Road (south of NC 51) has already been constructed
as a four-lane divided roadway and is designed to be a major thoroughfare. However, it
currently terminates at the entrance to the Piper Glen subdivision without connecting to
any through streets. Postponing the proposed project will result in the under-utilization
of the existing facility.
Postponement would delay the effects of any negative impacts, but it would also delay
positive impacts from the completion of the traffic network and the resultant user benefits.
The project would also be more difficult to construct in the future as development within
the project area increases.
Alternatives Considered but Rejected
The intent of this project is to complete Rea Road from the proposed Charlotte Outer
Loop to NC 16, thus providing a critical alternate north-south route to help alleviate
traffic congestion in southern Mecklenburg and northern Union Counties, while
minimizing impacts to the surrounding environment. Consequently, other corridors within
the study area that did not meet the purpose and need were ruled out and not considered
as part of this project. However, several preliminary alignment alternatives were
-10-

H
1

1

considered in the southern (Union County) portion of the project (see Figure 2). Each of
these alternatives was evaluated based upon its potential environmental impact and cost
effectiveness. Table 3 compares the potential environmental impacts of each alternative
shown on Figure 2.
Wetland Impact 0 0 0 0
(acres)
Stream Crossings 2 McBride 2 McBride' 2 McBride 2 McBride
1 Six Mile 1 Six Mile 1 Six Mile 1 Six Mile
Schweinitz's A A A A
Sunflower B B B B
Populations C C
D D
E E
Carolina same potential same potential same potential same potential
Heelsplitter
Forested Habitat ± 11.5 ± 12 ± 10 ± 7
(acres)
Length of Road
New Location: 8,200' 7,800' 8,800' 6,800'
Widen Existing: --- 1,400' --- 2,800'
Total: 8,200' 9,200' 8,800' 9,600'
`Comparison does not include common northern and southern sections of the proposed
proj ect.
`Closely parallels McBride Branch for ± 1,500'; may require channel relocation.
Population A = ± 8 stem count
Population B = ± 17 stem count
Population C = ± 10 stems
Population D = 30+ stems
Population E = ± 10 stems
-11-

1

i

Particular consideration was given to each alternative's impact to the federally endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) which occurs in the project vicinity.
Preliminary evaluation of the alternatives was based upon correspondence and mapping
provided by the Natural Heritage Program. A map of the project area indicated five
documented populations of the sunflower along Weddington Road. Alternatives 1 and 3
would impact all five populations, while the preferred alternative (Alternative 0) impacts
only two of these populations. These two impacted populations are located adjacent to
each other on the north side of Weddington Road. (An alternative that would totally
avoid the sunflowers was investigated as discussed below.) In addition, two natural
communities (a basic oak-hickory forest and a xeric hardpan forest) that would be
impacted by Alternatives 1 and 3 were identified within the project area west of McBride
Branch, approximately one thousand feet north of Weddington Road. Based upon this
information, it was determined that the preferred alternative's alignment would most likely
avoid these natural areas, as well as minimizing impacts to the protected sunflower.
Alternative 2 would have the same impact as the preferred alternative on these natural
areas, as well as on the sunflower populations. However, it was eliminated due. to its
greater length, and therefore greater cost, in comparison to the preferred alternative. The
number of stream crossings and acres of wetland impact is identical for each of the
alternatives.
In addition to having the least environmental impact, the preferred alternative has the
shortest length (see Table 3) and would have the lowest construction cost. This alignment
also follows the dedicated right-of-way which has been agreed upon by the property
owners of the existing and planned developments in the area, and would be donated at no
cost to NCDOT. Therefore, the preferred alternative appears to be the most
environmentally sensitive and cost feasible alternate for the project. Three additional
variations of the original preferred alternative were also evaluated. One of these
variations shifted the alignment approximately 60 feet to the east and a second shifted the
alignment 60 feet to the west for a 2,500-foot section north of Weddington Road (SR
1316) to study right-of-way costs in the vicinity of a platted subdivision. Moving the
alignment to the west avoids the proposed subdivision and saves $390,000 over the
-12-

symmetrical (original) alignment and $658,000 over the eastern variation. A third
variation avoids the Schweinitz' sunflower completely by shifting farther to the east on
Weddington Road. Using this alternative to miss the sunflowers would cost an additional
$378,000 and was determined not to be reasonable. The variation shifting the alignment
' to the west to avoid the proposed subdivision was selected as the preferred alternative due
to lower total cost and identical environmental impact other than impact on the
' sunflowers.

u

n

-13-

IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Impact
' 1. Land Use
Existing land use in the project vicinity is primarily residential. The Generalized
d
t
d b
th
Ch
l
tt
kl
C
2
f
Ch
l
d M
b
d
l
0
e
ounty (a
e
y
e
ar
o
ec
en
urg
op
or
ar
otte an
Lan
P
an
0
5
' City Council and Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners on November 25,
d
y area
1985) identifies the entirety of Mecklenburg County within the project stu
as being existing or developing residential areas, with the exception of two major
mixed use centers anticipated to develop along the proposed Rea Road Extension
corridor. In addition, the area south of the Raeburn development is identified as
a "major planned residential development" (this is the area in which the Landen
' development is currently being constructed).
Union County, N.C. Tax Maps included in the Union County Land Use Ordinance
(both adopted by the Union County Board of Commissioners in August, 1987)
' indicate that the entirety of Union County within the project study area is planned
for residential development, with the exception of two small parcels along the
proposed Rea Road Extension corridor that are planned for a mix of residential
and "community business" development.

2. Neighborhood Impacts
' The proposed project will do minimum harm to the social environment. It will
divide the Raeburn subdivision, however, right-of-way has been reserved for the
' roadway through the development. In addition, a landscaped berm is being
considered to limit adverse impacts on the development while maintaining its
' social cohesion. The Walden and Foxwood subdivisions located on existing
Weddington Road will lose some frontage as the existing road is widened, but will
' R
d
W
ddi
t
d
t
l
ff
d b
h
h
i
d
b
on
oa
e
ng
e propose
projec
.
y a
ecte
y t
e ot
erw
se a
verse
not
will experience some increase in traffic as a result of the project. The proposed
-14-

t

C

project will be integrated into the existing transportation network and thereby
facilitate travel between communities.
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses
The proposed project will not require the relocation of any residences, businesses,
or institutions.
4. Public Facilities and Services
The Montessori Omni Center AMI, located on Blakeney Heath Road just to the
west of the proposed project, is the only school in the project study area. There
are no fire stations or police stations located in the project study area.
There are three churches located in the project study area. St. Matthew Catholic
Church is located just west of the proposed project at the intersection of existing
Providence Road West and Elm Lane, Jonesville Zion Church is located on
Providence Road West just west of NC 16, and Wesley Chapel is located at the
intersection of NC 16 and NC 84. Approximately 1.8 acres of property will be
acquired from St. Matthew Catholic Church; this property was reserved for right-
of-way in the church's site plan.

7
L

B. Economic Impact
Construction of the proposed project would have both short-term and long-term economic
impacts. In the short-term, the local economy would be affected by providing
employment to contractors and workers during the construction period, resulting in
additional income-generation. Also in the short-term, due to right-of-way requirements,
some parcels of land will be removed from the real property tax rolls.
On a long-term basis, the proposed project would provide increased access to residential
development already existing in the vicinity of the project, as well as through some
previously undeveloped land. This access is necessary for both the existing and planned
residential development (development that is both expected and approved by Mecklenburg
-15-

and Union Counties). The planned residential development will have a major positive
impact on the local tax base through the generation of property taxes. In addition, the
t value of other land in the area will be enhanced by the development potential. After
development, the real property values would increase.
As part of the region's traffic network, the proposed project will have a positive impact
on the overall local economy. The flow of goods and services, as well as traffic flow,
' will be enhanced by the proposed project. Users will benefit from reduced travel time
and reduced congestion. In particular, this project will serve traffic generated by the
' residential developments mentioned above. As previously stated, no businesses will be
relocated.
' C. Cultural Resources
1. Historic Architectural Resources
' This project is subject to review pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 121-
12(a) which requires that if a state action will have an adverse effect upon a
' property listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the North Carolina
Historical Commission will be given an opportunity to comment.
A file search of the files of the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
has revealed no properties listed on the National Register within the study area for
the proposed project. In addition, no properties considered potentially eligible for
' the National Register are known to exist in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
project. The Weddington Historic District, which is included on the State Study
' List of properties considered potentially eligible for inclusion in the National
Register, is located at the intersection of NC 84 and NC 16, approximately 0.5
miles north of the project's southern terminus at NC 16.

-16-

' 2. Archaeological Resources
In response to a scoping letter regarding the proposed project the Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer in a memorandum of July 21, 1993, (see Appendix)
responded that no archaeological sites currently listed on the National Register will
' be impacted by the proposed project. He recommended "that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project." No archaeological
work will be conducted for the proposed project as currently planned.
1 D. Environmental Impact
'
1. Vegetation and Wildlife
'
a. Plant Communities
' The distribution of plant communities throughout the project area is a result of
topographic positioning, climate, soil characteristics, hydrologic influences, and
' past or present land use practices. Many of the plant communities along the
project corridor have been disturbed and modified by agricultural practices and
urban changes to the surrounding landscape.
Five vegetative community types were identified within the project area through
the interpretation of aerial photography and data collected during field
' reconnaissance in October, 1993. The communities identified include oak
hardwood forest, evergreen hardwood forest, riparian forest,
' agricultural/successional fields, and urban/disturbed lands. Wetland habitats, which
comprise a small percentage of the project area, are discussed separately in Section
' D.3.
Oak-Hickory Hardwood Forests
The oak hardwood forests are dominated by broad-leaf deciduous species. White
Oak (Quercus alba), post oak (Q. stellata), willow oak (Q. phellos), loblolly pine

-17-
1

t
?71

r
t

t

t
7
(Pinus taeda), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana)
dominate the forest canopy.
Understory composition of the forested community includes saplings of overstory
species as well as flowering dogwood (Corpus Florida), redbud (Cercis
canadensis), and yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Groundcover species
include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus spp. ), and
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
In the lower slopes of the forest, adjacent to McBride's Branch, species
composition changes to a predominance of mesic species such as sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), American beech (Fagus
grandifolia), and red oak (Quercus rubra).
Evergreen Hardwood
Evergreen hardwood forests occur adjacent to the unmanaged agricultural fields
in the southern portion of the project area. Evergreen species such as Virginia
pine (Pinus virginiana), short-leaf pine (Pinus echinata), and red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana) dominate the canopy. The subcanopy is composed of saplings of
overstory species as well as hardwoods in various successional stages. Ground
cover is sparse with patches of blackberry, greenbrier, trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefoil).
Riparian Forest
A riparian forest community is present along the sloping banks adjacent to Sixmile
Creek. These communities are subject to seasonal inundation and support a
canopy of hardwood species such as green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), yellow poplar, and sweet-gum. The subcanopy includes
such species as red maple and sycamore. Groundcover includes smilax,
blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, and poison ivy (Toxicodendron).
-18-

Agricultural/Successional Field
Agricultural fields are defined by the evidence of recent, active management of
open fields for agricultural or livestock production. Agricultural fields within the
project area are typically utilized for cattle forage, hay, corn, or soybean
production. Many of these fields have been left unmanaged allowing for the
growth of grasses and sedges such as ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), and broomsedge (Andropogon sp.).
I Urban/Disturbed
Communities identified as urban/disturbed land include residential areas, utility
corridors, existing roads, and other natural areas that have been cleared for
development. The majority of vegetation within these areas has been removed or
altered by human activity. Maintained grass areas adjacent to residential houses
0 and roadside right-of-ways are also included in this category.
Natural Systems
Impacts to vegetative communities associated with the proposed roadway
construction would consist primarily of habitat modifications resulting from
clearing, cut and fill, paving, and the creation of borrow areas. The impacts to the
vegetative communities were quantified based on the proposed right-of-way width
for the alternative. These impacts were derived using 1 "=200' scale blue-line
aerial photography which contained vegetational borders and other landmarks to
measure the habitat areas. Table 4 shows the distribution of impacts to each
habitat group.

-19-
11

1

1

D

Riparian Forest 0.4
Agricultural/Successional Fields 29.9
Urban/Disturbed Lands 24.9
Habitat Fragmentation
Habitat fragmentation occurs when parcels of otherwise suitable habitat are
isolated and rendered less suitable for wildlife, thereby adversely affecting faunal
diversity and richness. The degree of impact on wildlife and species diversity
depends on the size and isolation of the parcels being fragmented and the
sensitivity of the species. Groups of species directly impacted by habitat loss
through fragmentation include those with large home range requirements, very
specific microhabitat requirements, and poor dispersal abilities.
Many of the original forested tracts in the project area have already been
fragmented by subdivision development and agricultural practices. The greatest
fragmentation from the proposed project will occur in the pine-cedar forest
community in the southern portion of the project area. Although portions of this
tract are currently fragmented by agricultural practices, construction activities
related to subdivision development already in progress along the eastern portion
of the area has further fragmented this forested tract.
-20-
Oak-Hickory Hardwood Forest 24.1
Evergreen Hardwood Forest 13.4

b. Animal Communities
The oak-hickory hardwood and evergreen hardwood forests are the most extensive
vegetative communities in the project area. These upland forests provide food,
shelter, and nesting resources for a relatively diverse population of wildlife. These
areas are particularly conducive to woodland wildlife when located adjacent to
agricultural fields, successional areas, and open fields.
Animal life characteristic of these habitats include mammal species such as the
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
eastern cottontail (Sylvilgus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and the opossum
(Didelphis marsupialis). Nesting bird species typically occurring in these upland
forests include the wood thrush (Hylocichia mustelina), red-eye vireo (Vireo
olivaceous), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), and the pine warbler (Dendroica
pinus). Other common bird species include the cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
common flicker (Colaptes auratus), bluejay (Cyanocitta cristata), quail (Colinus
virginianus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and the common crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos).
Wildlife diversity and populations are typically high in riparian forest
communities. Mammals such as beaver (Castor canadensis) and muskrat (Ondatra
zibethicus) may be somewhat limited to this habitat, whereas racoons (Procyon
t lotor) and the southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris) may utilize the area as part
of their home range.
Sixmile Creek, McBride Branch, and Flat Branch provide aquatic habitats which
may support populations of fish, amphibians, and invertebrates. The distribution
of aquatic organisms, including both fishes and invertebrates, is dependent on
stream characteristics such as flow, riffles and pools, substrate type, and water
quality. Fish species which may occur in the project area include catfish
(Ictalurus spp.), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill and other
1
-21-

r

2
sunfish (Lepomis spp. ), carp (Cyprinus carpio), and various other minnow species
(Gambusia aff nis, Notropis spp., and Catostomus spp. ).
Amphibious species such as the bullfrog (Rana catesbania), green frog (R.
clamitans), American toad (Bufo americanus), and the mudpuppy (Necturus
maculosus) are dependent on waters of creeks, streams, and ponds where they
either permanently reside or use the aquatic environment for breeding habitat.
Reptile species such as snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), sliders (Chrysemys
spp. ), and water snakes (Natrix spp.) rely upon aquatic habitat for food and
shelter.
Protected Species
Under federal law, any action which has the potential to result in a negative
impact to federally protected plants or animals is subject to review by the USFWS
under provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. North Carolina laws
grant protection to plants and animals which are endemic to the State or whose
populations are in severe decline.
The methodology employed in the identification of critical habitat for Federal and
State listed candidate species for Mecklenburg and Union Counties consisted of
a literature review, coordination with the USFWS and the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP), and field reconnaissance of the project area.
a. Federally Listed Species
Federally protected plant and animal species with Endangered (E) or Threatened
(T) status receive protection under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Records maintained by the USFWS indicate the following endangered species with
ranges which may extend through the project area:
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
-22-

r The Carolina heelsplitter is a freshwater mollusk that occurs in riffle pool habitats
in stream channels with sandy, coarse gravel, or cobble substrates. The species
typically occurs under logs, detritus, or stream sediments. Three populations of
this species are known to occur in North Carolina: 1) Waxhaw Creek and its
tributaries from the South Carolina state line to their headwaters in Union County;
2) Goose Creek and its tributaries from the confluence with the Rocky River to
their headwaters in Mecklenburg and Union Counties; and 3) the headwaters of
the Lynches River in Union County (Personal communication, Steve Hall,
NCNHP, 10-21-93).
The NCNHP database has no records of occurrence of this species within the
project or surrounding areas. According to John Alderman of the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission, no surveys for the Carolina heelsplitter have been
conducted for the streams within the project area (Personal communication, 12-14-
93). Because the streams in the project area provide potentially suitable habitat
for this species, the proposed project may affect it. On-site surveys should be
conducted in the spring to determine the presence or absence of the Carolina
heelsplitter in the project area.
The Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb that is endemic to the Piedmont
regions of North and South Carolina. The plant, which blooms in mid-September
to mid-October, grows from one to three meters tall, typically in soils of the
Iredell series. The species has narrowly-lanceolate, opposite leaves which are
scabrous above and pubescent underneath. The most distinctive feature of this
species is its tuberous root system. Schweinitz's sunflowers are sun plants that
require full sun, or the light shade of open stands of oak-pine-hickory forests. The
species is dependent upon periodic disturbances to reduce the shade and
competition of woody plants. Artificial disturbances, such as power line corridors
and road right-of-ways, often provide suitable habitat for the species when they
are maintained without herbicides and mowed during the winter months to prevent
interfering with the sunflowers reproductive cycle.
-23-

1
1

1

w
1

Records from the NCNHP's database (dated 12-21-92) documented the occurrence
of several populations of the Schweinitz's sunflower within the vicinity of the
project area, specifically along Weddington Road and Joe Kerr Road. This
information led to the consideration of four preliminary alternatives in the southern
(Union County) portion of the project (see Figure 2). Each of these alternatives
was evaluated based upon its potential environmental impact, with particular
consideration given to each alternative's potential impact to the sunflower
populations.
Field reconnaissance of the project area performed during the first week of
October, 1993, and again in November, 1993, indicated the presence of five
populations of the sunflower in the project area. The locations of these
populations are shown on Figure 6. Table 3 shows the approximate stem counts
for each population and the potential impact that each of the four preliminary
alternatives would have on these populations. Based upon this information, it was
determined that Alternative 0 would have the least potential impact on the
sunflower populations. Although Alternative 0 (the preferred alternative) had the
least impact on the sunflower, it would impact two of the populations. One of
these populations had a stem count of ± 17 stems and the other had a count of ±
8 stems. Because these two populations are located adjacent to each other
(approximately 60 feet apart), both would be impacted by the preferred alternative.
In order to avoid impacting these populations, the alignment would have to be
shifted to the east into property zoned and platted for subdivision development,
which would cost an additional $378,000 for right-of-way acquisition. Therefore
total avoidance of the populations is considered unreasonable. Coordination will
be maintained with the USFWS through the COE regarding these impacts.
In addition to these federally protected species, the following candidate species are
under review by the USFWS. Candidate species are those which may in the
future be considered for listing as endangered or threatened. These species are not
legally protected under the Endangered Species Act or any of its provisions until
-24-

1

0
0

1

TINO W
I BEGIN PROJECT

WEST
-¦¦ ?R?t??i OUTER LOop
000 Cady Lake
00000000?

FARM.
?oe?es?e,?ril
?\ tJ ? aw 1 ? ; ?`'?
61
<01
(?Or???/
PROPOSED E T-WEST ClRCUMFERENTAL / w 60i? Ah
so ,now mmumm"wo fmammajown ova F
e /
177?
W-3?
a /
m
t
Cc
Q 1 ac
so

?oF
OR
9y,
9a ,,
90 A
6? X04° END PROJECT-
?p
REA ROAD EXTENSION
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
U-2506
LEGEND
* PROTECTED SPECIES
?-W-1 WETLANDS
100 YEAR FLOODPLAINS

1000 0 1000 2000
Scale Feet
PROTECTED SPECIES, WETLANDS,
AND FLOODPLAINS
FIGURE 6

they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. The USFWS
has advised that the following species may be listed in the future and encourages
the consideration of them in the planning of this project:
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula)
i
)
i
t
A
t
G
er georg
anus
eorg
a as
er (
s
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri)*
hi
l
D
l
tatum)
nium exa
Tall larkspur (
e
p
*not seen in Mecklenburg County in at least 20 years
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) is a low colonial shrub known chiefly from the
Piedmont physiographic province of the southeastern United States. Its natural
range extends from south Virginia, through the Piedmont region of North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, and eastern Alabama (Horn and Kral, 1984). The shrub
has simple, lanceolate leaves and small, yellow-green flowers. The species flowers
in April and May with fruits (drupes) being produced in July (Kral, 1983). These
plants are generally found in successional, dry, open upland forest of mixed
hardwood and pine.
The Georgia aster (Aster georgianus) is a variation of Aster patens which occurs
primarily in the Piedmont regions of Georgia and South Carolina. The Georgia
aster is a perennial found in dry open woods along roadsides, woodland borders,
old fields, and pastures. Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) is an annual occurring in
dry woods and clearings in the Piedmont region of North Carolina. NCNHP and
USFWS records indicate no documented occurrences of this species in
Mecklenburg County for at least 20 years. The tall larkspur (Delphinium
exaltatum) is a perennial found in the Mountain and Piedmont regions of North
Carolina. The tall larkspur typically occurs in grassy balds, glades, and rich
woods, mostly over mafic rock.
¦ The NCNHP database has no records of occurrences of these species within the
project or surrounding areas. These species were not observed during field
-25-
r

1

fl

1
1

1

3
reconnaissance; however, their presence cannot be ruled out due to the existence
of suitable habitat within the project area.
b. State Listed Species
Species of plants and animals with the State designation of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) are granted a measure of protection
under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. These acts are enforced and
administered by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Each of the species described in the previous section has been given the same
State designation as its federal designation with the exception of tall larkspur and
nestronia. Tall larkspur has been listed as endangered by the state, while nestronia
has been listed as a significantly rare (SR) species. Significantly rare designations
indicate rarity and the need for population monitoring.
Wetlands
Wetlands are defined by the COE (33 CFR 328.3) as:
"those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at
a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas."
In accordance with this definition, wetlands must possess three essential
parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetland
hydrology (COE Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987).
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorized the COE, in cooperation with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USFWS, to regulate the
-26-

n

t

fl

t

1

disposal of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States." The term
"waters of the United States" has broad meaning and incorporates both deepwater
aquatic habitats and special aquatic sites, including wetlands (COE Wetlands
Delineation Manual, 1987). Executive Order 11990 requires that new construction
in wetlands be avoided to the extent possible, and that all practical measures be
taken to minimize or mitigate impacts to wetlands.
Field reconnaissance was conducted in October, 1993, to identify potential wetland
sites within the project area. Wetland identification was performed based upon the
methodology outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Areas within the project corridor which are subject to Section 404 permit
review include: waters and channel limits of Sixmile Creek, McBride Branch, and
the unnamed tributary to Flat Branch; floodplain systems immediately adjacent to
Sixmile Creek and the unnamed tributary to Flat Branch; a small, isolated wetland.
pocket to the north of Sixmile Creek; and the wet hardpan forest located to the
northeast of Sixmile Creek.
Figure 6 shows the location of the wetlands identified in the project area. Table
5 lists the affected wetlands and map reference numbers as shown on Figure 6.
An electronic planimeter was used to determine the areal extent of impacts within
the right-of-way limits for the proposed road.
-27-

1
11

1

W-1 Sixmile Creek 0.10
W-2 Isolated Wetland 0.06
W-3 Wet Hardpan Forest 1.26
W-4 UT to Flat Branch 0.34
The floodplain system adjacent to Sixmile Creek (W-1) has been identified by the
USFWS classification system as a palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous
wetland where seasonal inundation and flooding can be expected. Plant species
located in this area include red maple, sycamore, river birch, and a variety of oaks.
Soils located in this area include Monacan and Chewacla silt loam.
A small, isolated wetland (W-2) pocket is located to the north of Sixmile Creek.
The areas surrounding this wetland have been cleared for urban development.
This small area was not shown on the National Wetland Inventory mapping. Plant
species in this area include black willow, cattails, and juncus. The area is underlain
by Iredell soils.
A wet hardpan forest (W-3) is located northeast of Sixmile Creek. Soils within
these nonalluvial hardwood forests appear to be subject to frequent soil saturation
resulting from a perched water table. A clay hardpan layer occurs approximately
18 inches below the soil surface. The area is underlain by Iredell soils. Dominant
vegetation includes willow oak, sweet gum, swamp chestnut oak, American elm,
and red maple.

-28-
1

1

t

[1

11

t

Another wetland area (W-4) occurs along the floodplain system adjacent to the
unnamed tributary to Flat Branch. Plant species located in this area include green
ash, sweet gum, red maple, and American elm. The area is underlain by Monacan
soils. Although this series is not considered hydric by the SCS, evidence of
gleying and mottling was noted in soil samples taken in areas near the proposed
roadway crossing.
In accordance with Executive Order 11990, this project has been designed to avoid
new construction in wetlands to the extent possible, and employ all practical
measures to minimize or mitigate impacts to wetlands. Measures have been
employed in the initial planning of the proposed alternatives to minimize potential
impacts through route location (avoidance), design (i.e., use of bridge crossings
instead of fill embankment), and construction practices. Where wetland crossings
are unavoidable, the proposed alternative crosses the wetland sites at their
narrowest point to minimize impacts.
Minor alignment shifts may also be possible in the final design stages of the
project to further reduce wetland impacts.
A mitigation plan may be required as a means of compensating unavoidable
wetlands losses. On-site, in-kind mitigation within the same watershed is the
preferred method of mitigation. Other forms of compensatory mitigation include
restoration of degraded wetland habitat, creation of wetland habitat, enhancement
of existing wetlands, and mitigation banking.
4. Water Quality
The Rea Road Extension project area is drained by three tributary watersheds: 1)
Sixmile Creek, 2) McBride Branch, and 3) Flat Branch. Both McBride and Flat
Branch drain into Sixmile Creek, which eventually discharges into the Catawba
River east of the project area. These drainage systems are part of the larger
Catawba River basin.
-29-

All of the streams within the project area are classified as Class "C" tributaries
(N.C. Division of Environmental Management, 1993), indicating suitability for fish
and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, agriculture, and other uses
requiring waters of lower quality. The DEM classifications are based upon
existing or contemplated best uses for various stream segments.
' According to the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) survey
results for 1988 and 1990, no biological sampling locations have been established
for these creeks. BMAN results are available for certain water basins throughout
I the state and are useful for assessing long-term changes in water quality.
Three major point source dischargers (>0.5 mgd) that are regulated under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations are
located within the vicinity of the project area (DEM, 1988). North Carolina
General Statues 143-215.1 enables the state to require control of sources of water
t
[l

pollution through issuance of state NPDES permits for discharge of wastes and
stormwater, and for disposal systems discharging to the surface waters of the state.
The following dischargers are located within the project vicinity:
Name
Carmel Land Co.
Parker Farm Sub.
Carolina Water Services
Permitted
NPDES# Flow (MCG)
NC0058882 2.0
NC0056774 0.6
NC0056774 0.6
Receiving
Stream
Sixmile Creek
Flat Branch
Flat Branch
Sixmile Creek, a tributary to the Catawba River, flows in a northeast-southwest
direction within the project area. The stream bed is approximately 30 feet wide
and the average depth at the time of field reconnaissance was 6-8 inches with a
sandy substrate. A culverted crossing of the creek is planned as part of the
roadway improvement.

-30-

Flat Branch, a tributary that confluences with Sixmile Creek, flows in a north to
south direction in the project area. A culverted road crossing is planned for an
unnamed tributary to this creek. McBride Branch, another tributary to Sixmile
Creek, flows in a southeast-northwest direction. Two culverted crossings are
planned for this creek as part of the roadway improvement.
Design measures to protect water quality are similar to measures taken to protect
' wetlands. Design measures for protection of water quality in roadway design can
include minimizing the number of stream crossings, crossing streams at their
narrowest segments as close to perpendicular as practical, maximizing the distance
between the stream and the road, and avoiding public water supplies and high
quality aquatic habitats.
Construction practices will include sedimentation control measures such as berms,
dikes, dams, silt basins, and silt fences. Best management practices will also be
incorporated during all phases of construction to avoid adversely impacting the
water quality in or near the study area. In addition to potential increases in
turbidity, stormwater runoff from roads may present additional impacts on surface .
water quality. Runoff from roads may contain heavy metal loadings, high
dissolved and particulate matter, oil, and grease. Management measures such as
vegetative controls (grass swales), detention/infiltration basins, and retention of
i wetland vegetation are often effective in reducing pollutants in stormwater runoff.
No stream relocation is anticipated.
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Mecklenburg and Union Counties are participants in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. Figure 6 shows the floodplain impact of the proposed project.
The impacts are based on a draft version of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps. The proposed alignment will involve
approximately 6.5 acres of floodplain.

-31-

1

u

The proposed action will be designed such that the floodway will carry the 100-
year flood without increasing the flood water elevation more than one foot at any
given point. The dimensions of the drainage structures and the roadway grades
will be adjusted and designed to avoid increasing the flood hazard in the project
area. The project will be coordinated with appropriate state and local officials and
FEMA to assure compliance with FEMA, state, and local floodway regulations.
6. Soils
Soil formation and characterization result from a combination of biological and
geological activity along with the topographic positioning of an area. The soils
within the project area are characterized by three soil associations: 1) the Iredell-
Mecklenburg association consists of level to strongly sloping, well drained upland
soils with a clayey subsoil. This is the dominant association within the project
area; 2) the Cecil association consists of gently sloping, well drained upland soils
with a clayey subsoil; 3) the Monacan association consists of level, poorly drained
soils formed in fluvial sediment on floodplains.
Ten soil series from these major associations were identified in the project area
based on the 1980 Soil Survey for Mecklenburg County and preliminary soil
mapping for Union County. Characteristics of these soil series are summarized in
Table 6. Typical non-hydric series include Cecil, Mecklenburg, and Appling.
A hydric soil is one that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (USDA, 1991).
Such soils typically support the growth of hydrophytic vegetation. No soils that
are classified as hydric by the Mecklenburg or Union County Soil Conservation
Service are located in the project area; however, Iredell fine sandy loam and
Monacan loam may have hydric soil inclusions.
In addition, Appling sandy loam is classified by the Union County Soil
Conservation Service as a prime farmland soil.
-32-

C
u

11

loam ridges. Moderate permeability and medium
water capacity. Shrink-swell potential is
moderate and surface runoff medium. Soil has
high potential for most urban areas.
CeD2 Cecil sandy clay 8-15% Well-drained, located on upland side slopes.
loam Permeability is moderate and medium water
capacity. Shrink-swell potential is moderate
and surface runoff is medium. Slope and
moderate permeability are the main limitations.
IrA Iredell fine sandy 0-1% Moderately well-drained on broad, flat upland
loam areas. Permeability is slow and available water
capacity is medium. The shrink-swell potential
is very high and surface runoff is slow. Very
high shrink-swell potential, slow permeability
and wetness ar the main limitations.
IrB Iredell fine sandy 1-8% Moderately well-drained on broad ridges and
loam broad gentle side slopes of uplands.
Permeability is slow, water capacity medium,
shrink-swell potential very high and surface
runoff medium. Very high shrink-swell
capacity, slow permeability and wetness are the
main limitations.
MeB Mecklenburg fine 2-8% Well-drained on broad ridges of uplands.
sandy loam Permeability is slow, shrink-swell potential
moderate, water capacity medium and surface
runoff medium. Slow permeability, moderate
shrink-swell capacity, and depth to bedrock are
the main limitations.
MeD Mecklenburg fine 8-15% Well-drained on upland side slopes.
sandy loam Permeability is slow, water capacity medium,
shrink-swell potential moderate and surface
runoff is rapid. Slow permeability, moderate
shrink-swell potential, low strength, slope, and
depth to bedrock are the main limitations.
-33-
CeB2 Cecil sandy clay 2-8% Well-drained, located on broad smooth upland

P?

u

u

1
t

u

MO Monacan soils --- Poorly drained, nearly level soils on floodplains
of streams and drainageways. Permeability is
moderate, available water capacity high, shrink-
swell potential low, and surface runoff is slow.
Wetness and flooding are the main limitations.
ApB Appling sandy 2-8% Well-drained on broad, smooth upland ridges.
loam Permeability is moderate, available water
capacity medium, shrink-swell potential
moderate, surface runoff medium. Moderate
permeability is the main limitation.
GaB2 Gasta clay loam 2-8% Well-drained, located on upland ridges.
Moderate permeability and water capacity.
Moderate shrink-swell potential.
Cha Chewacla silt 0-2% Poorly drained, level, located in flat areas
loam parallel to major streams or floodplains.
Moderate permeability and water capacity.
Frequently flooded for brief periods.
7. Farmlands
Acquisition of farmland will be required for this project. Based on a preliminary
analysis of aerial photography of the project study area, approximately 26.5 acres
of existing farmland will be taken by the proposed roadway. Most of this
farmland is classified as either prime or state and locally important by the Soil
Conservation Service. However, approximately 16 acres of the farmland to be
taken are within areas planned for residential development.
8. Traffic Noise Analysis
Noise is typically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources
including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generating plants, and highway
-34-

' vehicles. Traffic noise is composed of noises from the engine, the exhaust, the
drive train, and the tire-roadway interaction.

The actual magnitude of sound is caused by short-duration fluctuations in
atmospheric pressure. These fluctuations are called sound pressures. Since the
range of sound pressures varies greatly, a logarithmic relationship is used to
reference sound pressures to a common pressure. This relationship is defined as
the sound pressure level and is measured in decibels (dB). To approximate the
sensitivity of the human ear while listening to pure tones, the decibel is often
modified by frequency-weighting curves (A, B, C, or D).
Vehicle noise levels are commonly modified by the A-weighting curve. This
curve correlates very well with human response to noise, particularly in describing
annoyance caused by traffic. Sound levels utilizing the A-weighting curve are
expressed in dBA. Typical sound levels, expressed in dBA, are listed in Table 7.

[J

L

u

-35-

1
1

1

Jet Takeoff 200 ft. 120
Jet Takeoff 2,000 ft. 110
Jet landing 200 ft. 100
Heavy truck 50 ft. 90
Pneumatic drill 50 ft. 80
Freeway traffic 50 ft. 70
Air conditioning unit 20 ft. 60
Normal conversation 12 ft. 50
Light auto traffic 100 ft. 50
Library ---- 40
Soft whisper 15 ft. 30
Threshold of hearing ---- 0
Source: U.S. Noise Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, 1972
Sound pressure levels in this report are referred to as Leq(h). The hourly Leq, or
equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound that in an hour would
contain the same acoustic energy as the 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.
To determine if roadway noise levels are compatible with various land uses, the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria
and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways. These
abatement criteria and procedures are in accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 772, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA,
' Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. A
summary of the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for various land uses is
presented in Table 8.
-36-
t
1

u

A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
(Exterior) extraordinary significance and serve an important
public need and where the preservation of those
qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active
(Exterior) sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels,
schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not
included in Categories A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 (Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
auditoriums.
Source: 23 CFR 772 Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and
Construction Noise.
Receptors generally include such sites as residences, churches, businesses, and
parks. In the project area, all of the receptors are category B. No category A
receptors were identified.
r
Two factors are involved in determining if traffic noise warrants noise abatement.

1
The first factor is when future noise levels either approach or exceed the criteria
levels for each activity category, where approach is defined as within 1 dBA of
the criteria. The second factor for considering traffic noise abatement is when
future noise levels constitute a substantial increase over existing noise levels. If
the existing noise level is relatively quiet, less than or equal to 50 dBA, a
substantial increase is defined as.a 15 dBA or greater increase. If, however, the
-37-

1

t

11

existing noise level is greater than 50 dBA, a 10 dBA or greater increase is
considered substantial. Noise abatement measures are considered when there is
either a substantial increase in noise or the noise level approaches or exceeds the
NAC.
To establish the existing noise levels in the vicinity of the project, noise
measurements were taken at nine sites using a CEL 493 Type I Precision Impulse
Integrating Sound Level Meter. The noise measurement locations are shown in
Figure 7 and the existing noise levels are listed in Table 9.
Providence Road)
2 West Providence Road at Williamsburg 64
subdivision
3 Parks Farm Lane (at swimming pool) 49
4 Blakeney Heath Road 44
5 Landing Green Drive 44
6 Hawthorn Trace Drive 46
7 Walden subdivision (north of Weddington 45
Road)
8 Walden subdivision (south of Weddington 47
Road)
9 Weddington Road (west of Providence 55
Road)
Based on the field measurements, the existing noise levels generally ranged
between 44 dBA (Sites 4 & 5) and 64 dBA (Site 2).
One measure of the noise impact is the extent of the 67 dBA noise level contour.
This contour line is the distance from the centerline of the proposed Rea Road
Extension to the contour line where a noise level of 67 dBA is predicted to occur
-38-

10WI1111'II 111111 11111111111111111111111 ROAD WEST
2i 111 1111811111
11#1#1 OPOSED CHARL07TE 007E

BEGIN PROJECT `:
*s 4 `.
PON Cady Lake

?

?+?? iA!' .`
SID ...
i

ST. MATTHEW
CATHOLIC CHURCH
e

JONESVILLE ZION I
CHURCH
LOOP
11111 1 1 111111111®11
s' 1 1T
a

0
m
z
n
m

0
Q
O p
O
as
4
O
h

?
p
? bb
b

E B
0

lzr
\ I
\ V? fbb w4? j?
r
•r i ,CG?GO?i
00000
SI 5"0Varda
OOS? \ YOVO ( - Lake
ap?gCa 4? \ {?\?tTF v \ ?
r^?0 0? \ Oy ?
------------------------
* \ \ ??. Q9
END PROJECT
841
tr
12

4&
REA ROAD EXTENSION
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
U-2506
LEGEND
SUBDIVISIONS
O AMBIENT NOISE
MONITORING LOCATIONS
Q
1000 0 1000 2000
Scale.
NOISE MONITORING
LOCATIONS
FIGURE 7

11
u

and can be used to determine which receptors approach or exceed the FHWA
NAC. The distance from the centerline of the proposed Rea Road Extension to
the 67 dBA noise contour line based on projected 2016 traffic volumes is shown
in Table 10. Between proposed Providence Road West and the East-West
Circumferential, 11 receptors fall within this noise contour, and between the East-
West Circumferential and Providence Road, three receptors fall within this noise
contour, for a total of 14 receptors approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC.
A total of 48 receptors for the Rea Road Extension were evaluated. Of these 48
receptors, one clubhouse, one church, and 46 residential dwellings were evaluated.
Proposed Providence Road 137' 70 64 56 47
West to proposed East-West
Circumferential
Proposed East-West 116' 68 62 54 46
Circumferential to
Providence Road (NC 16)
The 67 dBA noise contour can assist local officials in land use planning decisions.
The contour line may be used to prevent problems in the future such as placing
a residential development within the 67 dBA noise contour.
The other measure for assessing the noise impact is to determine the noise level
increase from the existing condition to the future conditions (build and no-build).
Based on the ambient noise level measurements recorded, as well as projected
highway noise, the same 14 receptors discussed previously will also experience a
substantial noise level increase. Also, five additional receptors between proposed
Providence Road West and the East-West Circumferential, and seven additional
-39-

1

1
1
H

0
I

I

receptors between the East-West Circumferential and Providence Road, are
projected to experience a substantial noise level increase. Therefore, a total of 26
individual receptors are projected to experience noise impacts from the proposed
project.
When the noise levels of a proposed roadway project exceed noise abatement
criteria or cause substantial noise increases, noise abatement measures should be
considered. Several methods of mitigating noise levels are available including
traffic management, altering the proposed alignment, reducing speed limits, and
initiating flexible working hours. Another very effective noise abatement measure
is the use of noise barriers. Noise barriers reduce noise levels by blocking the
sound path between a roadway and noise sensitive areas. A noise barrier
evaluation was conducted for this project. In order to be recommended, a noise
barrier must be reasonable and feasible. In many different locations, the affected
receptor was isolated from other receptors. Typically, construction of noise
barriers for one or two receptors is not economically reasonable. None of the
evaluated barriers were reasonable and feasible. The evaluated barriers were either
not cost-effective, not feasible due to insufficient insertion loss, or blocked access
to the proposed road.
9. Air Quality
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified six pollutants for
tracking air quality. These six pollutants are: particulate matter (PM-10), sulfur
dioxide (SOO, nitrogen dioxide (N02), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), and
lead (Pb). Mobile sources (principally vehicular traffic) are linked to the emission
of carbon monoxide and, to a lesser extent, nitrogen dioxide and ozone. Recent
nation-wide estimates indicate that more than 50 percent of all CO emissions are
from mobile sources. Particulate matter, lead, and sulfur dioxide emissions are
generally associated with stationary sources and industrial activities.
-40-

0

11

CO is the most commonly occurring air pollutant generated by mobile sources.
It is a colorless gas produced from incomplete combustion of carbon-containing
fuel. CO is a potentially fatal gas that affects the oxygen-carrying capacity of
blood. At low concentrations, mental function, vision, and alertness are affected.
Ambient air quality is determined by measuring ambient pollutant concentrations
and comparing the concentrations to the corresponding standard. The "ambient
air" is defined by the EPA as "that portion of the atmosphere, external to
buildings, to which the general public has access." The EPA has established
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the six previously
identified pollutants: PM-101 CO, 03, SO2, N02, and Pb. The ambient air quality
standards are classified as primary standards, secondary standards, or both. The
primary standards were established allowing an adequate margin of safety for
protection of public health. Secondary standards were established with an
adequate margin of safety to protect the public welfare from adverse effects
associated with pollutants in the ambient air.
In protecting public welfare, air pollution effects on the following are considered:
soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather,
visibility, climate, property, transportation, economy, personal comfort, and well-
being. The scientific criteria upon which the standards are based are periodically
reviewed by EPA, and the standards are re-established or changed based upon the
findings. The current national primary and secondary standards ambient air
quality standards are summarized in Table 11.
-41-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SOZ Annual Arithmetic Mean 80 pg/m3 None
24 hr' 365 gg/m3 None
3 hour' None 1,300 µg/m3
NO, Annual Arithmetic Mean 100 µg/m3 Same as primary
CO 8 hour' 9 ppm None
1 hour' 35 ppm None
03 1 hourb 0.12 ppm Same as primary
Pb Quarterly
Arithmetic Mean' 1.5 gg/m3 Same as primary
a. Not to be exceeded more than once per year
b. Not to be exceeded more than one day per year averaged over a three-year period
gg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter of air
ppm - parts per million
microgram - one millionth of a gram, where 454 grams = 1 pound
-42-
PM-10 Annual Arithmetic Mean 50 gg/m3a Same as primarya
24 hrb 150 gg/m3a Same as primarya

' Monitoring of the pollutants, except Pb, is performed statewide by the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). When standards are
' exceeded, an area is labeled as non-attainment for that pollutant. Mecklenburg
County is classified as nonattainment for two pollutants: CO and 03. The last CO
' exceedance was in 1990. The last 03 exceedance occurred in 1989.
The most prevalent pollutant emitted from motor vehicles is CO. For this reason,
the analyses presented are concerned with determining the projected 2016 CO
' levels in the vicinity of the project.
To determine the CO concentration at a receptor, two concentration components
' must be used: local and background. The local component is predicted from
dispersion modeling and is due to CO emissions from motor vehicles operating
near the receptor locations. The background component is the ambient CO level.
The background CO component for the project area was estimated to be 1.9 ppm
' by the NCDEM (Air Quality Section). This is a typical value for a suburban area.
These two components were added together to determine the total CO
' concentration for comparison to the NAAQS.
Areas with high traffic volumes are most likely to generate the highest levels of
CO. In determining the air quality impact of the proposed project, the intersection
' with the highest projected volume of traffic was evaluated.. The intersection of
Rea Road Extension and proposed Providence Road West is anticipated to have
' the highest CO levels due to higher traffic volumes and the presence of vehicles
idling at this proposed signalized intersection.
At this intersection, the line source computer model CAL3QHC was used to
' predict the local CO concentration components. The CAL3QHC model is a
dispersion computer model developed for the EPA. Based on the assumption that
' vehicles at an intersection are either in motion or in an idling state, the program
0
-43-

is designed to predict air pollution levels by combining emissions from both
moving and idling vehicles.
CAL3QHC uses emission factors generated by EPA's approved models
MOBILE5A (for running emission factors) and MOBILE4.1 (for idle emission
factors). To evaluate the maximum impact of the proposed project on ambient CO
' concentrations, worst-case inputs were used in the modeling including receptor
locations at minimum right-of-way distances, adverse meteorology, peak traffic
conditions, and worst-case CO vehicle emission factors. The worst-case
assumptions for these parameters are not expected to occur simultaneously;
however, the objective is to develop a worst-case scenario to predict the highest
CO concentrations that could occur as a result of the proposed project.
1 MOBILE5A input parameters included:
' Vehicle Mix
autos (gasoline)
58.0%
light truck (gasoline) 20.4%
medium trucks (gasoline) 8.9%
' heavy trucks (gasoline) 3.3%
autos (diesel) 0.2%
medium trucks (diesel) 0.4%
' heavy trucks (diesel) 8.3%
motorcycles 0.5%

Tampering rates:
Annual mileage accumulation rates
and registration distributions:
Basic exhaust emission rates:
' Inspection/maintenance program:
Additional corrective factors:
Anti-tampering program:
' Refueling emission rates:
Ambient temperature:
Minimum and maximum daily
temperature:
Base and in-use volatility (RVP):

MOBILE5A Default
MOBILE5A Default
MOBILE5A Default
I/M started in 1983
None
None
Uncontrolled
48°F
minimum = 48.0°F maximum = 48.0°F
10.5 in 2016

-44-

1
1
1

1
e

1
I

0
r
0

L!
1
Region: Low altitude (approximately 500 feet above mean
sea level)
Calendar year: 2016 (January 1)
Speed: 25 MPH
Operating mode fractions: Non-catalyst, cold-start vehicles = 20.6%
Catalyst, hot-start vehicles = 27.3%
Catalyst, cold-start vehicles = 20.6%
Worst-case CAL3QHC input parameters included:
Averaging time:
Surface roughness:
Settling velocity:
Deposition velocity:
Receptor height:
Traffic volumes:
Emission factor:
Source height:
Wind speed:
Wind direction:
Mixing height:
Ambient concentration:
60 minutes
0.75 (corresponds to tall grass)
0 centimeters/second
0 centimeters/second
1.8 meters
peak hour volumes, year 2016
from MOBILESA (grams per mile)
0 meters
1 meter/second
10° increments
1,000 meters
1.9 ppm
As stated earlier, the intersection with the highest projected traffic volume was
evaluated. Eight different receptors were analyzed to compare the air quality
impact of Rea Road Extension. Table 12 summarizes the results of the air quality
analysis. Only the concentration associated with the wind direction that resulted
in the maximum CO level (worst-case) at each receptor is shown.
-45-

i

I
r
1
t
1 9.0
2 9.7
3 10.7
4 10.8
5 7.8
6 7.2
7 7.7
8 7.5
In 2016, the maximum one-hour CO concentration at the intersection of Rea Road
Extension and proposed Providence Road West is predicted to be 10.8 ppm, as
shown in Table 12.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS indicates that
?j no violations of the one-hour CO standard of 35 ppm occur. Using an appropriate
persistence factor of 0.61, the maximum eight-hour CO concentration at the
intersection is predicted to be 6.6 ppm. Comparison of this concentration with the
NAAQS eight-hour standard (9.0 ppm) indicates that the eight-hour standard also
will not be violated by the proposed project.
I The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Mecklenburg
County Department of Environmental Protection. Mecklenburg County is
designated as a moderate nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone
(03). The attainment dates are December 31, 1995 for CO and November 15,
-46-

1996 for 03. All appropriate Transportation Control Measures (TCM) included in
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which was approved by the EPA on March
19, 1981 have been completed. The Charlotte/Mecklenburg 2010 Thoroughfare
Plan (TP) and Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
have been determined to be in conformity to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
and the Interim Conformity Guidance dated June 7, 1991 on November 15, 1991
and December 16, 1993, respectively. This project is included in the FY 1993
TIP for the Charlotte-Metropolitan planning area; therefore, this project conforms
to the SIP. There have been no significant changes in the project's design
to concept, as used in the TIP conformity analysis.
10. Geology
The site is located within the Charlotte Belt and is primarily characterized by
intrusive rock types (Gabbro of the Concord Plutonic Suite). These rocks were
formed in the Devonian to Ordovician periods (399-479 million years ago).
However, the extreme northern and southern portions of the project are
characterized by metamorphic rocks. The northern section is characterized by
felsic metavolcanic rock, which are metamorphosed dacitic to rhyolitic flows and
tuffs, as well as minor mafic and intermediate metavolcanic rock. The southern
section is characterized by metavolcanic rock with interbedded felsic to mafic tuffs
and flowrock.

Two rock outcrops have been observed in the vicinity of the project; one to the
east of St. Matthew Catholic Church, and one southwest of the Williamsburg
subdivision. Some hard rock is likely to be encountered in cut sections along the
project corridor.
11 11. Mineral Resources
There are no rock quarries in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project.
Mecklenburg County contains many inactive gold mines, however, most of these

-47-

mines have been destroyed. There are no known gold mine sites within the right-
of-way for the proposed project.
12. Potential Hazardous Material Sites
Potential hazardous material sites include generators, treaters, and disposers of
hazardous wastes, landfills, sewage treatment facilities, garbage dumps, abandoned
services stations with underground storage tanks, fuel, oil, and gasoline storage
tanks and lagoons. The following sources were reviewed to determine if any
hazardous material sites or leaking underground storage tanks are located in the
project study area:
• Hazardous Waste Branch Files, North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR)
• Special Incidents Branch Files, NCDEHNR
• Superfund Section Branch Files, NCDEHNR
• Solid Waste Branch Files, NCDEHNR
• North Carolina Solid Waste Section List of Solid Waste Facility
Contacts, December 1992
• North Carolina Inactive Hazardous Sites Program, Status Report,
February 1992
• United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV,
Wasteland Preremedial/Federal Facility Report, September 1993

I

As a result of the review, no sites were identified in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project. However, two sites located on the periphery of the project study
area were identified as potential hazardous material sites: Weddington Center and
Quik Shoppe convenience store. Weddington Center, which is located in the
northeast quadrant of the NC 16 and NC 84 intersection and includes the
Weddington Shops and Harris Texaco, was found to have soil and groundwater
contamination upon removal of five underground storage tanks in February 1991.
-48-
1
The Quick Shoppe, located on the west side of Providence Road West just north
of the Blakeney Heath Road intersection, was also found to have soil
contamination upon removal of four underground storage tanks in February 1990.
Neither site is close enough to impact the proposed project.
Any other convenience stores or service stations in the vicinity of the proposed
project with underground storage tanks (USTs) are additional possible sites of
hazardous materials involvement; however, no UST leaks are known to exist or
have been reported at any other sites of this type in the project study area.
13. Visual Impacts
The project area is predominantly wooded and undeveloped with gently rolling
hills and small creeks. The area is surrounded by single-family residential
communities. Portions of the study area, particularly the Raeburn subdivision, will
be visually impacted by the construction of the proposed project. The typical
section for this project was selected to allow for landscaping and screening to
mitigate adverse visual impacts. Also, a landscaped berm is being considered in
the Raeburn area in order to further mitigate visual impacts to this subdivision.
14. Construction Impacts
Short-term construction impacts may occur in the areas of water quality, air
quality, natural resources, and noise. The potential impacts can be minimized by
careful adherence to established construction methods. These methods are
described below:
(. a. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right-of-
way and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans
or special provisions or unless disposal within the right-of-way is permitted
by the engineer. Disposal of waste or debris in active public waste or
disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by the engineer.
?j

-49-
1
1

r
1

V

Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the engineer,
it will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
b. During construction of the proposed project, all material resulting from
clearing, grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from
the project, and disposed of by the contractor. Any merchantable timber
should be salvaged. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning
shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of
the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. Additionally, trees outside of the construction limits should be
protected from construction activities to prevent skinning tree trunks from
heavy equipment, exposing roots, smothering trees from fill dirt around the
base, or accidentally spilling petroleum.
c. Borrow pits and ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate
breeding areas for mosquitoes.
d. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
e. There will be strict adherence to the erosion control plan by the
contractor, including limiting areas and duration of exposed earth and
stabilizing exposed areas as quickly as possible. Careful attention to
erosion control will be concentrated at the Sixmile Creek, McBride Branch,
and other creek crossings.
f. Measures will be taken to alleviate the dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is necessary for the protection, safety, and
comfort of motorists and nearby residents.
g. Although the high equipment noise levels are expected to be the main
contributor to the construction activity noise emissions, noise impacts
-50-

during project construction are of short duration. Peak noise levels from
highway construction equipment as measured at a distance of 50 feet may
vary from 70 dBA to 100 dBA. It is anticipated that the major sources of
construction noise will be from earth removal, hauling, grading, pile
driving, and paving. General construction noise impacts that can be
expected are temporary speech interference for passersby and those
individuals working near the project. Such noise will be limited to
daylight hours as much as possible.
15. Secondary Impacts
A major purpose of the proposed project is to carry future traffic volumes. These
traffic volumes are projected to increase substantially, from a high of about 6,000
vehicles per day in 1996, to a high of over 26,000 vehicles per day in 2016.
Much of this increase originates from planned residential developments adjacent
to the proposed road. Residential development in this area has been planned for
by both Mecklenburg and Union Counties and several developments are already
in place, with construction on others already in progress. The impacts of these
developments are in accord with both counties plans and will occur with or
without this project.
16. Permits Required
Section 404 permits are required from the COE for any activities that encroach
into jurisdictional wetlands or "waters of the United States." In addition, Section
401 of the Clean Water Act requires each state to certify that state water quality
standards will not be violated for activities which: 1) involve issuance of a federal
' permit or license; or 2) require discharges into "waters of the United States." The
Corp of Engineers cannot issue a 404 permit until 401 water quality certification
is approved by the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources -- Division of Environmental Management.
1
-51-

Permits will be required for the two roadway crossings of McBride Branch, as
well as the crossings of Sixmile Creek and the unnamed tributary to Flat Branch.
Permitting will also be required for wetland impacts associated with the wet
hardpan forest. McBride Branch and the tributary to Flat Branch are "above
headwaters" streams and their crossings may qualify under the Nationwide Permit
14. Sixmile Creek is a "below headwaters" stream and would likely require a
L General Permit from the COE. Impacts to the wet forested area may qualify
under the Nationwide Permit 26; however, if the COE considers the forested
wetlands as "adjacent wetlands" to Sixmile Creek, impacts would exceed the one
acre threshold for General Permits and the project may require an Individual
Section 404 permit. Final permit decisions are under the authority of the COE.
17. Geodetic Markers
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted by the subject project (see
Appendix).

t

-52-

V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
There will be a public hearing following the publication of this document. Advance notification
will be given by mail to individuals on the project mailing list and also will be provided in local
newspapers.

1

-53-

I VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Comments on the proposed Rea Road Extension were requested from the following agencies.
An asterisk indicates that a written response was received. These comments are incorporated into
the environmental assessment contained in this report. A copy of the comments is included in
the Appendix.
*U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
*U.S. Bureau of Mines - Denver, CO
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
*U.S. Forest Service - Asheville
l
i
h
R
l S
l
i
e
g
a
urvey -
ca
og
U.S. Geo
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
h
l
i
*
ouse
ear
ng
N.C. State C
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation (Natural Heritage Program)
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
City of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County
Union County

-54-
11

REA ROAD EXTENSION
UNION AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES U-2506
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
Figure
8A

s
REA ROAD EXTENSION
E?? PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
UNION AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES U-2506

Figure
8B
1 ob
s;
1-1

REA ROAD EXTENSION
UNION AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES U-2506
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
Figure
8C

a?
n

SCALE
200` 0 207 400'
REA ROAD EXTENSION
UNION AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES U-2506
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
Figure
8D

i
r
V, r-
REA ROAD EXTENSION
UNION AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES U-2506
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
Figure
8E
s

Al
s,
?n

SCALE
z0U' 0 20U 40(Y
REA ROAD EXTENSION
UNION AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES U-2506
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
Figure
8F
1
r?
1
1

t
APPENDIX

1
r

11

Advisory
ComcilOn Historic
Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #809
Washington, DC 20004
IN 2 8 IM
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and
Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
G1~d?
0
rl111. ` 0 1 1993
HIGHWAYS
ti
\??RUNN(E??
REF: Rea Road Extension
Mecklenberg and Union Counties, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Ward:
On June 18, 1993, the Council received your letter informing us
that planning efforts for the referenced project will soon be
underway. The description of project activities suggests the
undertaking has the potential to affect historic or prehistoric
properties in Mecklenberg and Union Counties.
If the project will involve Federal assistance, either through
funding by the Federal Highway Administration or by license or
permit from one or more of several Federal agencies, it will
require compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470f) and the Council's regulations,
"Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR 800) (copy enclosed).
Please be aware that these regulations apply to properties
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places, as well as those already included. While we appreciate
receiving your notification, it is the responsibility of the lead
Federal agency to identify potential historic properties,
determine how they may be affected by the proposed project,
notify the Council, and consult with the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on ways to avoid or reduce
the effects to historic properties. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation is encouraged to take an active role
in the Section 106 process; however, if Federal assistance is
anticipated for this project, further correspondence with the
Council should be initiated by the Federal agency, accompanied by
appropriate documentation as specified in 36 CFR § 800.8.
s

2
Should you have any questions or need further assistance, please
contact MaryAnn Naber at [phone].
Sincerely,
-j'Don L. Klima
Director
Eastern Office of Review
I Enclosure

t

L
1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
August 20, 1993
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
J
AUS 2 3 1993
Z
.L DIVISION OF v
HIGHWAYS
ONME?P
This is in response to your letter of June 16, 1993, requesting
our comments on the project, "Rea Road Extension from the proposed
Providence Road West relocation south to NC 16 at Weddington Road in
Mecklenburg and Union Counties; TIP No. U-2506" (Regulatory Branch
Action I.D. No. 199303069).
Our comments, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
perspective, involve impacts to COE projects, flood plains, and
other environmental aspects, primarily waters and wetlands. The
proposed project would not involve any COE-constructed navigation
or flood control project.
The proposed project is sited in Mecklenburg and Union Counties,
which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Based on
the February 1993 Mecklenburg County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM),
the proposed roadway would cross Six Mile Creek, which has been studied
by detailed methods with the 100-year flood elevations determined and
a floodway defined. The hydraulic effects on the 100-year flood level
and floodway should be addressed in the environmental document. The
final project's hydraulic effects should be coordinated with Mecklenburg
County for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and possible
revision to their flood insurance maps and report. From a review of
the July 1983 Union County FIRM, Six Mile Creek is an approximate study
stream, with the 100-year flood plain designated as Zone A. The roadway
also appears to cross an approximate-study reach of McBride Creek. We
recommend coordination with Union County for compliance with their flood
plain ordinance. Executive Order 11988 should also be complied with.

Our Regulatory Branch has also reviewed your letter and has the
following comments. There are high quality forested wetlands within the
project area adjacent to Lower Flat Branch. These bottomland hardwood
wetlands form a relatively uninterupted corridor along Six Mile Creek
1

-2-
that performs significant wetland functions, including flood storage,
sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient assimilation, riparian support,
ecological diversity, wildlife habitat, and recreation. This area of
Mecklenburg County also contains a concentration of mafic rock
depressional swamps which are uncommon wetlands with unique vegetational
associations and hydrologic features.
Due to the significant wetland resources of the project area, we
strongly recommend a comprehensive approach to transportation planning
in this part of the Charlotte Metropolitan area, to include this
project, the proposed Tom Short Road extension across Six Mile Creek,
the extension of Landen Ford Road over Flat Branch, and the proposed
widening of NC Highway 16 across Six Mile Creek. Upgrading of existing
transportation corridors should be given serious consideration as an
alternative to further fragmentation of the Six Mile Creek bottomlands.
Sufficient justification should be provided for the extension of Rea
Road into Union County in light of these other proposals that are also
being planned.
If you have any questions concerning permits in Mecklenburg and
Union Counties, please contact Mr. Steven Lund of our Asheville Field
Office at telephone [phone].
W We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can
be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
I Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
U
1

t

[1
t

1
1

1

1

TAE
United States Department of the Interior Amma
BUREAU OF MINES
Intermountain Field Operations Center
RO. Box 25086
Building 20, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225 E !
July 15, 1993
Ut 2 3 1993 z
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E. Manager A'
North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment
for Rea Road Extension, from Providence Road west to
SR-16 at Weddington Road in Mecklenburg and Union
Counties, North Carolina (ER 93/510)
At the request of the Director, Office of Environmental Affairs,
U.S. Bureau of Mines personnel reviewed the subject document.
With a project such as this, the Bureau is primarily concerned
that impacts to mineral resources and/or mineral production
facilities are adequately discussed during the review process.
Although there is significant mineral production in the general
project area, our research indicates that crushed stone is the
only mineral commodity with economic potential in the area that.
would be impacted by the proposed project. The immediate project
area appears to have little potential for economic deposits of
other minerals (lithium, mica, feldspar, and clays) that are
mined in the general area.
We suggest that the planned Environmental Assessment discuss
mineral resources and impacts to them. If, after study, no
adverse impacts to mineral resources are identified, a statement
to that effect should be included. Such an inclusion would
provide users of the document with knowledge that mineral
resources were considered during project planning.

Our comments are drawn from available information, are provided
on a technical assistance basis only, and may not reflect the
position of the Department of the Interior. If you have
questions regarding this review, please contact Steve W. Sikich
at [phone].

t
sws/cvl

[1
1
1
Sincerely yours,
Mark H. Hibpshman
Supervisory Physical Scientist

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
July 16, 1993
TAKE??
AAEEIN=
?G E IT
?F
Jtl' 1 9.1993
DIVISION OF
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager HIGHWAYS
Planning and Environmental Branch/RONME
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Scoping for proposed extension of Rea Road (SR 3624) from north
of existing Providence Road West to NC 16 at Weddington Road,
south of Charlotte, Mecklenburg and Union Counties, T.I.P.
No. U-2506
In your letter of June 16, 1993 (received June 21, 1993), you requested
information that would be pertinent for use in the preparation of an
environmental assessment on 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 information provided in your letter, this project will
involve the construction of a four-lane facility primarily on a new
location that will link the proposed Providence Road West relocation
south to NC 16 and will be approximately 5.5 miles long. The proposed
road will require a 100-foot right-of-way with no control of access.
This project will involve crossing Six-mile Creek and McBride Branch.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned
about the potential impacts the proposed project could have on listed or
proposed endangered or threatened species and on stream and wetland
ecosystems within the project impact area. Preference should be given to
alternative alignments, stream-crossing structures, and construction
techniques that avoid and/or minimize encroachment and impacts to these
resources.
The enclosed page identifies federally protected endangered and
threatened species known from Mecklenburg County that may occur within
the area of influence of this proposed action. The legal
responsibilities of a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal
representative under Section 7 of the Act are on file with the Federal
Highway Administration and the North Carolina Department of

I]

1

Transportation. The enclosed page also contains candidate species that
are currently under status review by the Service which may occur in the
project impact area. Candidate 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 endangered or
threatened. We are including these species in our response to give you
advance notification.
The Service's review of the subject document would be greatly
facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available
alternatives (the build and no-build alternatives).
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources
within the required rights-of-way and any areas, such
as borrow areas, that may be affected directly or
indirectly by the proposed interchange.
(3) Acreage and description of the creeks, streams, or
wetlands that will be filled as a consequence of the
proposed interchange. Wetlands affected by the
proposed project should be mapped in accordance with
the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory
Field Office (704/271-4854), to determine the need
for a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit.
(4) Linear feet of any water courses that will be relocated as
a consequence of the proposed project.
(5) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will
be eliminated because of the proposed project.
(6) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(7) An analysis of any crossing structures considered (i.e.,
spanning structure, culverts) and the rationale for
choosing the preferred structure(s) for any new crossings.
(8) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with any of the proposed project.
1

11

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you continue to keep us informed as to the progress of this
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-93-099.

Sin rely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Dennis L. Stewart, Program Manager, Division of Boating and Inland
Fisheries, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188

11
1

1

7
1

t

IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-93-099
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
CLAMS
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) - Endangered
PLANTS
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - Endangered
Georgia aster (Aster georgianus) - Candidate
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) - Candidate*
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - Candidate
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) - Candidate
*Indicates no specimen from Mecklenburg County in at least 20 years.
fl
I k%

IMP United States Forest National Forests United States Federal
Department of Service in North Carolina Court House Building
Agriculture 100 Otis Street

1

1

t
t

1

P.O. Box 2750
Asheville, NC 28802_
Reply to: 2730
Date: July 12, 19993
? v C IF
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways JUL 2 0 1993
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
vrv?srcv "VA
Dear Mr. Ward: NA,;Y;
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Rea Road Extension (TIP No.
U-2506), as requested by your June 16, 1993 letter.
There is no National Forest System land in the project area.
Thank you again for keeping us informed of any projects that may involve
National Forest lands.
Sincerely,
A
C. ITCH GURGANUS
Director, Lands d Minerals
Is Caring for the Land and Serving People
FS-6200-28b(3/92)

I ,
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
?8 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
k -7 2LZ C?3 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO: FROM:
9C DOT MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
RYON BRADY DIRECTOR
HIGHWAY BUILDING N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
ENTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING-REA ROAD EXTENSION FROM THE PROPOSED PROVIDENCE ROAD WEST
RELOCATION SOUTH TO NC 16 AT WEDDINGTON ROAD IN MECKLENBURG AND
PION COUNTIES; TIP N0. U-2506
SAI NO 93E42200988 PROGRAM TITLE -.SCOPING
I
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: t ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
1 COMMENTS ATTACHED
f HOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSV PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
1
1
r *C. REGION F

1

E

&?? qj-j'-?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
July 21, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager 6 1993
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways D1V1S1CV OF
Department of Trans ortation H1Gb1'ily,
FROM: David Brook ??LU
DeputY State 4 to ' Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: SR 3624 (Rea Road) extension from proposed
Providence Road West relocation south to NC 16 at
Weddington Road, Mecklenburg and Union Counties,
U-2506, CH 93-E-4220-0988
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 National Register-
listed properties located within the planning area.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
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.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
11
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 QP

L

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Planning & Assessment
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
A X -
E? EHNR
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee llk"'
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 93-0988 - Scoping Rea Road Extension from the Proposed
Providence Road West Relocation South to NC 16 at
Weddington Road, Mecklenburg County
DATE: July 16, 1993
The Department of Environment, Health, and
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The
list and describe information that is necessary
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
More specific comments will be provided during
review.
Natural Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
attachments
cc: David Foster

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
C) EHN1=?L
MEMORANDUM

U

I

Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Garner Road
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
June 29, 1993

TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Assessment Unit
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester C71W
SUBJECT: DOT EA/Scoping for Rea Road Extension from Providence Road West
Relocation South to NC 16 at Weddington Road in Mecklenburg & Union
Counties (Tip # U-2506)
PROJECT #93-0988
DUE DATE: 7-9-93
To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed
project, the Environmental Assessment should contain the following information
concerning the proposed route for the possible right-of-way purchases for the
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.
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
projects.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable
timber that is to be removed. This practice is encouraged to minimize
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.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
1
1
1
Page 2
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 the project would have the least impact to forest and
related resources in that area.
DHR:gm
pc: Warren Boyette -CO
File
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretacrets
ry C) E H N 1=1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 9, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Policy and Development
FROM: Monica Swihart';.)aater Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #93-0988; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Rea Road Extension from the Proposed Providence Road West
Relocation South to NC 16 at Weddington Road in
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, TIP No. U-2506
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management has reviewed the subject scoping letter. The proposed
improvements would cross Six-mile Creek and McBride Branch which
are classified as Class C by the State of North Carolina. DEM
requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channel ized/ relocated stream banks. be
revegetated.
B. Number of stream crossings.
C. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
D. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
E. 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 paper

Melba McGee
July 9, 1993
Page 2

G. 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.

H. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
i I. Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an
option.
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.
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 maybe
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
9692er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
i
1

1

11
El

Stc`e of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee ?}??
FROM: David Harrison v
A F15WA
r4j;AA
C) EHNF1
July 12, 1993
SUBJECT: Rea Road Extension, Mecklenburg and Union Counties.
Project No. 93-0988.
The proposed project involves 5.5 miles of new construction with
a 100 foot wide right-of-way. The Environmental Assessment
should identify any unique, prime, or important farmlands that
would be impacted by the project.. A wetlands evaluation should
be included.
DH/tl
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 501k recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

State of Notch Carolina
Department of Environment. Ninth, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Project
Due Date: -
143
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated Cray need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
n... 4-fta a narAinn thaat tsartmits ahnuld be addressed to the Recional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOWREMENTS tNalutory time
limit)
Permit to =nstruct i operate wastewater treatment Appi"ion 90 days before begin construction or - a - of of 30 days
taciiHim sewer system extensions. i swat construction contracts On4mo inspection. Postipptication
systems riot discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual 490 days)
NPOES • permit to discharge into surface water tsnd/ot Application 190 days before begin activity. On-site Inspection. 90.120 days
peiemn to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or Issue of NPOES
permit-which ever is later.
30 days
water use permit P04pplication technical conference usually nscessery (NIA
)
?days
J
Well Construction ?ermif
Complete application must be tecaivsd and permit issued
prior to the rnstallaton of a well.
05 days)
Application copy must be served on own adjacent riparian properly 55 days
Owes and Fin 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 Fpl Permit.
Permit to construct it operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities andlor Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21M NIA (90 days)
_ Any open burning associated with sut"ct proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2DA520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 16A 60 days
NCAC 20-0525 which requires notilicalion and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.7334)820. (90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2DA800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion t ssdtmentatso
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouslity Sect.l at least 30 20 days
days before be morn scirvrt . A tit of $30 for the first acre and !20.00 for each additional acre or an must accompany the Ian 30 clays)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-Site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. DOW amount
fanning permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond too days)
must be received before the permit can be Issued.
North Carolina turning permit .6 to inspection by N.C. Division FOtsst Resources H permit t day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-sits Inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required 1% more / day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soft than five acres of ground clearing activities are tnvoiwd. Inspections IN/A)
should be requested at Nast ten days before actual bum is planned "
90.120 days
Oil me" Facilities NIA MIA)
If permit required. application W days before begin eonsunietion.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Sooty Peg W inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR ap MN-
ed piano. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And 00 days)
a Id/ permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is netes•
sary to verify Huard Classification. A minimum fee of WMA0 must W-
company the application. An additional protesting fee based an a
pwconlag* or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
rb 09
Continued On reverse

11
normat process
Time
` fatatutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS WWI,
File suety bond of $5.000 with E14NR-notnit*10 State of NL.. 16days
Perm" to drill exploratory bit or gee an" conditional that any trill opened by drUS•operaor=er6ar1.9pon
abandonment, be plugged according to ENNR•rulas and regulations. MIA)
Geophys" E:ploratiDn Fenn" Application filed with FHNR at Nast 10 days. fWlo ememoof permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Ferns" Application fee based on structure sou Is e!?arged. Must Mckide 1520 days
descriptions S drawings of structure a proof of ownership fNIA)
of riparian preperty

-+
401 water Oual"y Certification
NIA 6o days
(130 daysl
SS Days
LAMA Perm" for MAJOR developnMnt X250.00 fee must socompany application (150 days)
22 days
LAMA Perm" for MINOR development NOW fee truest &co mpany application 425 days)
Several geodetic rrnonuments are located in or near the project area. Of any mOnunnents need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic survey. sox 271467. 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 it "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTSI are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 1SA NCAC 2M.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
I
45 days
(NIA)
• Other Cgnments (attach additional pages as necessary. being certain to cite cornthent authority):
(,? bits/?
ho i?rie?f??.s - ?" °?C`-?
/
6E : x0 oelifs +0 be olve --eel *ao d"e Wofw- rvt ace'relaNce. ISWlr/1e 24on3

E 6/v7/93 -
CJ ;'Ld DI? G 6/2 9/sJ
?
?
r
3t;,1a?

REGIONAL OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office
B ? Fayetteville Regional Office
ia Buildin
714 W
h
t
S
latt
59 Woodfin g
ov
ui
e
ac
Asheville. NC 26801 Fayetteville. NC 28301
(704) 2515206 (919) 4861541
Mooresville Regional Office ? Ralelph Regional office
Suite 101
3800 B
tt Dri
919 North Main Street. P.O. Box 950 arre
ve.
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh. NC 27609
(704) 6631699 [phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Dnve Extension
Washington, NC 27101 Wilmington. NC 28405
(919) 94""1 [phone]
0 WinstonSatem Reptonel Office
8025 N
P
i
nt Blvd.
orth
o
Suite 100
Winston-Salem. NC 27106
(919) 8967007
`• f
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural soes t?o3
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMAENTS sue, C Aries H..
1 Wiillam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
y 3 ?l rector
Project Number: _
0J;?1 County:
Project Name:

Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box'27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.

This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
1 Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewe Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
' No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
/
? f
f I
an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA),requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
/
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
_ The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
"?te
Reviewer
Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
1
1
1
1
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
July 9, 1993
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Harry LeGrand I
THROUGH: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: Scoping -- extend Rea Road, Mecklenburg and Union
counties
REFERENCE: 93-0988
The Division's Natural Heritage Program database shows the
existence of several populations of the Federally endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) in the vicinity
of the project. Specifically, these populations extend along
both the north and south sides of Weddington Road from the
vicinity of the Rea Road connection westward to Joe Kerr Road,
and along Joe Kerr Road from Weddington Road for about 0.3 mile.
The plants occur along the roadsides for a total distance of
about 1.3 mile. These plants were discovered during a survey in
the fall of 1992, and this is one of the largest known
populations anywhere.
We recommend that a survey of the existing populations be made to
determine if the eastern portion of the proposed route will
impact any plants. If it appears that plants might be impacted,
the proposed alignment should be shifted northeastward to connect
with Weddington Road farther to the east. In addition, we
strongly recommend that a survey for the sunflower be conducted
in the vicinity of the corridor because of the reasonable chance
that Schweinitz's sunflower may be present. Because the
sunflower blooms from mid-September to mid-October, we recommend
that this survey be done during those months, when the species is
most easily observed.

11

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, Acting Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 14, 1993
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for Rea Road Extension from the proposed
Providence Road West relocation south to NC 16 at
Weddington Road, Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North
Carolina, TIP No. U-2506, SCH Project No. 93-0988.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. L. J. Ward of
the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife
resources resulting from the subject project. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed project,
and our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq.,
as amended; 1 NCAC 25) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves construction of a four-lane
facility, primarily on new location, with no control of access.
NCWRC concerns include potential impacts to Sixmile Creek and its
tributaries and direct loss of wildlife habitat, particularly on
' the southern portion of the project area. Of greater concern are
the indirect impacts which will result from the lack of access
control on the project. Secondary development will be stimulated
by the new road access, leading to substantially greater habitat
impacts than those resulting from the roadway project itself.
Additional intersections required for new development will
quickly reduce the effectiveness of the facility in conveying
' traffic, creating future demand for additional road projects in
the area, with attending natural resource impacts.

Memo Page 2 July 14, 1993
The NCWRC recommends that more extensive use of existing
roads, possibly Blakeny Heath Road and Weddington School Road, be
considered to avoid or minimize impacts on remaining habitat
areas. The alignment depicted in the materials accompanying the
scoping letter shows a longitudinal encroachment on McBride
Branch of 2000 feet or more, and an upland alternative to this
' corridor should be evaluated.
The Union County portion of the project should be
constructed with partial or complete control of access to prevent
' strip development along McBride Branch and to preserve the
utility of the facility as a thoroughfare. If non-transportation
objectives, specifically land development, are being considered
as part of this project, all cooperating firms and/or
municipalities should be named in the environmental document. If
the involved lands have been designated or zoned for specific
' land uses, these should be mapped and discussed within a
secondary impact evaluation section of the environmental
document.
In addition to the specific concerns mentioned above, the
NCWRC requests that Kimley-Horn and Associates address the
following informational needs in the environmental document:
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. When practicable, 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. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
' and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species
' Program maintains databases for locations of vertebrate
wildlife species. While there is no charge for the
list, a service charge for computer time is involved.
' Additional information may be obtained from:

Memo Page 3 July 14, 1993
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Program
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
' 512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[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.
' S. 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. A list of document preparers which shows each
individual's professional background and
qualifications.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
CC: Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
' Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
u
t
t -
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 nDuee((firm deadline):
9?_ NMI) /
RECEjV
,61)
OR 21 19,
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: '"`UN?ENTq?SCISN z.
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning

? Mooresville ? Water 13 Water Resources El Environmental Health
?Groundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
?Coastal Management Consultant (Parks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
El Wilmington
? Others
Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS
c ynd ; A//
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
PS-104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

Rea Road Extension (SR 3624)
Southern Outer Loop to NC 16
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
State Project No. 9.8100352
TIP Project No. U-2506
ADMINISTRATION ACTION
ADDENDUM
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
March 1997
.
2a
D to H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
I f
Rea Road Extension (SR 3624)
Southern Outer Loop to NC 16
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
State Project No. 9.8100352
TIP Project No. U-2506
Addendum to
State Finding Of No Significant Impact
Project History
The State Environmental Assessment report was approved by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on May 17, 1994. The State Finding Of No
Significant Impact report was approved by NCDOT on May 10, 1995.
Description of the Proposed Project
NCDOT proposes to change the alignment of the Rea Road improvements in
Union County. This proposed change is in the vicinity of Rea Road and its intersection
with Marvin-Weddington Road (See Figure 1 attached). This change is proposed to
provide for an improved alignment through the curve at the Marvin-Weddington Road
intersection. The new alignment parallels McBride's Branch to the west, eliminating the
need for a new crossing of the stream.
The alignment is proposed to be shifted to the west by approximately 850 feet.
Environmental
Biologist visited the site April 21-22, 1995 for the purpose of evaluating potential
Schweinitz's sunflower habitat and to determine wetland boundaries. NCDOT biologist
delineated wetland boundaries on September 24, 1996. These boundaries were verified
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on February 7, 1997.
Schweinitz's sunflower - A survey of the study area west of the proposed Rea
Road Extension revealed no populations or individuals. However, the presence of
sunflower populations were confirmed along Marvin-Weddington Road as reported in the
State Environmental Assessment for Rea Road (1994).
The Department of Transportation will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service regarding relocation of any impacted Schweinitz's sunflower.

McBride Branch - A continuous segment of McBride Branch's floodplain, along
the southwest bank, was the only location within the study area where all three wetland
parameters occurred (wetland hydrology, hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation). Soils
within the floodplain are classified as Iredell loam (MRCS 1995). These soils are non-
hydric, but may have hydric inclusions of poorly drained soils or wet spots, occurring in
depressions and along drainageways (USDA 1991). Soil profiles adjacent to the creek
displayed evidence of hydric soil characteristics (ferromanganese concretions) and
secondary indicators of wetland hydrology (oxidized Rhizospheres). Vegetation of the
floodplain consists of typical bottomland species including tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua). Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands were confined to the floodplain of the
creek and occur within a zone 10-60 feet wide adjacent to the creek. Classification of
these wetlands, based on Cowardin et al., is palustrine forested.
Wetlands and Floodplains - The alignment change will widen Marvin-
Weddington Road at an existing crossing of McBride Branch. The original alignment
had proposed to cross McBride Branch at a new location. This change will eliminate a
new location crossing of McBride Branch. There were no wetlands affected in the
original design of this crossing of McBride Branch. Likewise, the alignment change will
not affect any wetlands. Thus, there will be no change in the amount of wetland takings
in this area of the project. The amount of 100-year floodplains will increase due to the
alignment change. However, the elimination of a new location creek crossing versus the
widening over an existing creek crossing will offset any increase in the amount of 100-
year flood plain impacts.
Conclusion
The Department of Transportation has determined that this proposed change of
the alignment for the Rea Road Extension will not have a significant impact on the
environment in the study area:
MINIMUM rira ram ?? s. 41111-1
Z
11
?
?
?
r`
¦
r. afrc,:.ar ?t,:nu

e
eer• ??•
? r
•
•
•
r`
•
r
m
Z
TD
TTV
O
L
m
n

as
m

¦a
¦n
¦v
?o
i N
O
0 -n'
r ?+
r
¦ ai •r j .sr ?
¦m a
????, ¦j, G I • yi^_...---'^'? eke??
?.. ¦ ...--•"'" peed p/
? l 'tee •- ¦ __ . ------ M ? r r •_•
All
4A, ? •\
rU,t SrroRr ?Oqp
?
16
a
ee
ee
140
ee
4b
OVA \ ?? {'\ O?eee**4P#
4p
e•
S
?
?
••\:.:`.. ,91 oN, clvoll 3011101,1Ulld

03
m ell
O NI
Z
/i
m 111
0 go
C-
m 41
,a .
a? rr
r
e
i eee .
rr .e
Una a ¦ee
r °
u¦
°
v0
1.
t
r
r
0
/ ' C.})f
n
1

0
r
11¦
A
r1
r
as
a
IN
s
am
MR,-
goo
MI$ O
:o m
:2 m
moo o
?m
°
Im U)
rc m
1• 4
i =
Vy
no o
.
0
rl
O
O
rr
a
33
0
m
H
C
x
r
D n
z Ii
v m
o
r-
OM CJ)
M
m
v
D?
Z?

! o??a
a?ao
i

A
O
CD

`?

z

°

m
-o

7D
r
o ? o
O m

o N p -1 z
o -n 0 p
m

to
0
U)
:°
°
O m
o rr -
n n
r
D m.
(n
z
N

?D
n
X

:3 M
O' D

O

1 Q v
.

o C X
m -i

O
Z

o O

z
r

tD
U)

OW
? S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETr JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 5, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: therine Doak, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
ric Galamb, DEHNR, DEM
David Cox, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Roy Shelton, Federal Highway Administration
J. A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Planning & Environmental Branch
R. B. Davis, P.E., Planning & Environmental Branch
Jerry McCrain, Environmental Services, Inc.
FROM: Byron E. Brady, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch T
SUBJECT: Rea Road Extension from NC 16 in Union County to
Ballentines Commons Parkway in Mecklenburg, State
Project No. 9.8100352, TIP Project U-2506.
A meeting was held on the subject project February 20, 1996 to discuss an
alignment change for the subject project. Byron Brady introduced the proposed change
and stated that the wetlands in the area of the change have been determined but have not
be delineated. He also stated that this alignment shift would not affect any additional
populations of the Schweinitz's sunflower which are present in the study area.
NCDOT agreed to have the wetlands delineated in the area of the alignment shift
so it can be determined whether this change will increase the amount of wetlands to be
acquired to construct this project. Once this information has been obtained, another
meeting with the review agencies will be held to discuss the results of this delineation.
There being no further questions or comments, the meeting was adjourned.

2 500
b\ /?Cl
L-J

?Y .,a SfATF°
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 30, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: R. B. Davis, P.E., Planning and Environmental Branch]
ZC . Bissett, P.E., Planning and Environmental Branch
Galamb, DEHNR
Cherry Green, US Fish & Wildlife Service
David Cox, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Steve Lund, US Corps of Engineers, Asheville office
FROM: Byron E. Brady, P.E., Project Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Rea Road Extension from NC 16 in Union County to
Ballentines Commons Parkway in Mecklenburg County,
State Project No. 9.8100352, TIP Project No.U-2506
A meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 20, 1996 in Room 434 of the
Transportation Building, Raleigh, to discuss changes in the proposed alignment for the
subject project. This meeting will begin following the R-218B meeting which some of you
have been previously notified of. The R-218B meeting will begin promptly at 10:00 AM.
Should you have any questions regarding this meeting, please feel free to contact
me at [phone], Ext. 262.
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources Ar*
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
E H N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn4i?p
Monica Swihart
August 1, 1995
From: Eric Galamb?'
Subject: FONSI for Rea Road Extension
Mecklenburg County
State Project DOT No. 9.8100352, TIP # U-2506
EHNR # 95-0895, DEM WQ # 10975
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The subject project as proposed would impact up to 2.0 acres of wetlands.
This project will require an Individual Certification since an Individual Permit is needed.
DOT should investigate wetland mitigation opportunities for this project. The mitigation
plan should be coordinated with DEM and submitted prior to the permit application.
Please be advised that this review of the FONSI by DEM does not preclude the denial
of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences
Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Steve Lund, COE
reard.fon
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
r
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
. Project Review Form 1
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
CID- ?kl Ig5
L I \ 8
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: ?I n kl II DL!? +7/JL n 0 F1„SLOG 'd b7? 1
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area in-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ill
? F
t ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ev
e
ayet ? Water [--]ater Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville ? Groundwater V
ildlife ? 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 Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
R
? Wilmington ? Others ECEIVED
nvironmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart JUN 2 1 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

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
W qk
? Kimley-Horn,
and Associates, Inc.
Engineering
Planning
and
Environmental
Consultants
Memorandum
To: Attendees
From: Larry Meisner
Date: October 25, 1994
Response Date: n/a
Subject: Meeting Minutes -- October 19, 1994
Rea Road Extension 1546.10
REC'Elft
oer 2,7 199
The meeting was held at 1:00 at the Schweinitz sunflower site, near the
intersection of Marvin-Weddington Road and Reid Dairy Road.
Attendees included:
Byron Brady, NCDOT Planning and Environmental
Randy Turner, NCDOT Planning and Environmental
John Maddox, NCDOT Roadway Design
Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers
Janice Nichols, US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Greg Price, NCDEHNR, DEM
Samar Bou-Ghazale, NCDEHNR, DEM
Ken Knight, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Ronnie Flehan, Crosland Land Co.
Jim Eisenhardt, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Beth Reed, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Larry Meisner, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
¦
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636-3068
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
I
A
Kimley-Horn Meeting Memorandum, October 25, 1994, Page 2
and Associates, Inc.
Randy Turner opened the meeting by providing background for the
project. He emphasized that it is a state-funded project being performed in
cooperation with landowners and developers in the project vicinity. The
Environmental Assessment has been circulated, agency comments have
been received, and the public hearing has been held. The purpose of this
meeting is to discuss agency comments, particularly those regarding the
project's impacts on the endangered Schweinitz sunflower and on
wetlands. Because there is no Federal funding on this project, NCDOT
has no avenue of involvement regarding the protected sunflower. The
Corps of Engineers as a Federal agency may have involvement with the
endangered species; however, to date the Corps has not requested Section
7 involvement. If the Corps does not become involved directly through
the Section 7 process, USFWS may still involve the endangered species
issue during the permit review process, under Section 9 and the
notification process. The second issue raised is wetland involvement,
regarding the 404/401 permitting process. One wetland area involved is a
hardpan forest, a relatively rare type of wetland.
Steve Lund said that the Corps has not yet made a decision regarding
whether Section 7 consultation with USFWS would be initiated. He
believes a more full discussion of alternatives is needed. The Corps'
preliminary position is that no Section 7 consultation is warranted when
there is no direct and causal influence between the permit and the affected
species.
Janice Nichols responded that she sees a Corps of Engineers responsibility
for consultation if a Federal action results in a "may affect" determination.
In this case, if all alternatives require a wetland permit, she believes that
the permit has a direct influence on the species impacted. She also said
that secondary impacts of the road need to be considered.
Randy said that the consideration of alternatives is a legitimate issue.
Historically, Environmental Assessments (as opposed to Environmental
Impact Statements) did not typically consider multiple alternatives.
However, recent permitting has involved looking at alternatives to assure
that avoidance and minimization had been considered.
Janice also mentioned the indirect impacts on wetlands. Road
construction may affect the hydrology of wetland areas beyond the area
directly affected by construction, particularly with hardpan forest
wetlands. Randy acknowledged that NCDOT had accepted this policy on
another project with impact on hardpan forest wetlands, and had mitigated
for indirect as well as direct wetland impacts.
e
Kimley-Horn Meeting Memorandum, October 25, 1994, Page 3
and Associates, Inc.
The type of wetland being impacted was discussed. Steve Lund noted that
the wetland north of Six Mile Creek was a hardpan forest but not a mafic
depression. Further, the group acknowledged that the area could be
considered hardpan but was not the "classic" community based nor soil
type (surface soils before hardpan). There was further discussion of
hardpan wetlands vs. riparian wetlands. The group acknowledged that
there is a difference of opinion regarding the relative value and function of
the two types of wetland forests. It was also acknowledged that NCDEM's
criteria judge riparian forest to be the more valuable of the two. Steve
Lund suggested considering moving the alignment to the east in the
hardpan forest area, so that it would only impact one wetland area at Six
Mile Creek, the riparian wetland. The area impacted by such a shift could
be greater than the two wetland areas impacted with the plan as presented
in the Environmental Assessment.
NCDEM raised the issue of extending Reid Dairy Road to Blakeney Heath
Road as an alternative to the proposed construction on new alignment.
Larry Meisner said that alternative had not yet been examined in detail,
but would be considered along with other DEM comments. He also
discussed alternatives considered to date, and explained the various
constraints on this project, including the right-of-way contributed by
private land owners and developers.
The group then examined the sunflower specimens that would be impacted
by the project. These populations are in maintained rights-of-way and that
there were only a few individuals at each site. After the review, Janice
Nichols said that the sunflower issue was, in her opinion, not irresolvable.
She felt that further discussion and coordination would lead to an
acceptable solution.
The group then moved to the hardpan forest wetland site. They examined
the area impacted by the proposed road, in both the hardpan forest and the
riparian forest wetland areas. Clearly a shift to the west would result in
the purchase of homes and the displacement of residents. The group also
examined the portion of the riparian forest that a shift in the alignment
would affect. That area had a soil type and vegetation composition very
similar to that in the hardpan forest. Randy suggested that NCDOT could
commit to building the road on fill through the hardpan forest to avoid
adversely impacting the wetland hydrology. Steve Lund said that DOT
should still consider the feasibility of avoiding that wetland area. After the
group reviewed the two wettand-forest-types, Kimley-Horn agreed to
prepare a brief analysis, which would compare the impact of the currently
proposed alignment with the impact of the alignment shifted to the east
through the riparian forest. The analysis would compare the function and
r
Kimley-Horn Meeting Memorandum, October 25, 1994, Page 4
?I and Associates, Inc.
value of the two wetland systems and the acreage impacted. NCDOT will
review the analysis before the post-hearing meeting. The issue of shifting
the alignment to that proposed by DEM will be considered at the post-
hearing meeting.
The group then moved to the area proposed for crossing Six Mile Creek,
where it appeared that the wetlands impact is less than described in the
EA. The only impact may be to bank to bank waters of the US, rather than
to wetlands. Clearly the impact to wetlands in this area would be less than
if the road were moved to the east.
Time frames for the project were discussed. The project is planned to go
to construction in 1997. All agreed that continued cooperation of the
agencies would facilitate meeting that schedule and that today's meeting
was very beneficial and would benefit the project schedule.
1
1
1
1
1
1
F 1$
Rea Road Extension (SR 3624)
Southern Outer Loop to NC 16
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
State Project No. 9.8100352
TIP No. U-2506
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
D to
H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
11

1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
14
Rea Road Extension
Southern Outer Loop to NC 16
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
State Project No. 9.8100352
TIP No. U-2506
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared By:
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
A R 0
_"W e p
0:Q ?a 8 1?1?
a
2g SEAL >
8495
10 0
i
° °
J. Mei n r, P.E., AICP .'',rq °° EftpgFQ °°
cf JAI,,,,.
ental dy Manager
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
. A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., ni ead
Consulting Engineering Unit
v e.
- 9 BA zt4A "I --
Byr4% Brady, P.E.
Project Manager

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The following environmental commitments are made by NCDOT for the design and construction of this
project:
1. NCDOT will coordinate the relocation of all Geodetic survey markers with the N.C. Geodetic Survey
prior to construction.
2. NCDOT will submit application for permits as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If a
wetlands mitigation plan is needed, coordination with the appropriate review agencies will be made prior
to permitting. Impacts to wetlands will be avoided where practicable and minimized otherwise.
3. A search for the Carolina heelsplitter will be made during the spring prior to construction in the streams
directly impacted by this project.
4. All drainage structures (bridges and culverts) will be constructed to accommodate sidewalks on both sides
of Rea Road.
5. The greenway and bicycle trail will be accommodated by the Sixmile Creek crossing through either a
bridge, culvert, or at-grade crossing of the roadway.
6. NCDOT will coordinate with USFWS regarding relocation of the impacted Schweinitz' sunflowers.
I

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Type of Action .................................. ............................... 1
2. Additional Information ............................................................ 1
3. Description of the Proposed Project .................................................. 1
4. Recommended Alternate ........................................................... 1
5. Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 8
6 Wetland Finding .................................................................. 8
7. Floodplain Finding ................................................................ 9
8. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment ......................................... 10
9. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment .................................. 11
10. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing ............................ 18
11. Revisions to the Environmental Assessment ........................................... 19
12. Basis For a Finding of No Significant Impact .......................................... 20
APPENDIX
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
LIST OF FIGURES
Following Page
Figure 1 Proposed Right-of-Way 4
Figure 2 Revised Base Map 19
Figure 3 Thoroughfare Plan in Study Area 19
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 1 Summary of Wetland Impact by Alternative 4

1
i
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
1 1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Administrative Action, State
Finding of No Significant Impact (SFONSI).
1 2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following person can be contacted for additional information concerning this action:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to build a roadway from the
proposed Providence Road West relocation in Mecklenburg County to NC 16, in northern Union
County. The proposed project is referred to as the Rea Road Extension. The extension will be
constructed as a four-lane roadway, primarily on new location. The length of the project is
approximately 5.5 miles. The proposed project is designated U-2506 and is included in the 1995-
2001 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program for right-of-way acquisition in Fiscal Year
1996 and construction in Fiscal Year 1997. NCDOT estimates the cost of the project at $13.35
million, including $3.05 million for right-of-way and $10.3 million for construction.
4. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATE
The Environmental Assessment addressed several alternatives to the proposed project, including the
No-Build Alternative, postponement of the project, and several alignment alternatives south of
Sixmile Creek. The evaluation of these alternatives determined that the No-Build and postponement
alternatives are not satisfactory, and that the preferred alternative alignment south of Sixmile Creek
1
r

has the least environmental impact, the shortest length, and the lowest construction and right-of-way
costs.
The majority of substantive comments on the Environmental Assessment dealt with the issue of
analyzing alternative alignments to reduce the impact on wetlands and on endangered species,
specifically, the Schweinitz' sunflower. The discussion and analysis following deal primarily with
those issues, as well as documenting additional coordination with the Corps of Engineers, USFWS,
and representatives of various divisions of NCDEHNR.
Additional Coordination and Field Visit
A meeting was held on October 19, 1994 at the Schweinitz' sunflower site, near the intersection of
Marvin-Weddington Road and Reid Dairy Road. Attendees included representatives of NCDOT,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NCDEHNR-DEM, NC
Wildlife Resources Commission, and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

The purpose of this meeting.was to discuss agency comments, particularly those regarding the
project's impacts on the endangered Schweinitz' sunflowear=and yin. vwetlands. Because there is no
Federal funding on this project, NCDOT has no avenue of involvement regarding the protected
sunflower. The Corps' preliminary position was that no Section 7 consultation is warranted when
there is no direct and causal influence between the permit and the affected species. Wetland
involvement under the 404/401 permitting process was also discussed, primarily regarding a hardpan
forest wetland area, a relatively rare type of wetland. Secondary impacts of the road were discussed,
as were the indirect impacts on wetlands. Road construction may affect the hydrology of wetland
areas beyond the area directly affected by construction, particularly with hardpan forest wetlands.

It was noted that the wetland north of Sixmile Creek was a hardpan forest but not a mafic
depression. The area is also not the "classic" hardpan community based on soil type. There is a'
difference of opinion regarding the relative value and function of the two types of wetland forests,
with NCDEM's criteria judging riparian forest to be the more valuable of the two.

2

NCDOT was requested to consider moving the alignment to the east in the hardpan forest area, so
that it would only impact one wetland area at Sixmile Creek, the riparian wetland. ?_NCDEM_ also
requested consideration of extending Reid Dairy Road-to Blakeney Heath Road as an alternative to
the proposed construction on new alignment.
The sunflower specimens that would be impacted by the project. These populations are in
maintained rights-of-way with only a few individuals at each site. After the site review, USFWS
said that further discussion and coordination regarding the sunflowers would lead to an acceptable
solution.
By inspecting the hardpan forest impacted by the proposed road and the adjacent areas, it was
evident that a shift to the west would result in the purchase of homes and the displacement of
residents. The riparian forest that a shift in the alignment to the east would affect had a soil type and
vegetation composition very similar to that in the hardpan forest Building. the road on fill through
the hardpan.forest would avoid adversely impacting the wetland hydrology. The Corps of Engineers
said tW DOT should still consider the feasibility..of avoiding that wetland area.
At the area proposed for crossing Sixmile Creek, where it appeared that the wetlands impact is less
than described in the EA. The only impact appeared to be to bank to bank waters of the U.S., rather
than to wetlands. Clearly the impact to wetlands in this area would be less than if the road were
moved to the east.
Evaluation of Alternatives to Avoid and Minimize Wetland Involvement
The Environmental Assessment analyzed a preferred alignment, which was presented to the public
at a hearing on October 13, 1994. The preliminary analysis for wetland impacts had been based on
wetland locations determined through aerial photography with limited site inspections.
?jub§ebquenntly, a detailed surveyed wetland delineation was made available for one of the parcels (they
Landen tract) through which the Rea-Road Extension would pass. The wetland surveys were used
to refine the estimated wetland impact acreage. Additionally, the Rea Road alignment within and
south of the Joseph's parcel (see Figure 1 C) was changed subsequent to a zoning hearing. This
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
change required that the crossing of the unnamed tributary in the center of the Landen parcel be
moved to the east.
Figure 1 is a series of three aerial photographs with roadway alignments overlaid. It is based on
Figure 8 in the Environmental Assessment. The new figure includes an overlay in blue of the
surveyed delineated wetlands on the Landen parcel as well as an estimate of wetlands based on aerial
photography and site reconnaissance in areas beyond those surveyed on the Landen parcel. This
figure also shows alternative alignments A-1 and B-1 in the area of Sixmile Creek and alternative
alignments A-2 and B-2 in the area of the unnamed tributary to Flat Branch. Five crossings of
wetland areas are shown in Figure 1 and summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF WETLAND IMPACT BY ALTERNATIVES
Crossing Alternate Wetland Acreage
1 A-1 Sixmile Creek 0.14
2 A-1 Hardpan Forest 0.54
3 A-2 Unnamed Tributary 0.21
4 B-1 Sixmile Creek 2.41
5 B-2 Unnamed Tributary 0.56
Unnamed Tributary Crossing
Two alternative crossing locations ( 3 and 5) have been identified at the unnamed tributary in the
Landen parcel. These would impact similar wetland communities. A crossing proposed by
regulatory agencies to the west of Crossing 3 would require only a bank to bank crossing of the
unnamed tributary. From a wetland impact perspective, the regulatory agency alternative has the
least irnpactto wetlands and=is preferred from that perspective:' However, this alignment cannot
become viable unless the point of entry to the Joseph's property to the north is changed. The
alignment on the Joseph's parcel is predicated on a plan approved by Mecklenburg County. Any
change in this alignment would require resubmission to the County for approval. Likewise, Crossing
4

c
z
0
z
D
z
am
KM
m>
0
xm
r0
mD
Wv
crn
Mx
0?
0M
0z
c (n
10
mZ
N
c
N
0
0
Cl)
M
fl /
2
0
n
D
IC
D? m

FL
S 3
O
O ?
.rt
?y
1
(DO
d ?
O (p
3 •+
O a
?Q
n?
U)
? N
A C7
m
Q N
Qa
?o
M (?
Q
a„
ma
dm
Qo
N
a?
and
3 N
(D 4a
y 7
O W
7

? 3a
K M
1
3 Q x
a ?, 3
d
D o?
Q 3 O
d ?.O
(yp ? O
Q
7 ?
? dd r
ac m
° d? m•
N
QQ Z
?• a N O
M 0
CD a
(A (D 0
G7
< w 61
W ? (D
Q O
:;,o
:» OO.
y 7 O
a ?• 3
c
a c
7 r?
fD @ »
?« .n. O
7 y
Q

c
z
5
z
D
z
am
Cm
M>
0
?m
rp
mD
Cv
crn
MX
o-q
om
oz
z-
-40
mz
N
c
N
N
O
0
10
0
cf)
M
v
00
n
D
W C
O)o
7
a ?.
'.
S D)
s?
N
fD y
O O
o?
7 •+
7 7
O a
N ?
C m
W
(D W
A Q
fD d
a N
CD
CID
as
V0
? fD
fD a
0.-
7 A
ao
N 7
a7
fD d.
N
30
fD Oi
p? 7
..A
O O
7
f J
c?
3 a0
o c? d
A a?
0 0?
7 O A
Q 7O
cu
ID O
a
o of
7 (D ::
n ?d r
0 7 7
? as m
O ,O. fD
m y N nl
a6 Z
ay p
W mm
:a
m
N fD 7
0
m N M
CL 7?
S
A
7 O
d _rt
CL ca
C
fD N ?
7 CD
CD D) 410
O
O N 7
7 y
a

_z
O
z
D
z
am
cm
m>
n
?m
rp
mD
cov
CM
Mx
orn
oz
c Cl)
Z-4 E5
mz
V)
C
N
U'?
O
M
O
M
O
m
v
O
In

i

w
00
V!
' 3•
1 Iy
(D
1
OO
3
oQ
y ?
C ?
? 61
? y
n ?
Q Q
cr O
m3
1 H
M M
(fl Q
Q M
oa
mm
n
ao
y
Q 3
fD d.
3 y
(D d
._+ f7
O (D
7
3-o
w?
CD
3 Q x
a ?3
o fD- m
on
Q O
d d.3
(o d O
a
?CD
? dd r
QG m
y fd ?
?y m
' aQ Z
,• Q N v
(Q
N M 7
d
3 1
» O .O+
y 7 O
a co
y C O
!D y ?
?, 1 N
d »
O y ?
7 y
Q

VI I

-? o < f

J

1

3, which was developed prior to the zoning change, is not viable from an engineering perspective
for the same reasons. Based on the above, unless the alignment can be changed within the Joseph's
tract, Crossing 5 is the only feasible crossing of the unnamed tributary given the design restrictions
within the Landen parcel. Further informal coordination with the Corps of Engineers has indicated
that impacts in this area are considered minimal and that further investigation of alternatives is not
necessary.
Sixmile Creek (Hardpan Forest)
Two alternatives have been proposed to cross Sixmile Creek. Alive A-1 requires impacting two
areas of wetlands in the vicinity of Sixmile Creek. Crossing 1 of Sixmile Creek has an approximate
disturbance of 0.14 acre of wetland, while Crossing 2 impacts 0.54 acre of hardpan forest, for a total
;off (Og acre impaet to wetlands..
Shifting the alignment to the north and west in order to avoid the hardpan forest wetlands entirely
is not feasible without relocating a number of recently built homes in Landen Meadows. The
alignment has been located as far west as possible without impacting existing home sites, with right
of way adjacent to the neighboring property lines.
The area to the soutl(?Itebnative B-1) was determined to be similar in composition to Alternative
A-1 in both vegetative community and soil types. A crossing in this area would eliminate one
crossing, but W iild require more than four times;-the acreage of the A-1 alignment. Further, based
on a wetland function/value assessment performed by SIG) ` Wk for this area, the wetlands area
adjacent to rs"utntile Creek at Crossing 4 has a higher wetland value than the wetlands in Alternative
A-1. The different criteria used by federal agencies also indicate that the wetlands in the area of
Crossing 4 have the higher value.
In summary, Alternative B-1 would have a larger impact to more highly valued wetlands.
Additionally, the potential indirect impacts to hydrology would be at least as much of a problem
in the proposed area. The original alignment proposed (Alternative A-1) in the EA is preferred over
the regulatory agency proposed alignment (Alternative B-1). Further, the crossing in this area
should utilize special construction measures (no excavation) to ensure that hydrology be maintained
5

between the wetland areas. Additionally, Alternative B-2 should be utilized for the crossing of the
unnamed tributary, unless the alignment in the Joseph's site can be moved in a manner that would
permit moving the crossing further west to avoid wetlands.
Analysis of Reid Dairy Road Alternative
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) proposed an alternative
alignment using Reid Dairy. Roadd and Blakeney. Heath Road instead of building. the entire project
north of Marvin-Weddington Road on new location. In order to serve proposed, traffic volumes,
the DEM proposal would have to include widening Marvin-Weddington Road from Providence
Road (NC 16) to Reid Dairy Road, widening existing Reid Dairy Road from Marvin-Weddington
Road to its terminus, and constructing a road on new location from the terminus of Marvin-
Weddington Road to the project terminus at Elm Lane.
r
It is assumed that the DEM alternative would be similar to that proposed by NCDOT from
Blakeney Heath Road to the northern terminus and from NC 16 to Reid Dairy Road. Therefore,
the area of concern includes a comparison of the NCDOT proposal from Reid Dairy Road to
Blakeney Heath Road with the widening and extension of Reid Dairy Road.
' The NCDOT proposal within the area of concern includes widening (including minor realignment)
approximately 7,000 feet of Marvin-Weddington Road and construction of approximately 13,000
feet of Rea Road on new location. The project would cross McBride Branch twice and Sixmile
Creek once in the area of interest and would impact wetlands at Sixmile Creek.
The DEM proposal within the area of concern includes widening (including minor realignment)
approximately 3,600 feet of Marvin-Weddington Road, widening (including minor realignment)
approximately 5,600 feet of Reid Dairy Road, and construction of approximately 6,600 feet of
Rea Road on new location. While this proposal would reduce the amount of road to be built on
new location, it has the following disadvantages:
• The project would cross Sixmile Creek once and Flat Branch once in the area of interest
and would impact floodplain and wetlands at both crossings.
6

I
• Because of the proximity of Sixmile Creek and Flat Branch in the area of the proposed
connection, it would not be possible to cross both streams at a 90-degree angle; thus
impacting more floodplain and more wetland than the individual crossing of Sixmile Creek
' in the NCDOT proposal.
• The crossing of the two streams would be in proximity to the proposed intersection with
' the planned east-west circumferential, indicated as a major thoroughfare on Mecklenburg
County's adopted thoroughfare plan. This proximity precludes the desirable
' perpendicular crossings of the streams and the planned road.
• The crossing of Flat Branch would be a major crossing, likely requiring a major drainage
structure, as opposed to the two minor crossings of McBride Branch which would use pipe
' culverts.
• Reid Dairy Road has recently been cut off into two cul-de-sacs, with the adjacent land
developed into suburban subdivisions with very expensive homes (over $250,000)
adjoining the road. Right-of-way costs in this area would be extremely high, and there
would be substantial public opposition to widening the road through this type of
community, with houses fronting directly on Reid Dairy Road. It is not believed to be
practicable to widen a road into a major four-lane divided thoroughfare through this
community.
Based on the above factors, the alternative proposed by DEM is not competitive with the NCDOT
alternative, in terms of environmental impact, human impact, and cost.
)c?oi?ended Alternative
Based on a thorough evaluation of the various additional alternatives proposed by the reviewing
agencies, the recommended alternative is that designated in Figure 1 a&A-i and 13-2.
7

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Construction of the proposed project will help meet traffic needs and fulfill the goals of the
Mecklenburg-Union Thoroughfare Plan. Rea Road is designated as a major thoroughfare between
the proposed Charlotte Outer Loop and the Union County line.
Adverse environmental impacts from the proposed project include the following: four stream
crossings (two of McBride Branch, one of Sixmile Creek, and one of the unnamed tributary to Flat
Branch), potential impacts to approximately 37.9 acres of forested habitat, and potential impacts to
' wetlands -in four areas (totalling approximately 2.0 acres).' `In addition, two populations of the
federally endangered species Schweinitz's sunflower potentially will be impacted by the proposed
project. Under federal law, any action which has the potential to result in a negative impact to
federally protected plants or animals is subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
r (USFWS). Coordination with the USFWS will be maintained regarding the potential impacts to this
species.
Adverse social impacts from the proposed project include the division of the Raeburn subdivision,
however, the proposed roadway was included in the original subdivision plan and a corridor has
been preserved. Several other existing and proposed developments will also be impacted by their
` relative proximity to the proposed project. No residences or businesses will be relocated by the
roadway.
6. WETLAND FINDING
Executive Order 11990 establishes a national policy to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts
on wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there
is a practical alternative. Four small pockets of bottom-land and hardpan forested wetlands will be
affected by proposed construction. The proposed project has been developed and the proposed
alternative selected which takes the minimum practicable amount of wetland. Alignment
alternatives that would completely avoid the hardpan forest wetland near Sixmile Creek would
involve greater impacts to other wetland communities or major disruption to urban land use
development. Minimization has been employed in the planning analyses and the proposed
8

i
alternative selected which has substantially less wetland involvement than other alignments.
Therefore, there is no practical alternative to avoid the 2.0 acres of wetland.
The EA identified several potential alternatives for mitigation and compensation of wetlands taken
by the proposed improvements, including the use of "best management practices". These
alternatives will be considered during the permit review/negotiation process.
7. FLOODPLAIN FINDING
The objectives of Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain Management," and DOT Order 5650.2,
"Floodplain Management and Protection," are to avoid adverse impacts due to occupancy and
alteration of the 100-year floodplain unless that location is the only practical alternative. In such
circumstances, it is required that every effort must be made to minimize the potential risks to human
safety and property, and to minimize negative effects on natural and beneficial floodplain value.
The preferred alternative will be developed to comply with these orders and with North Carolina
Executive Order 123, "Uniform Floodplain Management Policy."
The proposed alignment will involve approximately 6.5 acres of floodplain, based on draft Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps. The project will be designed such that
the floodway will carry the 100-year flood without increasing the water elevation more than one foot
at any given point. The dimensions of the drainage structures and the roadway grades will be
adjusted and designed to avoid increasing the flood hazard in the project area. The project will be
coordinated with appropriate state and local officials and FEMA to assure compliance with FEMA,
State, and local floodway regulations. Therefore, in accordance with the Executive Order 11988 and
23 CFR 650, Subpart A, the proposed project will not cause a significant floodplain encroachment.
Methods to minimize harm and preserve the floodplains include minimizing fill and grading
requirements, preserving the free natural drainage whenever possible, maintaining vegetation
buffers, controlling urban runoff, and minimizing erosion and sedimentation during construction.
9

8. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the Division of Highways (NCDOT) on May 17,
1994. The approved Environmental Assessment was distributed to the following Federal, State, and
Local agencies. An asterisk (*) denotes that a response was received. Copies of correspondence are
' included in the Appendix of this document.
U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
' U.S. Bureau of Mines
* U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
* N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* Division of Parks and Recreation (Natural Heritage Program)
* Division of Environmental Management
* Division of Environmental Health
* Division of Land Resources
* Wildlife Resources Commission
* Mecklenburg/Union Metropolitan Planning Organization
City of Charlotte
* Mecklenburg County
Union County
10

9. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from 12 agencies. The
following is a summary of these comments with responses where appropriate.
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Letter dated: October 4, 1994
Comment: "The final project's hydraulic effects should be coordinated with both counties for
compliance with their flood plain ordinance and possible revision to their flood insurance maps and
reports ... Executive Order 11988 should also be complied with."
' Response: The final design of the project will include detailed hydraulic analysis and, if
appropriate, flood studies. Coordination will be maintained with Mecklenburg and Union Counties
' regarding compliance with flood plain ordinances. The final design will comply with Executive
Order 11988.
Comment: "The document is inadequate for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act...The principle deficiency is a lack of consideration of
alternative alignments ... within Mecklenburg County ..... ltertiative alignments should be examined
that would avoid or minimize. impacts to wetlands, particularly the identified hardpan forest wetland.
More easterly routes through existing undeveloped land should be studied."
Response: An indepth analysis of alternatives that would avoid the referenced hardpan forest has
been conducted and is included in Section 4 of this document (Recommended Alternate) The
analysis found that alternatives that avoid the hardpan forest impact a greater quantity of high
quality wetlands or existing residences.
Comment: "More easterly tie-in points to Weddington Road at the south end of the project should
receive additional study, as well as other design modifications that would avoid impacts to the
endangered Schweinitz's sunflower. Insufficient justification is given in the document for dismissing
alternatives that would avoid the sunflower."
Response: An analysis of more easterly tie-in points to avoid the Schweinitz's sunflower location
was conducted, as requested by the Corps of Engineers and Division of Environmental Management.
This analysis, which is included in Section 4 of this document, determined that such an alternative
is not viable. The impact to the sunflowers was judged to be minor and relocation an acceptable
mitigation, based on informal discussions with USFWS.
Comment: "This [hardpan forest] wetland occupies a broad trough-like area that forms a continuum
with Sixmile Creek. We, _therefore, consider this wetland to be adjacent to Sixmile Creek and
subject to in fll m Department of the. Army permit requirements:"
Response: An individual permit will be applied for in connection with the crossing of this wetland
and the crossing of Sixmile Creek.
11

r Comment: "A functional assessment of wetlands should be included in the document and,uLafront
t Fplanaed for 4?auoidable losses."
' Response: This assessment is included in the analysis of alternatives referenced above A01 ion
will be determined at the time the permit application is submitted. The mitigation plan will be
coordinated with regulatory agencies and will comply with their standards.
Comment: "Justification for dropping the proposed bridge crossing of Sixmile Creek should be

' included."
Response: This crossing is currently planned to be abridge. A final decision will be made during
the final design of the roadway and coordinated with the Corps of Engineers during the permit
process.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Letter dated: July 28, 1994
Comment: "[W]e believe the Corps has the responsibility to consult with the Service on this project.
Since we have yet to hear from Mr. Wright regarding our letter and the Section 7 consultation
process has not been initiated, we believe that the endangered species issue is unresolved at this
time.
Response: The Corps of Engineers has determined that consultation with USFWS is not appropriate
in this case.
Comment: "While the preferred alternative will directly impact two of the known sunflower
' populations, the Service also believes that this project will result in indirect impacts to the other
three identified sunflower populations located within the project area ... The project area contains
several unique areas that provide important wildlife habitat ... [T]he Service believes that
anticipated secondary development along the proposed road will result in adverse impacts to these
communities."
Response: The responsibility for the impacts of secondary development rests with the agencies
having authority for regulating such development, in this case, Mecklenburg County, Union County,
and potentially the City of Charlotte.
Comment: "The preferred alternative will also directly impact 1.26 acres of upland depressional
swamp, a relatively rare wetland community type in North Carolina. We do not believe that the
assessment properly highlighted the status of this community type. If asked to review and comment
on a permit application under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for this project, the Service will
likely request that avoidance alternatives are carefully evaluated, especially with regards to the
upland depressional wetland."
Response: The area referenced above has been determined to be 0.54 acre rather than 1.26 acres.
This area, while it is a hardpan forest, is not an upland depressional swamp. Field visits with
12

USFWS and Corps of Engineers staff confirmed this fact. As discussed previously, alternatives have
' been analyzed in this area, and the impacts proposed are unavoidable and have been minimized.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
Letter sent: August 12, 1994
Comment: "While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal permits
may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act."
' Response: Further coordination with the Department of Cultural Resources will be made by the
Corps of Engineers during permitting.
f North Carolina Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse
Letter sent: September 6, 1994
Comment: "Attached to this letter are comments made by the Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources in the course of this review. Because of the nature of the comments, it has
been determined that you should not proceed with a Finding of No Significant Impact until the issues
raised have been further discussed."
Response: We believe that the comments are adequately addressed in the responses to specific
comments and in other portions of this document to justify a Finding of No Significant Impact.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Letter sent: August 9, 1994
Comment: "The environmental assessment did not adequately address departmental issues. Before
proceeding with the Finding of No Significant Impact, there are several points that will need further
clarification as noted in the attached comments from our divisions."
Response: See response to State Clearinghouse above and following responses to DEIINR division
comments.
Comment: "We encourage the Department of Transportation's project engineer to directly contact
our commenting divisions so questions are satisfactory resolved in the revised environmental
assessment."
Response: The Department's Engineers have met with representatives of DEFINR at the project site
in a effort to resolve questions raised in the attached comments.
13

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Letter sent: July 27, 1994
' Comment: "The EA concludes that destruction of two populations of Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) ... is unavoidable even though other alignments are feasible that would
miss these populations altogether."
Response: The conclusion in the EA was based on the substantial additional right-of-way cost of
shifting the alignment to the east through an approved subdivision. Another alignment shift along
Reid Dairy Road was studied (see text in Section 4 of this document) and also was determined not
to be feasible. Further, as was noted in the response to the Corps of Engineers, informal discussions
' with USFWS during the site visit indicated that the impact to Schweinitz's sunflower is minor and
can be mitigated.
' Comment: "The EA does not address the secondary impacts of the project, particularly development
along the route which is not planned to have any control over access. We strongly feel that the EA
should be revised to reconsider all of these impacts."
Response: See response to USFWS regarding secondary impact.
Comment: "[T]he EA states that coordination regarding impacts to the sunflower will be maintained
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (p. S-3) ... We strongly recommend that the EA include the
outcome of these discussions."
Response: Further discussions with USFWS, specifically, the on-site meeting, are included in
Section 4 of this document. Coordination with USFWS regarding the sunflower will be maintained
throughout the project planning, design, and construction.
Comment: "We are also concerned that the results of a survey for the Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata), another species both federally and state listed as Endangered, was not
included in the EA ... We fully support the recommendation of John Alderman (Nongame and
Endangered Species Program) that a greater effort should be made to look for this species within all
the drainages affected by the project."
Response: As stated in the EA and in the list of environmental commitments in this document, a
search for the Carolina heelsplitter will be made during the spring prior to construction in the
streams directly impacted by this project.
Comment: "[W]e are uncertain why alternative alignments were apparently not considered that run
north of MacBride Branch."
Response: See the previous response regarding the alternative alignment along Reid Dairy Road.
14

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Letter dated: August 1, 1994
Comment: "DOT apparently has made no attempt to avoid the 4 wetland locations. There were 4
alternative alignments at the southern terminus but only one build alternative north of the 4
' alternatives ... DEM suggests that DOT investigate extending Reid Dairy Road to Blakeney Heath
Road (see attachment) in order to minimize stream crossings and wetlands and shorten the road. The
wetland impacts for these new alignments should be discussed."
' Response: The suggested alignment has been studied and documented in Section 4 of this document.
;It was det&n#ned not to be a feasible alternate. ,;,
Comment: "The COE will probably determine that this road has no useable segment since the
project begins in the "middle of no-where" instead of an interchange location."
Response: The project has logical termini: the end of an existing major thoroughfare (soon to be
opened to traffic) just south of an interchange and an intersection with NC 16 (Providence Road),
' another major thoroughfare.
Comment: "DOT did not identify the access control for this project. DEM recommends that there
be full access control to minimize the impacts to the high quality wetlands associated with Lower
Flat Branch and Sixmile Creek."
' Response: The EA states on page 8 that "[a]ccess on the portion of the project on new location is
to be limited to designated areas. " Partial access control (access at designated intersections only,
with limited median openings) is recommended for this project, as full access control (i.e., freeway)
is not warranted by the traffic projections, would cost substantially more and would not serve the
purpose of the project. A freeway would have a greater impact on the environment due to greater
right-of-way requiring additional clearing, high design speed requiring a greater degree of
earthwork (cut and fill), interchange ramps, and service roads. The portion of the project on
existing alignment (along Marvin-Weddington Road) will not control access, as existing residential
driveways must maintain access to the road.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Health
Letter dated: July 19, 1994
Comment: "If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply Section,
Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, [phone]."
Response: The required plan review will be performed prior to construction.
15

1
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
' Division of Land Resources
' Letter dated: July 11, 1994
Comment: "This project will impact 2 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 ofN.C. General Statute 102-4."
Response: N. C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
Comment: "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."
Response: An erosion and sedimentation plan will be prepared as part of the construction plans and
documents.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Letter dated: August 3, 1994
' Comment: "[T]here is no mention of alternatives which avoid wetland impacts. The NCWRC does
not concur with the EA for this project. We could concur if NCDOT studies alternative alignments
which avoid impacts to the four wetland sites identified in the common segment of the build
alternatives. This could be accomplished by upgrading existing roads, possibly Blakeney Heath
Road and Weddington School Road."
Response: Please see the response to USFWS and the information provided in Section 4 of this
document regarding the Reid Dairy Road alternative.
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization
Letter dated: August 16, 1994
Comment: [T]he completion of the rest of Ballantyne Commons Parkway (TIP project U-3103)
between Piper Glen and existing Providence Road West (SR 3626) is not addressed at all in the
document. The operational problems which will occur as a result of this gap are an integral part of
this project."
Response: NCDOT is currently evaluating options for addressing the operational problems caused
by the gap in the system. One option under consideration is construction by NCDOT of the missing
link in relocated Providence Road West.
Comment: "A secondary consideration to be addressed is the future of the remnant of Providence
Road West between Elm Lane West (SR 3649) and Ballantyne Commons Parkway's ultimate
connection to Providence Road West. The EA assumes that this road will remain open. As we have
16

?II
J
previously indicated, there is merit to closing one end or the other of this road, eliminating the need
for a traffic signal at its intersection with Rea Road."
Response: The decision on connection of Providence Road West will be determined during final
' design. The extension of Providence Road West to the west by another project will be considered,
as well as the location of a shopping center at Providence Road West and Elm Lane. NCDOT's
current preference is to leave the road connected.
' Comment: "[T]he intersection of Blakeney-Heath Road (SR 3629) is proposed for signalization.
Citizen testimony at the hearings for the conditional zoning plan for the Landen community
' requested the closing of Blakeney Heath Road as it enters Landen. Again, public involvement may
result in this severance and the resulting traffic volumes may not warrant a traffic signal."
' Response: If Blakeney Heath Road is closed and projected traffic volumes at Rea Road do not
warrant signalization, the intersection would not be signalized as part of this project.
' Comment: "At the crossing of Sixmile Creek at the Mecklenburg-Union Counties border, a public
greenway will need to be accommodated by the creek crossing."
Response: The greenway and bicycle trail will be accommodated by the crossing through either a
bridge, a culvert, or an at-grade crossing of the roadway.
Comment: "In the Raeburn community, there was a long standing commitment by the developer
to a pedestrian underpass linking the swim club with the rest of the neighborhood to the east. We
have heard that a check was given to the neighborhood association for this purpose. The final
disposition of this issue should come from public involvement and be addressed in the planning
documents."
Response: The developer provided funds to the homeowners association for construction of an
underpass; however, the association elected to spend the funds for other purposes. A safe pedestrian
crossing can be provided at-grade with proper traffic control devices. The specific items involved
in this crossing will be determined during the design of the project.
Comment: "[W]e request that all drainage structures be constructed to accommodate the future
provision of five (5) foot wide sidewalks on both sides of Rea Road."
Response: All drainage structures (bridges and culverts) will be constructed to accommodate
sidewalks on both sides of Rea Road.
Comment: "[W]e were led to believe that ... bicycles would be accommodated with shared outside
lanes. Union County planners have indicated substantial bicycle activity in the northern part of their
county. We suggest that, if the cross section of the road were widened by one (1) foot on each side
and the lanes striped at 11' and 14', bicycles could be accommodated at a minimal cost."
Response: This road is not part of a planned bicycle route or bikeway. NCDOT Bicycle
Division has determined that there does not appear to be any need for special accommodations for
bicycle traffic.
17

1
Comment: "The thoroughfare plans shown in Figure 3 are not correct."
' Response: A corrected thoroughfare plan figure is provided in Section 11 of this document.
Mecklenburg County Engineering
Letter dated: August 22, 1994
Comment: "[W]e discovered that the base map used for Figures 2, 4, 6, and 7 has a few errors in
Response: A revised base map is provided in Section 11 of this document.
10. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING
The public hearing on the project was held on October 13, 1994 from 4:00 until 8:00 PM at St.
Matthews Catholic Church on Elm Lane West. The meeting followed an open forum, drop-in format.
Approximately 100 persons attended the meeting. Following is a summary of comments received
during and following the public hearing.
Comment: The roadway should be moved into the common area of Hunter Oaks. Utilities along
Weddington Road will be impacted by the project.
Response: Final design will address shiing the alignment slightly to minimize impacts. The project
may involve utility relocations, which would be coordinated with the appropriate companies and
authorities. Disruption of utility service will be minimized during construction.
Raeburn Homeowners Association: The roadway typical section should be modified through the
Raeburn Subdivision. A traffic signal with pedestrian button should be provided at the intersection
of Rea Road and Parks Farm Road. A landscaped berm with wall should be provided on each side
of Rea Road. Existing trees should be preserved. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the community
pool and neighborhood should be maintained during construction. A 35 mph speed limit should be
maintained on Rea Road through the Raeburn Subdivision.
Response: NCDOT Traffic Engineering will study the need for a traffic signal at Parks Farm Road.
The proposed speed limit for Rea Road is 45 mph. It was noted that the developer had provided
funds to the homeowners association for construction of an underpass, and the association elected
to spend the funds for other purposes. The other items noted by the homeowners association will
be addressed during f nal design.
Comment: The project will help people working in Charlotte and living in Union County. Build
the project before more homes are built in the corridor.
Response: No response needed.
18

Comment: Leave Providence Road West open.
Response: The decision on connection of Providence Road West will be determined during final
design. The extension of Providence Road West to the west by another project will be considered,
as will the location of a shopping center at Providence Road West and Elm Lane. NCDOT's current
preference is to leave the road connected.
I Comment: Move the project to the north of Weddington Road, to avoid utilities.
Response: See response regarding utilities.
' Comment: The highway system is behind the times.
Response: No response needed.
Hunter's Gate Home Owners Association: Place a traffic light at the intersection of Elm Lane &
1 Providence Road West.
Response: This intersection is not part of the current project. NCDOT recognizes that there may
be traffic problems when the Outer Loop opens to Rea Road and before the section to Providence
Road opens. The Division Engineer will consider interim improvements that will address that
situation.
Chairman, Union County Chamber of Commerce Transportation & Safety Committee: Rush this
project. Provide a diamond interchange at NC 16.
Response: The potential interchange was considered. It was determined that it was outside the
scope of this project and would be precluded by the nearby church and cemetery on Providence
Road. Traffic volumes may not justify an interchange at that location, in any case.
Comments: The project is dissecting existing subdivisions. NCDOT is going out of their way to
please developers. Will there be noise barriers?
Response: This road has always been planned to go through Raeburn, and the development has a
reserved right-of-way for the road. The road will not divide any other existing subdivision. Noise
analysis determined that noise barriers are not warranted.
Comments made in person at the hearing dealt with impact on homes along Marvin-Weddington
Road, impact on the Raeburn subdivision, and impact on undeveloped property. Those issues have
been addressed above.
11. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The only changes to the EA include revisions to report figures. Following are a revised base map
(Figure 2) and a revised thoroughfare plan (Figure 3).
19

In
m
N
m
v
a
m

o
N
c? ? r
o O m

-- - ? M
0
m
c Cl)
z
v

c a
r_
°o v
z
m

z

c
(D
n
c ?
C O
NQ?
(A m
Os ? X
Z
O 3 Cl)
O
C Z
r.
?D
N

Z Z
Z D M m
°m C m z
> o
M
m M

C
0 xX
>
C
C)
m
z 'C
rl = vi
m m D
m
m
x
O • CA
Z

0 0 1

it O

c
z
m
w
z O
Nc
v_
< m
MM
m m
D r
z

a J

° C

V o n
m
m.

o

m C

N
n

?i
'
C
CA) (D
m c -_v c
'
o o'

?l
c
n
M
Q' D
to m
c ?
N fl.
O Z
N
O
c Z
1

t
LJ

t

11

12. BASIS FOR A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project as documented in the Environmental Assessment, and
upon comments received from Federal, State, and local agencies, it is the finding of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation that the project will not have a significant impact upon the
human or natural environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
20

1

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO October 4, 1994
Planning Division
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
G E j ?F
0
OCT061994
?r
?; DIVISION p ?J
2
?HIGHWAYS
'790N
Dear Mr. Vick:
r
A

r

This is in response to your letter of June 20, 1994,
requesting our comments on the "State Environmental Assessment
for Rea Road Extension (SR 3624), From the Southern Outer Loop
to NC 16, Mecklenburg and Union Counties, State Project No.
9.8100352, T.I.P. Project No. U-2506" (Regulatory Branch Action
I.D. No. 199400993).
Our comments, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
perspective, involve impacts to Corps projects, flood plains,
and other environmental aspects, primarily waters and wetlands.
The proposed project would not involve any Corps-constructed
navigation or flood control project.
The proposed project is sited in Mecklenburg and Union
Counties, which participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program. Based on the February 1993 Mecklenburg County Flood
Insurance Rate Map and the July 1994 Union County Flood
Insurance Rate Map, the proposed roadway would cross Six Mile
Creek, which has been studied by detailed methods with the 100-
year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined. The
roadway also appears to cross an approximate study reach of
McBride Creek in Union County. The final project's hydraulic
effects should be coordinated with both counties for compliance
with their flood plain ordinance and possible revision to their
flood insurance maps and reports. (Coordination of the project
with local officials to assure compliance with local floodway
regulations is mentioned on page 32 of the Environmental
Assessment.) Executive Order 11988 should also be complied
with. ECt r.
OCT 1 x.994
KIMLEY-HORN
TPTO OFFICE

r
1

1

1

-2-
Our Regulatory Branch has also reviewed your letter and has
the following comments.
a. The document is inadequate for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. A Finding of No Significant Impact would be inappropriate
unl;i l Che de Fi c i eric-1--s are addressed. A pos t;ponement of the
project is recommended.
b. The principle deficiency is a lack of consideration
of alternative alignments. No alternative alignments
were studied within Mecklenburg County. According to the
document, the preferred alignment was selected in concert with
land developers of the area without apparent regard for
environmental concerns such as wetlands and endangered species.
The document was then developed to justify the preferred
alignment. Wetlands within the preferred alignment were not
fully identified until April 1994, well after the Draft
Environmental Assessment had been prepared.
c. Alternative alignments should be examined that would
avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands, particularly the
identified hardpan forest wetland. More easterly routes
through existing undeveloped land should be studied. More
easterly tie-in points to Weddington Road at the south end of
the project should receive additional study, as well as other
design modifications that would avoid impacts to the endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower. Insufficient justification is given in
+L+n /finr;......y.4 l v. .??-r4 C-;-I •,I+0Vr-,+- 11r- +t-.-.+ I:'n`1l'4 ".. thn_
sunflower. An additional expenditure of $378,000 for an
avoidance alternative is 3 percent of the total project cost.
d. The hardpan forest wetland is an uncommon wetland
type that is often associated with mafic depressional swamps.
This wetland occupies a broad trough-like area that forms a
continuum with Six Mile Creek. We, therefore, consider this
wetland to be adjacent to Six Mile Creek and subject to
individual Department of the Army permit requirements. This
is a highly functional wetland for surface water storage,
sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient assimilation and
transformation processes, riparian support, and regional
ecological diversity.
1

A
1

n

11

t
11

-3-
e. A functional assessment of wetlands should be included
in the document and upfront mitigation planned for unavoidable
losses.
f. Justification for dropping the proposed bridge crossing
of Six Mile Creek should be included.
g. We are aware that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has taken a position that the Corps should initiate Section 7
consultation on impacts to the Schweinitz's sunflower. We
have, however, not made a final decision on whether our
regulations require such consultation on this linear project.
If you have any questions related to Department of the Army
permits in Mecklenburg and Union Counties, please contact
Mr. Steve Lund of our Asheville Field Office, Regulatory
Branch, at telephone [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project.
If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
4
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division

¦
TAKE-
United States Department of the Interior MIDR ®
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office N
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
July 28, 1994 E /
AUG G 1 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P . E . , Manager DIVISION OF Q'
Planning and Environmental Branch 2
H
IGHWAYS ?
Division of Highways
E?P
North Carolina Department of Transportation RONM
P O. Box 25201.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: State environmental assessment for the Rea Road extension
from the Southern Outer Loop to NC 16, Mecklenburg
(SR 3624)
,
and Union Counties, North Carolina, T.I.P No. U-2506
In your letter of June 20, 1994 (received on July 1, 1994), you informed
us of the subject Droject and requested our comments. The following
comments are provided in accordance with 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
construction of a four-lane divided highway, the Rea Road Extension, from
the proposed Providence Road West Relocation to NC 16 in southern
Mecklenburg and Union Counties. This road will be approximately
5.5 miles in length and will be built on a new location. There will be
no control of access along this road. The proposed project will impact
24.1 acres of oak-hickory forest, 13.4 acres of mixed pine/hardwood
forest, 0.4 acre of riparian forest, 29.9 acres of agricultural
fiields/old fields, 24.9 acres of urbanisuburban lands, and 1.8 total
wetland acres. The new road will also involve four stream crossings--one
crossing over Sixmile Creek, two crossings over McBride Branch, and one
crossing over an unnamed tributary to Flat Branch. The purpose of this
project is to provide a thoroughfare between the proposed Charlotte Outer
Loop and the Union County line.
The U.S. Fish and 'wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned
about impacts to five identified populations of the federally endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). to wildlife habitats,
and to stream and wetland systems within the project area.
As you know, the Service became of aware of the proposed project through
minutes from one of the monthly North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) meetings and from an earlier scoping notice from

r

1

1

1
the NCDOT on June 16, 1993. Since the project is State funded, NCDOT has
no obligation under Section 7 of the Act to consult with the Service.
However, the project will require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
permit or authorization which essentially federalizes the project for
Section 7 consultation purposes. As stated in our May 10, 1994, letter
to Mr. Wayne Wright, we believe the Corps has the responsibility to
consult with the Service on this project. Since we have yet to hear from
Mr. Wright regarding our letter and the Section 7 consultation process
has not been initiated, we believe that the endangered species issue is
unresolved at this time.
While the preferred alternative will directly impact two of the known
sunflower populations, the Service also believes that this project will
result in indirect impacts to the other three identified sunflower
populations located within the project area. As stated in the
assessment, there will be no control of access along the proposed
highway. The Act does not require non-Federal landowners to protect
endangered plants on private lands unless there is a proposed project
with a Federal nexus. As secondary development will undoubtedly occur as
a result of the new road access, there will be no assurance that the
remaining endangered sunflowers will be protected. Thus, the Service
believes that this project may well result in greater impacts to
endangered species than highlighted in the environmental assessment.
The project area contains several unique areas that provide important
wildlife habitat. The assessment highlights two of these habitats--a
basic oak-hickory and a xeric hardpan community--that occur within the
project area west of McBride Branch and gust north of Weddington Road.
The document notes that the preferred alignment would avoid these
particular areas. However, the Service believes that anticipated
secondary development along the proposed road will result in adverse
impacts to these communities.
The preferred alternative will also directly impact 1.26 acres of upland
depressional swamp, a relatively rare wetland community type in North
Carolina. Upland depressional swamps are ephemeral, isolated wetlands
that occur within dry upland forests or xeric hardpan forests. These
wetlands consist of shallow pools that form in depressions in a dense
clay hardpan layer. The soils in these communities are characteristic
and are derived from mafic rock that is high in iron and magnesium (and
sometimes calcium). These soils are unusual because they tend to be more
alkaline, richer in nutrients, and finer in texture than other soils
derived from other, more common rocks. Plant species such as overcup oak
( uercus lvrata), willow oak ( uercus p hellos), persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana), sweet gum (Liquidambar stvraciflua), winged elm (Ulmus
alata), and a variety of mosses [the pine tree moss (Clvmacium
americanum) is often an indicator of these depressional swamps] and
sedges often predominate in these mafic depressions.
These upland depressional pools are wet for much of the year and often
host a variety of amphibian species, including the mole salamander
(Ambvstoma talpoideum) and the four-toed salamander (Hemidacytlium
scutatum), two species of special concern in North Carolina. Although
there are no federally listed species and only one Federal candidate

1

1

species--the Virginia quillwort (Isoetes virginica)--known to occur in
mafic depressions, a number of rare species are associated with the
adjacent xeric hardpan forests, including Helianthus schweinitzii and the
federally endangered smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata).
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program is currently conducting an
inventory of these rare communities in Mecklenburg County. Many of these
sites are under extreme development pressure (through both direct and
indirect impacts). As with other piedmont communities, a large portion
of the xeric hardpan forests (and undoubtedly the upland depressions
associated with these forests) have been destroyed by urbanization,
agriculture, pasturing and destructive forestry. We do not believe that
the assessment properly highlighted the status of this community type.
If asked to review and comment on a permit application under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act for this project, the Service will likely request
that avoidance alternatives are carefully evaluated, especially with
regards to the upland depressional wetland.
The Service does not believe that a Finding of No Significant Impact is
appropriate at this time. In our opinion, an unresolved endangered
species issue should be viewed as significant. If you have any questions
regarding our comments, please contact Ms. Janice Nicholls of our staff
at 704/665-1195, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence concerning this
project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-93-099.
Si cerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Field Office,
Room 75, Grove Arcade Building, 37 Battery Park Avenue,
Asheville, NC 28801
Mr. Wayne Wright, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 1890,
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611

1

`?n 1 SLAB °
N r-?
IE I V?
Q,ti O
o..
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources %.Cf
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 12, 1994
Aug 1 6 1974 r
Z
QQ
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS, z ?
Division of Archives
William S. Price, Jr.,
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
N I,
FROM: David Brook aV&e6l0z)
Deputy State Hisf?ric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Rea Road Extension (SR 3624) from Southern Outer
Loop to NC 16, Mecklenburg and Union Counties, U-
2506, 9.8100352, 95-E-4220-0007
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse. As noted in the Environmental Assessment, no National Register-
listed properties are located in the area of potential effect.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington

1
t
1 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2807

------------- -
' ? ? ,:. , ;+• °_ Vii" .' ?';
A .1
North Carolina, .?,..,,.?.. _.
Olt iJ nattmC1"1t of Administration.
Katie G. Dorsecc, Secrrtaty
James B. Hunt. Jr, for
September 6, 1994
Mr. whitmel Webb Azr '
N.C. Department of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Webb:
R1: SCH File #95-E-4220-0007; Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Rea Road Extension (SR 3624) Southern Outer Loop to NC
16 in Mecklenburg & Union Counties TIP #U-2506 en rev The above referenced environmental information has the1Norah
through the State Clearing
Carolina Envixonmenal Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources in the course of this
review. Because of the nature of the comments, it has been
determined that you should not proceed with a Finding of No
Significant impact until the issues raised have been further
discussed.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
r
Ma. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
CB;jf
attachment
CC; Region F
919-733,7232
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, S nh to li 5 7 3 Telephone
ArFqu lowommity!AffirmativeArtionE-Pbrt

y ,...
, . .. _. .
. `7 -
State of North Carolina
State
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary
Lando Bray Rimer. Assistant Secretary
for Environmental Protection

I
MEMORANDUM

11

n
1
Il

1

4
irr?tti
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 45-0007 Rea Road Extension from the Southern Outer Loop
to NC 15, Mecklenburg and Union County
DATE: August 9, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The project will involve the
construction of a four-lane facility primarily on new location.
Adverse environmental impacts from the proposed project include
stream crossings, wetland impacts and federally and state protected
endangered and threatened species.
The environmental 'assessment did not adequately address
departmental issues. Before proceeding with the Finding of No
Significant Impact, there are several points that will need further
clarification as noted in the attached comments from our divisions.
We encourage the Department of Transportations project engineer
to directly contact our commenting divisions so questions are
satisfactory resolved in the revised environmental assessment. we
ask every effort be made to avoid and minimize environmental
impacts during the final design and construction stages.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If this department
can Be of further assistance in resolving these issues, please let
me know.
attachments
ixE
P. O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5o% recycled110% pW-co-- popor

1

DlviSim of PARxs AND RECREATION
I
Memorandum

1
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Harry LeGrand
THROUGH: Stephen Hall
July 27, 1994
t?
SUBJECT: EA -- Rea Road Extension, Mecklenburg and Union
counties
REFERENCE: 95-0007
The Division has several major concerns about the proposed
project. The EA concludes that destruction of two populations of
Schweinitz*s sunflower (Helianthus schwe ni#zii), a species
listed as Endangered by both the federal and state governments,
is unavoidable even though other alignments are feasible that
would miss these populations altogether. Although the selected
alignment will not have a direct impact on three other
populations that occur in this vicinity, the EA does not address
the secondary impacts of the project, particularly development
along the route which is not planned to have any control over
access. We strongly feel that the EA should be revised to
reconsider all of these impacts, which are highly likely to lead
to the complete extirpation of one of the largest known
concentrations of this endangered species (see LeGrand, 7/9/93).
The EA states that coordination regarding impacts to the
sunflower will be maintained with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (p. S-3). However, from conversations with USFWS (Janice
Nicholls, pers. comm.), it is our understanding that no
resolution has been reached on this issue, that indeed the USFWS
continues to have significant concerns over the impacts to the
lude the
EA i
h
nc
e
sunflowers. We strongly recommend that t
outcome of these discussions.
We are also concerned that the results of a survey for the
t
h
Carolina heelsplitter (La gona decorata), another species bo
federally and state listed as Endangered, was not included in the
EA. Although the Natural Heritage Program database does not
contain records for this species within the project area, the
project is located within what is believed to be the historic
range for this species. We fully support the recommendation of
John Alderman (Nongame and Endangered Species Program) that a
greater effort should be made to look for this species within all
the drainages affected by the project.

Melba McGee
Page 2
July 27, 1994
Finally, wa are uncertain why alternative alignments were
h
d
.
e Branc
apparently not considered that run north of KaaBri
Such alignments would completely avoid the sunflower populations,
would eliminate the need for two crossings of the McBride Creek
floodplain, and would also miss the McBride Branch Barrens, a
significant natural area that has been identified as a priority
for protection by the Natural Heritage Program (although the
' document states that the basic oak-hickory forest and xeric
be avoided by
l
lik
e
y
hardpan forest found on this site would most
the project (p. 12), Figure G.shows the selected alignment
passing through at least a portion of the site identified by the
Natural Heritage Program).
We do not regard the current EA as complete without further
do
certainl
d
y
we
consideration of the issues mentioned above, an
not believe that a FONSI can be issued until these issues have
been adequately resolved.

L
1

1

2
_.. ??. .nT L. .LT 1f11 LT l"T I?lr`

Stote of North Carolina
r Department of Environment.
Health and Natural Resources 1 •
DMslon of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr.. Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, SOCretory
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne
Monica Swi rt?t/?
From: Eric Galamb 04
Subject: EA for Rea Road Extension from Charlotte Outer Loop to NC 16
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
f State ProJwd DOT No. 9.8100352, TIP #U-2506
EHNR # 95-0007, DEM # 10673
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetland.
The subject project may impact 1.8 acres of waters including wetland.
' DOT apparently has made no attempt to avoid the 4 wetland locations. There were 4
alternative alignments at the southern terminus but oni one build alternative north of
the 4 alternatives. In accordance with Section 404 jb)t I ), DOT must avoid wetland to
the maximum extent practicable. This is especially mportant since the COE warned
DOT of the high quality forested wetlands within the pro ect area adjacent to Lower
Flat Branch and Six Mile Creek. DEM suggests that D8T investigate extending Reid
Dairy Road to Blakeney Heath Road (see attachment) in order to minimize stream
crossings and wetlands and shorten the road. The wetland impacts for these new
alignments should be discussed.
One wetland is located below headwaters and therefore will probably require an
Individual Certification. DOT will probably be required to mitigate for all wetland
impacts for this project. The COE will probably determine that this road has no
useable segment since the project begins in the "middle of no-where" instead of an
interchange location.
DOT did not identify the access control for this project. DEM recommends that there
be full access control to minimize the impacts to the high quality wetlands associated
with Lower Flat Branch and Six Mile Creek.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Planning Branch.
rearoad.ea
P.O. Box 29535. Rdelgh, North Garoltna 27626-0635 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Afbrmative Action Employer 50% recycledt 10% past-consumer paper

Ll

1

u
1

L?

V, I P.
AM) !-JA'1*LjVA1 'S
U SLON OF 1,NV 1tC)NM1•.N•I fol.. HEM

inter-Agency Proiect Review Response
Cou my
?Y c l YPc of Project
'roject Nan - -?-?--
f ll ter s stem

LJ

1
The -applic-ant should abt'd bd the D, vision of Er iponnsernt l Health prior to.the- award
improvements muse b ppro by q•).
[phone] 8C .4304 et. se
of a contract or the initiation of csWxte1Qag by
For information, contact the Public Supply Se--non,
ic water supply and must comply with
lci
This project will ba classified as a non-community pu
information the applicant
state and federal drinkin. water monitoring reclutze more
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, (9151733-2321.
If this Pro,'ect .is constructed as proposed, we will rece ¢rnend do sb:ell is i saffeet of djacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish: For information _,.?acdin? the t'n
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sani4at:=n Branch ar (919) 726•-6827.
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this mose ui or W ool ce a mosquito h breedi g -robl d'.
r- J For information concerning appropriate oq
contact the Pvb_hc Health Pest Managemcnt. Section n [phone]. l or
mol
dil The applicant should be advised that prior to ?'-'rrF?'rbe necessaryein ord?r•tof pr even the
structures, an extensive rodent control grogra ent migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. ice ? ealth Pest Managemers? . Sett on- ap (919)
contact the local health department or the Pul
733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the ,zc-Al health department regarding their
r? requirements ,for septic tank installations (as require under 15 disposal NA 188 .19
s, 00 nt. s tghc
For information concerning septic tank and other a..
On-Site Wastewater Section at. [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contract the loca: ealth department regarding the sanitary
r- facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated durin tn.,. construction. plans for the water line
ation must be submitted to the Division Of Er,:*,ronmental Health, Public Water Supply
relOC
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1334 St- Mary's Street. Raleigh, North Carolina, [phone].
•L?J Section/Br nch
?cviewer
f
ate

1
State of North Carol! a
Department of Environment, Health, Naturt ces
Wston of Land Reso es OFh, ?' '
James C Martin. GOVentor FRO.TBCT RMSW COMME Charles H. nel
WUffam W. Cot) y Jr„ Secretary t3 ir+gr i U00
L cta
Project Number,. County
' Project Name_
Geodetic_ Survey s?
41'? This project will impact geodetic vorvey marks '+';N.C Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to cohotruotion at P.Q. z 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 (919) 733--3836.
Reviewer Date
Erosion and gedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is ZocAted within a High Quality Water
zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control w111 apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required fer this project
should be prepared by the Department of 'T'ransportation 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].
7// 1119
Reviewer Date
P.C. Box 27687 Uelah• N.C 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affimudve Action Employer

1

E

1

1
® Forth Carolina Wildlife Resources C nmiission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charks R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO; Melba McGee DEHNR
Office of Policy Development,
FROM; Richard B. Hamilton-
Assistant Director ?t
DATE: August 3, 1994
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Environmental Assessment (EA) for Rea Road
Extension (SR 3624), from the Southern Outer Loop
to NC 16, Mecklenburg and Union County, North
Carolina, TIP No. U-2506, SCH Project No. 95-0007.
Biologists on the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) staff have reviewed the subject EA and are familiar
with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of
this review was to assess project impacts to fish and
wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (G•S• 113A--1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
The proposed project will construct a new roadway from
the proposed Providence Road West relocation to NC 16 in
southern Mecklenburg and northern Union Counties. The
project is referred to as the Rea Road Extension and will be
a 4-lane divided roadway with limited access, primarily on
new location. Total length of the project is 5.5 miles.
Wildlife habitat losses which will result from construction acres
of the recommended alignment total approximately
of wetlands and 37.9 acres of forest.
Concerns of the NCWRC include wildlife habitat loss and
degradation from construction of the proposed project and
subsequent secondary development.
The document adequately describes the wetland and
vegetative community impacts of the preferred alignment and

Memo Page 2 August 3, 1994

' addresses minimization measures which will be employed to
further reduce wetland impacts- However, there is no
mention of alternatives which avoid wetland impacts. The
alternative analysis focuses on avoiding impacts to the
Schweinitz sunflower (Hellanthus schweinitzii), a federally
-
listed Endangered Species.
For the reason stated above the NCWRC does not concur
with the EA for this project.
We could concur if NCDOT studies alternative alignments
which avoid impacts to the four wetland sites identified in
1 the common segment of the build alternatives. This could be
Blakenly
sibl
d
y
s, pos
accomplished by upgrading existing roa
Heath Road and Weddington School Road.
Also, if an individual 404 permit applies to a portion
t
f
i
or
e
ga
of this project we will recommend that NCMT mit
all unavoidable wetland impacts.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA.
If we can be of any further assistance please call David
Highway Project Coordinator, at [phone]•
Cox
,
CC; Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.

1

.rtt f •1-.T 7fl1 4?C _f`T-S,C!

.?-. K L E N B U R G J O N
POLITAN PLANNIN aN
' 600 East Fourth Stree
Charlotte, North Car n 8202-2953
- ? (744) 33fi-2245
-V Atli 21 ?
' CHARLOTTE
CORNSLOS August 16, 1994 `??YJ
DAVID"
' RNTERSVILLI= Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
INDMTRNL Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
n?nrnr?ws Post Office Box 25201
MEMENOURG Raleigh,. NO 27611-5201
C"TY
MINTI-nu- Subject: Rea Road Extension (U-2506) Environmental
' NCOOT Assessment
Dear Frank.
STAUJNGS
L UMON The Mecklenburg-Union Technical Coordinating Committee
COUNTY (TCC) has reviewed the Environmental Assessment (BA) for
wEDDAMON the extension of Rea Road (SR 3624) south from its
current end to NC 16 in union county and offers the
following comments:
Most importantly, the issue of the completion of the rest
of Ballantyne. Commons Parkway (TIP project U-3103)
' between Piper Glen and existing Providence Road West (SR
362+6) is not addressed at all in the document. The
operational, problems which will occur as a result of this
' gap are an integral part of this project. The traffic
volumes and operational analyses in the EA do not account
for the discontinuity of the thoroughfare system.
' A secondary consideration to be addressed is the future
of the remnant of providence Road West between Elm Lane
West (sR 3643) and Ballan4ne- Cozzors Parkway's ultimate
connection to Providence Road West. The EA assumes that
' thia road will remain open. As we have previously
indicated, there is merit to closing one end or the other
of this road, eliminating the need for a traffic signal
' at its intersection with Rea Road. The Provincetown
neighborhood is very interested in this issue.
In a similar vein, the intersection of Blakeney-Heath
1 Road (SR 3629) is proposed for signalization. Citizen
testimony at the hearings for the conditional zoning plan
for the Landon community requested the closing of
Blakeney Heath Road as it enters Landen. Again, public
involvement may result in this severance and the
resulting traffic volumes may not warrant a traffic
signal.
t

n

Mr. H. Franklin Vick
August 16, 1994
page 2
At the crossing of six Mile Creek at the Mecklenburg-
Union counties border, a public greenway will need to be
accommodated by the creek crossing. At one point in the
it is indicated that the creek crossing will be by
culvert, at another, a bridge is implied. Under either
scenario, the pedestrian and bicycle trail associated
with the greenway will need to be accommodated.
In the Raeburn community, there was. a long-standing
commitment ,by the developer to a pedestrian underpass
linking the swim club with the rest of the neighborhood
to the east. We have heard that a check was given to the
' neighborhood association for this purpose. The final
disposition of this issue should come from public
involvement and be addressed in the planning documents.

1
In accordance with the strongly held position of the TCC,
we requaet that all drainage structures be constructed to
accommodate the future provision of five (5) foot wide
sidewalks on both sides of Rea Road.
In initial discussions with HCDQT on this project, we
were led to believe that bicycles would be accommodated
with shared outside lanes. Union county planners have
indicated substantial bicycle activity in the northern
part of their county. We suggest that, if the cross-
section of the road were widened by one (1) foot on each
side and the lanes striped at 11' and 14', bicycles could
be accommodated at a minimal cost.
The thoroughfare plans shown in Figure 3 are not correct.
The Mecklenburg plan was modified on several east-west
roads during the Approval of Oallantyne and the propoza'd
Vnion --County plan- is. substantially different. The
attached section of the joint Mecklenburg-Union County
plan has received extensive public involvement and
initial approval of the MPO with final approval scheduled
for September 21,. 1994. The Mecklenburg portion is'not
changed from the current plan.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed
project. If you have any questions, please contact Bill
Coxe of Mecklenburg County Engineering at (744) 336-°3745.
Sincerely,
Robert N. Pressley Jr., P.E.
Chairman, Mecklenburg-Union TCC
attachments
1
f
IS
g RA5MF(CO)
Y
wcao? j
.Psn ?1p?• q
V) B([TIaIY 1 +d3
i
? ..o? rs..J I \ \
\ g
D ?? 5. .
cc
1 ? as-rs(i?
n
1?0 ? ?? ?• f
?? .t rh
lillym
1 rp% i
(NST.(CO-) it
lns?r(d ! '
,POO '214
1444 4/1 # I
%
R-15MF i B-1
1 (co) ? t%
??
1 ?.
IQ ^ J
R- 3(CD)
? IFr.ld IrRi YI
?7R
a
R-20MF
X

1 w ~ ? `:-• Jamf' _?I\? ?
.? Flo/
R-3
134-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

11

1
MEM-E URG COUNTY 2 31 4
Engineering Department pry ,v ap
d!„?AYI
,-
August 22, 1994
Mx. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: Rea Road Extension (U-2506) Environmental
Assessment, Document Base Maps
Dear Frank:
Subsequent to the Neck Ienburg-Union TCC review of the EA
for Rea Road Extension, we discovered that the base map
used for Figures 2, 4, 6, and 7 has a few errors on it.
The east-west circumferential shown in a dashed line is
actually constructed for a distance and is the road
labeled Landen Ford Drive on those maps. To eliminate
any confusion, the maps should either delete this dashed
line cQmpletel.y (since it is not programmed) or place it
correctly and show all proposed thoroughfares in the area
' as noted on the current thoroughfare plan sent with the
TCC comments.
' Also, the. road labeled as Halls Road is Community House
Road. Elm Lane should be Elm Lane West. The road shown
as Weddington Road should be Marvin-Weddington Road. If
you have any questions, please call me at (704) 3363745.
' sincerely,
William S. Coxe
Transportation Planning
' cc: Robert N. Pressley Jr., P.E,
Joe Lesch
Luther Mcpherson
1
700 North Tryon Street • Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 • [phone]
_.. ,_. nr n?•t,T nom a.r ?n rio
/' z
r - .
STAYE
?4q Ww?Vd'?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 7I?ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, RC. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
October 6, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Janice Nichols, Us Fish & Wildlife Service
Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers
Randy Turner, NCDOT P & E Branch
i rry Mesiner, P.E., Kimley-Horn & Associates
o':.n Maddox, P.E., NCDOT Roadway Design
ric Galamb, DEHNB
David Cox, Wildlife Resources Commission
FROM: Byron Brady, P.E., NCDOT Planning &
w
Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Rea Road Extension; From NC 16 to the
proposed Charlotte Southern Outer Loop;
Mecklenburg and Union Counties;
T.I.P. No. U-2506
A meeting will be meld on Wednesday, October 19, 1994
beginning at 1:00 p.m. on site of the subject project (see
attached map) to discuss the Schweinitz's sunflower
populations and wetlands which exist along the preferred
alternative for the project.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me at 733-7842 in Raleigh.
RECFIft
"a1dp?? 0 1994
ACI*
r
r
4
r
i
i
i
Davidson
fnelius
Caldwell
16
N '4
V ntersvflle
t. 11
REA ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT LOCATION MAP Figure
U-2506 1
y
1
C
m
N

0
r
z
mm
W
I
w
_
CD
-o O cn
r-
m
0

0 mb
0 D
z
ro q
mz
U)
D
o
0 r

9 <
Z cmn

(D
n
X
M
a- A
c ?
to 0:
C
N Q
C) C: X
0
=1 Z
00
C Z
tD
N. C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT, .HEALTH ,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Box 27687
Ralcigh, N.C. 27611
Environmental Sciences Branch
FAX [phone]
TELECOPY TO
FAX NUMBER:
7P

FROM:-
NO. PHONE:
OF _ PAGES INCLUDTTiG THIS SKEET:
COMhENTS:
6 ?f 5
f

O/1
aeQ
4p, .
Post-it" Fay n.._
August 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for Rea Road Extension from Charlotte Outer Loop to NC 16
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
State Project DOT No. 9.8100352, TIP #U-2506
EHNR # 95-0007, DEM # 10673
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetland.
The subject project may impact 1.8 acres of waters including wetland.
DOT apparently has made no attempt to avoid the 4 wetland locations. There were 4
alternative alignments at the southern terminus but only one build alternative north of
the 4 alternatives. In accordance with Section 404 (b)(1), DOT must avoid wetland to
the maximum extent practicable. This is especially important since the COE warned
DOT of the high quality forested wetlands within the project area adjacent to Lower
Flat Branch and Six Mile Creek. DEM suggests that DOT investigate extending Reid
Dairy Road to Blakeney Heath Road (see attachment) in order to minimize stream
crossings and wetlands and shorten the road. The wetland impacts for these new
alignments should be discussed.
One wetland is located below headwaters and therefore will probably require an
Individual Certification. DOT will probably be required to mitigate for all wetland
impacts for this project. The COE will probably determine that this road has no
useable segment since the project begins in the "middle of no-where" instead of an
interchange location.
DOT did not identify the access control for this project. DEM recommends that there
be full access control to minimize the impacts to the high quality wetlands associated
with Lower Flat Branch and Six Mile Creek.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Planning Branch.
rearoad.ea
??, 1??2
(A C,
G
-o
1
W C._? ..n
V
W
71
O
N
t

?o
tO
a
°
Z m
z m
""? t0 N a 3
m ? .z
N o
Z
3
A 2
Om N

N f7
2

o
mO
y A
2
D
T
O
v
m
9
D
o 2
cm
C-) m
9 Z y
Z m a
G) M T O
,000
O O = 0
OODP
DDm(mn
=OCO?
< q
0 Cc 3:
N C 2
Do M -al
Z700a
r,
<?0-
CD > O a
OZ r O
ai<tn? ?
N C)
C < C
DD -mG-yi u^?
5 N 2 Q
D
m (AND
Cl)
O
37
Z
m
M
M
C
2r :E' (D 2a
(D O (n N
(D 00 m H {?
00ao ? r
00 ? S5' 74
? d a A
N O L D
O °
C
m d d Z
d
M go CL m z
(1 00 r0
O' (D A
to N dn
-1
? o a °z
O 3 o
d C. V
p' d -
fD
7
O p j(D' CLQ O
n3m ?.?
S N d
n O
m ?
2
z° c,
?Z
m O
0C
c? z
m -I
M
?<
? r
°
m
o M
(o
N
to
'O
_ a
o Ni..
I
I
III ?
? n
n n
w mw
o g o?D
0 2
4-1. m
°o m
o
.8
I O
z
0
3
m p
m g
z
T
m
H
C*

a v
T O

A tC

fi

n
N k
02
j
? II

................... ...................
Wetland Impact .........................................
± 1 ac. ..........................................
± 1.5 ac. ....... ........... _.
± 1 ac. ......................_............
± 1 ac.
Stream Crossings 2 McBride 2 McBride* 2 McBride 2 McBride
1 Six Mile 1 Six Mile 1 Six Mile 1 Six Mile
Ck. Ck. Ck. Ck.
1 UT Flat Br. 1 UT Flat Br. 1 UT Flat Br. 1 UT Flat Br.
Schweinitz's A A A A
Sunflower B B B B
Populations C C
D D
E E
Carolina Heelsplitter same potential same potential same potential same=potential
Forested Habitat ± 11.5 acres t 12 acres ± 10 acres ± 7 acres
Length of Road
New Location: 8,200' 7,800' 8,800' 6,800'
Widen Existing: --- 1,400' --- 2,800'
Total: 8,200' 9,200' 8,800' 9,600'
*closely parallels McBride Branch for f 1,500'; may require channel relocation
Population A
Population B
Population C
Population D
Population E
Stream Classi
_ ± 8 stem count
_ ± 17 stem count
= f 10 stems
30+ stems
_ ± 10 stems
fication: McBride Branch - C
Six Mile Creek - C
Flat Branch - C
M
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HUNT
JAMES R. HUNT, JK DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM M HUNT AILY
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 16, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Rea Road Extension from the proposed Providence Road West
relocation south to NC 16 at Weddington Road in
Mecklenburg and Union Counties; TIP No. U-2506.
This is to inform you that the Planning and Environmental Branch has
begun studying the proposed improvements to the above project. The project
is included in the 1993-1999 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1995 and
construction in fiscal year 1997.
The firm of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., has been retained to
prepare a State Environmental Assessment for the proposed Rea Road (SR 3624)
Extension from the proposed Providence Road West relocation (approximately
1500 feet north of existing Providence Road) south to NC 16 at Weddington
Road. The length of the project is approximately 5.5 miles.
The purpose of this letter is to solicit input from agencies and
individuals concerning the potential impact of the proposed project upon
social, economic, demographic, land use, and environmental conditions in
proximity to the project. Alternates will be investigated and evaluated for
constructing a four-lane facility, primarily on new location. A corridor
with a 100-foot wide right-of-way will be required. No control of access is
expected for the proposed project. The attached maps show the project in
relationship to the study area.
Existing Rea Road (SR 3624) ends approximately 1.9 miles north of the
northern terminus of this project. The section north of this project,
including the interchange, is to be built as part of the Charlotte Outer
Loop. The proposed Rea Road Extension intersects existing Weddington Road
approximately 1.3 miles from the project's southern terminus. Weddington
Road is a narrow two-lane roadway with poor horizontal alignment on the
?.7
'age 2
portion between the proposed Rea Road Extension intersection and NC 16. The
proposed facility will follow the existing Weddington Road alignment for much
of this segment, but will improve the alignment to provide a safer and more
direct roadway.
A reconnaissance survey of the project area reveals the following
specific aspects or subjects of potential impact:
1. Development within the project study area is primarily residential.
The Raeburn subdivision will be divided by the proposed project,
which was included in the original subdivision plan.
2. Several other existing and proposed developments will also be
impacted by the proposed project.
3. Six-mile Creek and McBride Branch will be crossed by the proposed
project.
4. St. Matthew Catholic Church is located approximately 500 feet west
of the proposed project at the intersection of existing Providence
Road West and Elm Lane.
Coordination with the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service will be conducted to determine protected species that may
exist within the study area. Field investigation will be conducted to
identify areas of habitat suitable to support protected species.
A File search of historic and archaeological sites will be conducted to
determine the presence of any National Register sites.
Please note that there will be no
this project. This letter, therefore,
comments related to this project.
formal interagency scoping meeting for
constitutes solicitation for scoping
In order that we may fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed project,
it is requested that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or
adverse impacts of the proposed project relating to the interest of your
agency. For this project to stay on schedule and for your input to be
included in the draft SEA, please respond within 30 days of the receipt of
this letter.
Federal, state and local agencies are being contacted for their comments
regarding this project. If you have any questions or comments concerning the
project, please contact Byron Brady, Project Planning Engineer, of this
Branch at [phone].
LJW/wp
Attachment
10
July 9, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba'McGee, Policy and Development
FROM: Monica Swihartjl°; 39ater Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #93-0988; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Rea Road Extension from the Proposed Providence Road West
Relocation South to NC 16 at Weddington Road in
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, TIP No. U-2506
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management has reviewed the subject scoping letter. The proposed
improvements would cross Six-mile Creek and McBride Branch which
are classified as Class C by the State of North Carolina.. DEM
requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. 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.
B. Number of stream crossings.
C. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
D. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands..
E. 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.

Melba McGee
July 9, 1993
Page 2
G. 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.
H. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
I. Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an
option.
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.
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.
9692er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
f•
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSM
ITTAL SLIP DATE 1/Q ti/Y3
JC
?I
?1G /
TO: U
I
REF. NO. OR ROO!, BLDG.
bc€??f 2 beM
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
-
6vt F-415
ACTION
? 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:
f.
JINN 1 8 1993
WATER WETLANDS GROUP
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA __
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 16, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manag aata"
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Rea Road Extension from the proposed Providence Road West
relocation south to NC 16 at Weddington Road in
Mecklenburg and Union Counties; TIP No. U-2506.
This is to inform you that the Planning and Environmental Branch has
begun studying the proposed improvements to the above project. The project
is included in the 1993-1999 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1995 and
construction in fiscal year 1997.
The firm of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., has been retained to
prepare a State Environmental Assessment for the proposed Rea Road (SR 3624)
Extension from the proposed Providence Road West relocation (approximately
1500 feet north of existing Providence Road) south to NC 16 at Weddington
Road. The length of the project is approximately 5.5 miles.
The purpose of this letter is to solicit input from agencies and
individuals concerning the potential impact of the proposed project upon
social, economic, demographic, land use, and environmental conditions in
proximity to the project. Alternates will be investigated and evaluated for
constructing a four-lane facility, primarily on new location. A corridor
with a 100-foot wide right-of-way will be required. No control of access is
expected for the proposed project. The attached maps show the project in
relationship to the study area.
Existing Rea Road (SR 3624) ends approximately 1.9 miles north of the
northern terminus of this project. The section north of this project,
including the interchange, is to be built as part of the Charlotte Outer
Loop. The proposed Rea Road Extension intersects existing Weddington Road
approximately 1.3 miles from the project's southern terminus. Weddington
Road is a narrow two-lane roadway with poor horizontal alignment on the

June 16, 1993
Page 2
portion between the proposed Rea Road Extension intersection and NC 16. The
proposed facility will follow the existing Weddington Road alignment for much
of this segment, but will improve the alignment to provide a safer and more
direct roadway.
A reconnaissance survey of the project area reveals the following
specific aspects or subjects of potential impact:
1. Development within the project study area is primarily residential.
The Raeburn subdivision will be divided by the proposed project,
which was included in the original subdivision plan.
2. Several other existing and proposed developments will also be
impacted by the proposed project.
3. Six-mile Creek and McBride Branch will be crossed by the proposed
project.
4. St. Matthew Catholic Church is located approximately 500 feet west
of the proposed project at the intersection of existing Providence
Road West and Elm Lane.
Coordination with the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service will be conducted to determine protected species that may
exist within the study area. Field investigation will be conducted to
identify areas of habitat suitable to support protected species.
A File search of historic and archaeological sites will be conducted to
determine the presence of any National Register sites.
Please note that there will be no
this project. This letter, therefore,
comments related to this project.
formal interagency scoping meeting for
constitutes solicitation for scoping
In order that we may fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed project,
it is requested that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or
adverse impacts of the proposed project relating to the interest of your
agency. For this project to stay on schedule and for your input to be
included in the draft SEA, please respond within 30 days of the receipt of
this letter.
Federal, state and local agencies are being contacted for their comments
regarding this project. If you have any questions or comments concerning the
project, please contact Byron Brady, Project Planning Engineer, of this
Branch at [phone].
LJW/wp
Attachment
r•
s

Dhvidsdn.
o0ehut
F
sldwell
3 3 16
.<, t 1 untersvllle
l 13 -N-
uuritum 1
c nd
ke
"
` University
Research
1? 3
6 21 Park
X

a e@k?? 2 •
NC-C
'3 Fwell,

79 +
tte

air;,. Allen
,?
`

521 ,y r

?? ??
?
S
? M
t

R
t t
1 ,
•4, 8
?Nlllx
II? flat
?,•,
?' s s ECKLE)RG.? airview 4
521 James K, 11 '' S
a ew
P
1 7 ew Sal m
s
co we
ate, 49 7 11 . ,
0
Mertarial Sta l l i n s
: '>+?. :> o g 601
5

Unionville '

i
I, . tt inev
iq 'Indian o 14 10
r? tt
_
6 Trail 13 f

:. < Wed ingtU
arvrt Bakers
IUOe?
rsx
7
PROJECT 6 4 Wingate Marshville
LOCATION sx 75 7
Minera
4 '
Springs 7
2Waxhaw 12

Andrew 12
Jackson
601
1
Historical 2
St. Pk. 9 6
N AROL NA
S AROL A

0 5 10
Scale Miles
REA ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT LOCATION
U-2506
0
n
O
O
z

o

? r
o m

$ v_ z
N v
o z

0

?D
C7

cr a

to
o
?
2)
I ?
N Q

r"
o

o

z
c
0