20000577 Ver 1_Finding of No Significant Impact_19950224

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 0
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N F 1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretory
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb?L
Subject: FONSI for NC 49 from Buster Boyd Bridge to Tyvola Road Extension
Mecklenburg County
State Project DOT No. 8.1673501, TIP #U-2512
EHNR # 95-0521, DEM # 10852
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The document states that 0.018 acres of waters including wetlands will be
impacted.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an FONSI by DEM would 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 (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
nc49mec.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
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County:
Date:
? Project located in 7th floor library
MKZ__1
Date Response Due (firm deadline): -34
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ,Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
Air ?Coastal Management ?WaterPlanning
? Fayetteville
W
t
? Water Resources Environmental Health
er
a
Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
Raleigh Land Quality Engineer 'Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection

hi
t
? W El Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources El David Foster
on
ng
as
? Coastal Management Consultant
Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others /environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS
1 Monica Swihart
1
1
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
vs.,a
UL 4 05 09: 10 V! 141 7:5:1 99.-)('1 \(U1:71 ititl I V\Y I ,1)01
II
1i' 1 1% 1 I1 ii1.1'kk I

NC 49 WIDENING
FROM THE BUSTER BOYD BRIDGE TO
TYVOLA ROAD EXTENSION
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. STP-49(2)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1673501
T.I.P. NO. U-2512
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
// z3 /_ _,9 4- _0? I<
Date ?'? Nic as L. af, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 49 WIDENING
FROM THE BUSTER BOYD BRIDGE TO
TYVOLA ROAD EXTENSION
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEDERAL,-AID PRO.IECT NO. STP-49(2)
STATI: PRO.IECT NO. 8 1073,501
,Y.I.P. NO. U-2512
ADN'I INISTIZATIVF.:k("PION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
November, 1904
Documentatloil Prepared By .1131 /1 I-I'm,incers & Planners
how- CAR` ,7%.
4P-ISA 1°"°w.
. r? Ot??S?iIQ?'?,-yq
y
Brian D. Defiler, P.E. o StZAL
Project Manager o 16067 %
OO,a
i???0o?? 00 Dtl0 Y® 0Nd,0,
For North Carolina Department ol"I'ransportation
?J. A. 13issett .Ir. P.E. Unt lead
Consultant Engineering Unit
Leigh B. )b -- -
Project Engineer
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
SUMMARY
Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to improve NC 49 in Mecklenburg County. The project limits will extend
from the Buster Boyd Bridge to Tyvola Road. The length of the project is approximately 10.3
miles. The recommended improvement is a four-lane rural roadway separated by a 46-foot
depressed median from the Buster Boyd Bridge to SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard). A four-lane
curb and gutter section with a raised 30-foot median is recommended from SR 1441 (Carowinds
Boulevard) to Sugar Creek. From Sugar Creek to Tyvola Road a four-lane shoulder section with
a 30 foot raised median is recommended. Alternatives for the replacement of the Buster Boyd
Bridge are being evaluated under a separate project, T.I.P. No. B-3004. The total cost of the NC
49 widening project including right-of-way and construction is estimated to be $26,820,000. The
estimated cost for the project presented in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program
(T.I.P.) is $23,700,000.
Selected Alternative - The alignment recommended in the Environmental Assessment will be
followed.
Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a positive overall impact on
the area involved by reducing congestion and accident potential, thereby increasing safety on NC
49. There will be five (5) residences and one (1) business relocated by the proposed
improvements. There may be some erosion and siltation during construction; however, these
effects will be short-term. No significant effects to animal or plant life are expected and no
recreation sites or sites listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places will be
significantly impacted. Impacts to area wetlands are expected to be minimal (approximately .018
acres). Eighty-three (83) receptors are predicted to experience noise levels which approach or
exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria. On the basis of project experience, traffic noise
abatement measures are not considered reasonable and feasible and none are recommended.
Summary of Environmental Commitments - The commitments recommended for the proposed
action are itemized in Table 1.
Coordination - Several federal, state and local agencies were provided copies of the
Environmental Assessment to solicit their comments. Comments were received from the
following agencies:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Charlotte Department of Transportation
6, Actions Required by Other Federal Agencies - Nationwide Permits (33 CFR 330.5(x)(14) and
(26)) are expected to apply. Incidental fill associated with bridge extensions over waterways including
Sugar Creek may be permitted under a General Permit (Permit #198200031). Receipt of 401 Water
Quality Certification issued by the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources' Division of
Environmental Management will also be required.
TABLE 1
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
ITEM DESCRIPTION
a) Landscaping will be provided with a raised earth median in the vicinity of both
the McDowell House and the Frank Watt House.
b) Further coordination with the Division of Parks and Recreation will be required
with regard to construction easements, as well as other issues such as clearances
under proposed structures for bike and walking trails located in the vicinity of
existing and proposed grecnways. Coordination will also continue with regard
to re-establishing pre-construction conditions at both McDowell and
Renaissance Parks, as well as existing and future greenways.
C) The bridge over Sugar Creek will provide 5-foot wide sidewalks. A two (2)-foot
wide minimum horizontal clearance will be provided from the inside travel
lanes.
d) Further coordination with regard to the invovlement of properties with possible
contamination of harzardous materials will be required during final design.
Initial investigations involved four sites along the project. The results indicate
that minor contamination may be anticipated at three of the sites. According to
preliminary plans the underground storage tanks do not appear to be in the
proposed right-of-way. Location of the underground storage tanks on the fourth
site is uncertain at this time.
e) Coordination with the city and county will be continued during the final design
of the project to ensure compliance with local ordinances regarding effects on
the flood plain.
Culverts and culvert extensions will be constructed to prevent wet concrete from
contacting water entering or flowing in the stream.
Additional Information - Additional information concerning the project and Finding of No
Significant Impact can be obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
NC 49 Widening
From the Buster Boyd Bridge
To Tyvola Road Extension
Mecklenburg County
Federal Aid Project No. 8.1673501
T.I.P. No. U-2512
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration, Finding of No Significant Impact.
The FHWA has determined that this project will not have any significant impact on the human
environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the Environmental Assessment for the
subject project, which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts for the proposed project. Copies of the
Environmental Assessment are on file with the Planning and Environmental Branch of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that
an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy,
scope and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to improve NC 49 in
Mecklenburg County. The project limits will extend from the Buster Boyd Bridge to Tyvola Road. The
length of the project is approximately 10.3 miles.
NC 49 is classified as a minor arterial in the Statewide Classification System.
The recommended improvement is a four-lane rural roadway separated by a 46-foot median from the
Buster Boyd Bridge to SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard). A four-lane curb and gutter section with a raised
30-foot median is recommended from SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) to Sugar Creek. From Sugar
Creek to Tyvola Road a four-lane shoulder section with a 30-foot raised median is recommended.
Widening is proposed for the east side of the existing alignment, from the approach to the Buster Boyd
Bridge to the vicinity of SR 1116 (Shopton Road West). The widening is symmetrical from the vicinity
SR 1116 (Shopton Road) to the vicinity of Birnamwood Lane where the widening shifts back to the cast
side of the existing alignment. Approximately midway between Birnamwood Lane and NC 160 (Steele
Creek Road) the widening shifts to the west side of the existing alignment. Widening remains along the
west side to SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) except between SR 1122 (Choate Circle) and SR 1120
(Erwin Road) where the proposed widening transitions to the cast side and then back to the west side of
the existing alignment. Symmetrical widening is proposed from the vicinity of SR 1441 (Carowinds
Boulevard) to the vicinity of SR 1138 (West Arrowood Road). In the vicinity of SR 1138 (West Arrowood
Road), widening shifts to the west side of the existing alignment and remains on the west side to SR 1155
(Shopton Road). Widening then shifts to the cast side of the existing alignment and ties into the existing
alignment north of Tyvola Road.
Alternatives for the replacement of the Buster Boyd Bridge are being evaluated tinder a separate project,
T.I.P. No. B-3004. The total cost of the NC 49 widening project including right-of-way and construction
is estimated to be $26,820,000. The estimated cost for the project presented in the 1995-2001
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) is $23,700,000.
III. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
Copies of the Environmental Assessment were sent to the federal, state and local agencies listed
below. An asterisk (*) denotes those agencies who responded with written comments.
Substantive comments are discussed in the following section and copies of the agencies' letters
are included in the Appendix of the document.
* Charlotte Department of Transportation
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission
* Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Mayor of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners, Chairman
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection
Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department
Mecklenburg Utility Department
NC Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse
* NC Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
NC Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services
NC Department of Public Instruction
NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
* Division of Environmental Management
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Land Resource
Division of Parks and Recreation
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Planning and Assessment
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture
US Environmental Protection Agency
* US Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
*Input was received from these agencies.
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
I ederal Agencies
Department of the Arm Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Comment:
`We wish to point out an apparent change made in the revised February 1993
Mecklenburg County Flood Insurance Rate Map relative to the crossing of
Coffee Creek. The revised map no longer shows the 100-year flood contained
in the culvert, which you refer to on page 32 of the EA. Also, on the same page
we note your second comment relative to reducing impacts on the flood plains
in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
regulations. We still suggest coordination with the city and county for
compliance with their flood plain ordinances since local ordinances can be
more restrictive than FEMA's minimum standards.
Response:
The revised map no longer shows the 100-year flood contained in the culvert at Coffey
Creek. The proposed improvements will be designed to minimize the effects on the flood
plain by:
1.) implementation of appropriate erosion control measures and
2.) by designing hydraulic structures such that the resulting 100-year backwater
flood elevations are within one foot of existing 100-year flood elevations in
accordance with FEMA regulations.
Coordination with the city and county will be continued during the final design of the
project to ensure compliance with local ordinances regarding effects on the flood plain.
Fish & Wildlife
Comment:
`The Service encourages the implementation of the following measures to minimize
impacts to aquatic resources in the creeks within the project area during road
construction: (1) riparian vegetation should be maintained wherever possible (i.e.,
reduce canopy removal in or near creeks); (2) if any riparian areas are disturbed they
should be revegetated with native species as soon as possible after construction in order
to minimize ninoff and to lessen the impacts associated with 'bare banks" (decrease in
nutrient input, temperature changes, flow changes, sediment filtration, e(c.); (3)
stringent erosion control measures should be implemented during all construction
activities so as to minimize downstream effects, (4) extension of culverts should allow
for continuous flow in tributaries crossed by the alignment; and (5) construction should
be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact water entering or flowing in the
stream. This will reduce likelihood of fish kills associated with culvert construction."
Response:
Culvert and culvert extension design will be completed during the design phase of this
project. Design of culverts and culvert extensions will be accomplished such that up or
downstream movement of aquatic organisms will not be impeded.
Best management practices will be used including: elimination of staging areas in
lowland sites, careful containment of oil, gasoline, and other hazardous materials near
creeks and tributaries, reduced canopy removal in or near flood plain systems, and
employment of strict erosion and sediment control procedures.
The general requirements concerning erosion control and siltation are covered in Article
107-13 of the Standard Specifications entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation and
Pollution." The North Carolina Division of Highways has also developed an Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Program that has been approved by the North Carolina
Sedimentation Control Commission. This program consists of the rigorous
requirements to minimize erosion and sedimentation contained in the North Carolina
Highway Standard Specifications for Roads and Strictures together with policies of the
Division of Highways concerning control of accelerated erosion and sedimentation on
work performed by State Forces.
Culverts and culvert extensions will be constructed to prevent wet concrete from
contacting water entering or flowing in the stream.
State and Local Agencies
Local review of this project through the North Carolina A-95 Clearinghouse provided the
following comments:
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment:
`we ask that NCDOT use state-of-the-art stream relocation guidelines and strictly
enforce Best Management Practices to help mitigate impacts to aquatic habitats resulting
from these roadway improvements."
Response:
Due to the limited impacts, use of best management practices will be used including:
elimination of staging areas in lowland sites, careful containment of oil, gasoline, and
other hazardous materials near creeks and tributaries, reduced canopy removal in or
near flood plain systems, and employment of strict erosion and sediment control
procedures.
No stream locations are anticipated
Citv of Charlotte
Comment:
`eve suggest an access policy that accommodates deceleration and turn lanes at all
median openings. Also, turn lanes should be provided on each NC 49 approach at every
median opening."
Response:
Left turn and deceleration lanes will be provided at all median cross-overs. Between
Carowinds Boulevard and Lake Wylie, deceleration lanes will be provided for traffic
turning right from NC 49 onto intersecting roads. Deceleration lengths will be reviewed
and determined during final design of the proposed involvements.
Comment:
"At each location where dual left-turns are received from NC 49 (onto some
thoroughfares and Erwin Road) make sure that the additional lane is constructed at least
1000 feet to allow some minimum distance to transition into one lane."
Response:
Length of additional lane will be determined during final design on the proposed
improvements.
Comment:
`How is access provided to Strollaway Road if Shaherlia Road is relocated east of its
current intersection with NC 49 to a new location?"
Response:
Access to Strollaway Road will be provided from the realigned Shaherlia Road utilizing
the existing pavement on Shaherlia Road.
Comment:
"consider severing Pleasant Hill Road southeast of its intersection with NC 49."
Response:
Pleasant Hill Road will remain open with direct access to NC 49 as shown on the Design
Public Hearing Map.
Comment:
`The portion of NC 160 that is being relocated as part of the NC 49 project should be
constructed off-center in the right-of-way to allow for median construction when NC
160 is widened to multi-lanes."
Response:
Design of NC 160 will be coordinated with the Developer and the City during the final
design of the project.
Comment:
"Are dual left-turn lanes justified northbound on NC 49 at Envin Road?"
Response:
Design year peak hour turning movements for the AM pcA hour justify dual left-turn
lanes on northbound NC 49.
Comment:
`Moss Road (northbound approach), General Drive (northbound approach), and John
Price Road.Boy Scout Driveway (both approaches) should each have left and through-
right configurations where they intersect NC 49."
Response:
Left turn volumes do not warrant dedicated left turn lanes at the noted locations.
However, the volumes and configurations will be re-examined during the final design of
the proposed improvements.
Comments:
`The hearing map does not have a symbol signifying that a traffic signal is at the
Westinghouse Boulevard intersection."
Response:
Improvements to the NC 49/Westinghouse Boulevard intersection are included as
Project No. U-2806 in the NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program.
Comment:
'The project should include a median at least 2000 feet north of the NC 40/Sandy Porter
Road intersection toward the West Charlotte Outer Loop (interstate 485) to eliminate
turning conflicts in the area."
Response:
The median section will be extended toward the West Charlotte Outer Loop as far as
practical to allow for proper lengths of transition to the proposed typical section used on
NC 49 at the West Charlotte Outer Loop/NC 49 interchange.
Comment:
`Based on the zoning for the land west of NC 49 at Arrowood Road, the intersection
design should consider the ultimate cross-section. The ultimate design may preclude a
full median opening on NC 49 at Longdale Drive, given it's proximity to the Arrowood
Road intersection."
Response:
Median cross-over locations will be reviewed during the final design of the proposed
improvements.
Comment:
`The median on NC 49 should extend from north of Big Sugar Creek to Tyvola Road.
Also, the hearing map does not show NC 49's shift to the southeast north of Big Sugar
Creek to avoid the former landfill."
Response:
The median will extend as far as practical to allow proper lengths to transition to the
existing NC 49 east of Tyvola Road. The public hearing map shows NC 49 widening to
the southeast, north of Big Sugar Creek to avoid the former landfill.
B. Public Comments
A Public Hearing was held on October 20, 1994 to inform the public of the study findings and to
give the public an opportunity to express their views. The hearing began at 7:30 PM and ended
after all statements of public record were given. Mr. Bill Garrett from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation presided over the hearing. The approximate attendance at the
hearing was 125 people.
Following the introductory statements, Mr. Garrett opened the hearing for public comments.
Eighteen (18) people spoke for the public record at the hearing. Eleven (11) written comments
were received within the time period allocated. The majority of comments focused on the
proposed medians. Businesses and emergency services were concerned with access. Adjacent
property owners were concerned with aesthetics.
IV. WETLANDS FINDING
Executive Order 11990 (23 CFR 771,125(a)(1)) states that federal agencies shall avoid direct or indirect
support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. As described in the
Environmental Assessment, the subject project will impact approximately 0.018 acres of wetland. No
practicable alternative to this wetland taking exists because:
The No-Action alternative would allow trlflic congestion along the existing roadway to continue.
Construction of either of the other alternatives under consideration resulted in greater impacts to
wetlands.
NCDOT has incorporated with this project all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands.
NCDOT will use best management practices in the construction of this project to insure that the least
amount of wetland as practicable will be impacted.
V. FLOODPLAIN FINDING
In accordance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, the proposed project was evaluated
with respect to potential impacts on regulated floodplains and floodways.
To ensure the floodwater property damages due to roadway constriction are minimized, drainage
strictures are designed with upstream (headwater) elevation in mind. All bridges and culverts in this
project will be designed and constricted in accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain impact requirements so that thee is no
increase in floodplain elevation greater than one foot. There will not be any significant longitudinal
encroachments in the floodplain.
In conclusion, the effects of the proposed action on floodplains and floodways are not considered
significant as defined in 23 CFR 650.105(q) for the preferred alternative.
VI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the Environmental Assessment, and upon
continents received from the federal, state and local agencies and the public, it is the finding of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration that the project will not
have a significant impact on the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement or
further environmental analysis will not be required.

- r SWt ??
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 25, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook Gt'/Gv
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
M
GE1?F^
L
AUG 2 6 1994 r
3urCe DIVISION OF
HIGH YS
Division o s sto
William S. ?RpR
SUBJECT: Widen NC 49 from Buster Boyd Bridge to Tyvola Road
Extension, Mecklenburg County, U-2512, 8.1673501,
STP-49(2), 95-E-4220-0108
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We believe that the Environmental Assessment adequately addresses our
comments regarding historic architectural and archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
Charlotte/Mecklenburg HLC
109 Fist Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

-a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission _
312 N. Salisbur l Street. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 1188, 919-7.3.3-33yi
Charies R. Rullwood, Executive Director
MEMC. PANDUM
.?0 ??A lba McGe
Offlce of Policy Deveionment, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Cooinator
Habitat C:ar.servation Program
Dn1G: august 22, 1-994
North Carol-a Department of Transportation
(NCllOT) Environmental Assessment (EA) for NC 49
widening, from the Buster Boyd Bridge to the
Tyvola Road Extension, Mecklenburg County, Nora"
Carolina, T_r No. U-252, SCN Project No. 95-0108.
52.olog4sts 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
`hi; review was to assess project impacts to fish and
w,_dlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
6674) .
The propoeed project involves widening NC 49 from 2-
lanes to a 4-lane shoulder facility with a 46-foot grassed
median frcm the Suster Boyd Bridge to SR 1441, a 4-11ane grub
and gutter facility with a 30 foot raised median from SR
1441 to Sugar Creek, and a 4-lane shoulder facility with a
30 foct raised median from Sugar Creek to the Tyvola Road
Extens=on. The roadway will be constructed on existing
alignment with a combination of symmetrical and asymmetrical
widening. The project length is approximately 10.3 miles.
wildlife habitat losses include approximately 22.8 acres of
forested lards and 0.018 acres of wetlands.
NCWRC appreciates that NCDOT has significantly reduced
ldl
impacts to wiife and fishery resources by the decision to
Memo Page 2 August 22, 1994
improve existing facilities rather than construction on a
new alignment. Improving existing roadways reduces wildlife
habitat fragmentation, lessens impacts from secondary
development and eliminates new stream or wetland crossings.
NCWRC will at this time concur with the findings of
this EA and anticipates concurrence with the subsequent
Finding of No Significant impact WONSI) for this project.
However, we ask that NCDOT use state-of-the-art stream
relocation guiielines and strictly enforce Best Management
Practices to help mitigate impacts to aquatic habitats
resulting from these roadway improvements.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA.
if we can be of any further assistance please call me at
[phone].
cc. Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.
ANENT Or
4RpQ' ? •-hF?Z
O - p
fO o
4?q CH 9 `9p9
L?
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
August 30, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Federal environmental assessment
Buster Boyd Bridge to Tyvola Road
County, North Carolina T.I.P. No

SEP 0 2 1994
DIVISIO'V OF
CC? HIGi le"I?,y` <
for NC 49 widening, from the
Extension, Mecklenburg
U-2512
In your letter of July 29, 1994 (received on August 1, 1994), you
informed us of the subject project. 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
widening of existing NC 49 from the Buster Boyd Bridge to Tyvola Road
Extension, a distance of approximately ten miles. The section of road
from the Buster Boyd Bridge to SR 1441 will consist of a four-lane
shoulder section with a 46 foot median. The section from SR 1441
(Carowinds Boulevard) to Sugar Creek will be a four-lane divided curb and
gutter section with a 30 foot raised median and the section from Sugar
to , a R-ad C...+7ns ., on .211 consist of a Tyvcl ,. ?.;,. four-lane diwided
shoulder section with a 30 foot raised median. There will be no control
of access.
The proposed project will impact approximately 10.8 acres of upland
hardwood forest, 1.2 acres of pine forest, 1.8 acres of mixed
pine-hardwood forest and 3.8 acres of mesic hardwood forest. The new
road will include 15 crossings over Steele Creek, Coffey Creek, Walker
Branch, Porter Branch, and Sugar Creek and associated tributaries. This
will require culvert extensions and a bridge replacement over Sugar
Creek. One small (approximately 0.25 acre) palustrine emergent wetland
will be impacted. The purpose of this project is to improve safety and
level of service in this rapidly developing area of Charlotte. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is familiar with the fish and
wildlife resources within the project area.
United States Department of the Interior
TAKE??
PRIDE IN
AMERICA?¦
?? M
The Service believes that the preferred alternative will not result in
significant direct environmental impacts. However, we agree with the
following statement in the assessment: "Roadway improvements may
stimulate indirect effects (secondary impacts) which are not directly
related to the construction of the facility." The proposed project will
likely contribute to increased development which will result in
additional wildlife habitat losses both in quantity and quality
(fragmentation of existing habitat). The assessment noted that the
County has plans to preserve streamside corridors (greenways) and to
acquire additional land for the McDowell County Park as highlighted;
these activities may partially mitigate for these wildlife habitat
losses. However, we encourage the North Carolina Department of
Transportation to assist the Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation
Department with the preservation of habitat identified in the Mecklenburg
County Greenway Master Plan. Possibly, the use of Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 funds could be considered to
preserve some of these lands as transportation enhancements or scenic
easements.
The Service encourages the implementation of the following measures to
minimize impacts to aquatic resources in the creeks within the project
area during road construction: (1) riparian vegetation should be
maintained wherever possible (i.e., reduce canopy removal in or near
creeks); (2) if any riparian areas are disturbed they should be
revegetated with native species as soon as possible after construction in
order to minimize runoff and to lessen the impacts associated with "bare
banks" (decrease in nutrient input, temperature changes, flow changes,
sediment filtration, etc.); (3) stringent erosion control measures should
be implemented during all construction activities so as to minimize
downstream effects; (4) extension of culverts should allow for continuous
flow in tributaries crossed by the alignment; and (5) construction should
be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact water entering or
flowing in the stream. This will reduce likelihood of fish kills
associated with culvert construction.
The Service concurs with the "no effect" determination made regarding
this project and potential impacts to the federally listed endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and the Carolina
heelsplitter (Lasmivona decorata). In view of this, we believe that
requirements of Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. 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 4-2-93-004.
Sincerely
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
C4
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
October 20, 1994
C E /\
O
OCT 2 4 1994
D1V1S1CV
H/GHWAYS
..,I P?
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
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of July 29, 1994, requesting our
comments on the "Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 49 Widening, From
the Buster Boyd Bridge to Tyvola Road Extension, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina, Federal-Aid Project No. STP-49(2), State Project No. 8.1673501,
TIP No. U-2512," (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199300259).
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. Enclosed
are our comments on the other issues.
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,
11/?- L12
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure
October 20, 1994
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 49 Widening, From the Buster Boyd
Bridge to Tyvola Road Extension, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Federal-
Aid Project No. STP-49(2), State Project No. 8.1673501, TIP No. U-2512,"
(Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199300259).
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Plan Formulation and Flood Plain
Services Branch, at [phone]
Our comments related to fl-ocd plain matters on this project were made in
our October 30, 1992, letter to your office, a copy of which is contained in
the Environmental Assessment (EA). In the EA you have addressed the flood
plain crossings of the several streams mentioned in our earlier letter. We
wish to point out an apparent change made in the revised February 1993
Mecklenburg County Flood Insurance Rate Map relative to the crossing of Coffee
Creek. The revised map no longer shows the 100-year flood contained in the
culvert, which you refer to on page 32 of the EA. Also, on the same page we
note your second comment relative to reducing impacts on the flood plains in
accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations. We
still suggest coordination with the city and county for compliance with their
flood plain ordinances since local ordinances can be more restrictive than
FEMA's minimum standards.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC -Steve Lund, Asheville Field Office, Regulatory
Branch, at [phone]
The EA indicates that there will be no significant impact, but rather an
enhancement of wetlands at or adjacent to the widening of NC 349. Data was
presented to substantiate the claim.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of
excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed improvements,
including disposal of construction debris. On February 6, 1990, the
Department of the Army and the U.S. Army and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to
determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean
Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Under this MOA, "first, impacts to
waters and wetlands should be avoided or minimized through the selection of
the least damaging, practical alternative; second, taking appropriate and
practical steps to minimize impacts on waters and wetlands; and, finally
compensating for any remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate
and practical." When final plans for the widening of NC 49 are complete,
including the extent and location of any work within waters of the United
States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the
Army permit requirements.

('11ARLO TTE
October 26, 1994
Mr. W. A. Garrett, Jr., P.E.
Manager, Citizen Participation Unit
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: NC 49 Widening, Buster Boyd Bridge to Tyvola
Road Extension, Mecklenburg County,
State T.I.P. Project #U-2512
Dear Bill:
The Mecklenburg-Union Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) has
the following comments regarding the recent public hearing on the
NC 49 Widening project:
1) We continue to wholeheartedly support the
median-divided concept for the project. The
Committee of 100, a group of business and
political leaders charged with analyzing the
region's future transportation needs, has
designated NC 49 as a "Road of Regional
Significance". This definition implies at
least a four-lane divided facility. Also,
turn lanes should be provided on each NC 49
approach at every median opening.
2) The project should include a median at least
2000 feet north of the NC 49/Sandy Porter Road
intersection toward the West Charlotte Outer
Loop (Interstate 485) to eliminate turning
conflicts in the area.
3) In accordance with NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy,
we are requesting that sidewalks be installed
in conjunction with the project between Tyvola
Road and General Drive. Please inform us of
the costs for sidewalk on one side and on both
sides so that we can determine how we wish to
proceed.
Department of Transportation
600 East Fourth Street Charlotte, NC 28202.2858 704/336-2261
Mr.W.A. Garrett, Jr., P.E.
October 26, 1994
Page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you
have any questions concerning our comments, contact either Tim
Gibbs of the Charlotte Department of Transportation at (704) 366-
3917 or Bill Coxe of the Mecklenburg County Engineering Department
at [phone].
Sincerely,
R bert N. Pressley, Jr., P.E.
Chairman, Mecklenburg-Union TCC
RNPjr/TDG/jf
c: David Hyder, N. C. Department of Transportation
Leigh Cobb, N. C. Department of Transportation
Bill Coxe
Joe Lesch
Dick Williams
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor C F1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 29, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
Monica Swih rt
From: Eric Galamb I
Subject: EA for NC 49 From Buster Boyd Bridge to Tyvolia Road Extension
Mecklenburg County
State Project DOT No. 8.1673501, TIP #U-2512
EHNR # 95-0108, DEM # 10714
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 approximately 0.018 acres of waters including
wetland.
Although DOT failed to address A, B, D, F, G, H, I, and K from our October 16, 1992
scoping letter, DEM will not recommend that an EIS be drafted since the water and
wetland impacts appear to be minimal.
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.
nc49mec.ea
Post-it" Fax Note 7671
Date
I # or

pages
To From
Co./Dept. Co.
Phone # Phone #
Fax # Fax #
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
t
NC 49 WIDENING
FROM THE BUSTER BOYD BRIDGE TO
TYVOLA ROAD EXTENSION
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. STP-49(2)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1673501
T.I.P. NO. U-2512
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)
D to H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Z- ?-C
Date ,2Nic as L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

a
NC 49 WIDENING
FROM THE BUSTER BOYD BRIDGE TO
TYVOLA ROAD EXTENSION
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. STP-49(2)

t
F1

1

STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1673501
T.I.P. NO. U-2512
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
June 1994
Documentation Prepared By JBM Engineers & Planners
'o111110ofro"
CARol
,??0 ••e?o•o°e° /?j 00
? I A
O SEAL
Brian D. Dehler P.E.
?;.
16067
Project Manager
DEI,"l e
fflf0flf1111
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., U t Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
C Le' h B. obb
Project Engineer

t
a
i
r
i
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
SUMMARY 1
Type of Action
Additional Information I
Actions Required By Other Agencies 1
Description of Action I
Alternatives Considered I
Summary of Environmental Impacts 2
Coordination 2
Basis for Environmental Assessment 2
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION 3
1.1 General Description of Project Area 3
1.2 History, Thoroughfare Plan and Feasibility Studies 3
1.3 Traffic Volumes, Capacity and Levels of Service 4
1.4 Accident Information 6
2.0 ALTERNATIVES 9
2.1 "Do Nothing" Alternative 9
2.2 Improvement Alternatives 9
2.3 Alternate Modes of Transportation 10
2.4 Postponement Alternative 10
2.5 Preferred Alternative 11
2.6 Reasons For Selection of Preferred Alternative 11
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 13
3.1 Genera l Description 13
3.2 Proposed Recommended Alternative 13
3.2.1 Project Termini and Length 13
3.2.2 Design Criteria 13
3.2.3 Typical Roadway Sections 13
3.2.4 Right-of-Way 14
3.2.5 Access Control 14
3.2.6 Intersection Treatment and Type of Control 14
3.2.7 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment 15
3.2.8 Railroad Work Required 15
3.2.9 Bridge Work Required 15
3.2.10 Parking 16
3.2.11 Sidewalks 16
3.2.12 Bicycles 16
3.2.13 Constniction Staging 16
3.2.14 Special Permits Required of the Division of Highways 17
3.2.15 Relation to the State Highway System 17
t
t
t
1
1
1
1
1
r
r
e
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
CHAPTER PAGE
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONT.
3.2.16 Utilities 17
3.2.17 Speed Zones 17
3.2.18 Landscaping/VisualIssues 17
3.2.19 Cost Estimates 18
4.0 SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 19
4.1 Land Use 19
4.1.1 Existing Land Use 19
4.1.2 Existing Zoning 20
4.1.3 Proposed Land Use and Zoning 20
4.1.4 Farmland 22
4.2 Social Impacts 23
4.3 Displacement and Relocation 24
4.4 Economic Impacts 25
4.5 Visual Impacts 25
4.6 Cultural Resources 26
4.6.1 Historic and Archaeological Resources 26
4.6.2 Parks and Recreational Open Space 27
4.7 Biotic Resources 27
4.7.1 Plant Communities 27
4.7.1.1 Plant Community Patterns 27
4.7.1.2 Plant Community Impacts 29
4.7.2 Wildlife 30
4.7.2.1 Terrestrial Communities 30
4.7.2.2 Aquatic Communities 31
4.7.2.3 Wildlife Impacts 31
4.7.3 Rare/Unique Natural Areas 31
4.8 Physical Resources 32
4.8.1 Water Resources 32
4.8.1.1 Flood Hazard 32
4.8.1.2 Surface Water and Water Quality 32
4.8.2 Physiography, Topography and Land Use 33
4.8.3 Soils 33
4.8.4 Summary of Physical Resource Impacts 34
4.9 Special Topics 34
4.9.1 Wetlands 34
4.9.1.1 Wetland Impacts 35
4.9.1.2 Permitting 35
4.9.1.3 Mitigation 36
1

1
1
1

t

A

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
CHAPTER PAGE
4.9.2 Protected Species 36
4.9.2.1 Federally-Protected Species 36
4.9.2.2 State-Protected Species 37
4.9.2.3 Protected Species Impacts 38
4.10 Construction Impacts 39
4.11 Air Quality 40
4.11.1 Conformity Determination 40
4.11.2 Analysis 41
4.11.3 CO Concentration Analysis Using CAL3QHC 41
4.12 Traffic Noise Analysis/Construction Noise Analysis 42
4.12.1 Introduction and Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) 42
4.12.2 Existing Noise Levels 43
4.12.3 Future Noise Levcls 43
4.12.4 Traffic Noise Impacts 44
4.12.5 Abatement Measures 45
4.12.6 Construction Noise 46
4.12.7 Summary 46
4.13 Hazardous Waste Involvement and Underground Storage Tanks 46
4.14 Secondary Impacts 47
4.15 Special Pennits Required of the Division of Highways 47
5.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 48
5.1 Agency and Public Comments 48
6.0 APPENDICES
Appendix A - Estimated 1998/2018 Average Daily Traffic
Appendix B - Typical Sections, Preferred Alignment and Profiles
Appendix C - Relocation Report
Appendix D - Individual Water/Wetland Crossings
Appendix E - Scoping Letter and Responses
r
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
Figure 1 - Project Location
Figure 2 - Project Corridor
Figure 3 - Existing Land Use
Figure 4 - Proposed Land Use
Figure 5 - Historic/Architectural Resources
Figures 6A, 613, 6C - Flood Hazard Area
Figure 7 - BMAN and Discharger Locations
Figure 8 - Noise Analysis Receptor Locations
Figure 9 - Listed and Suspect Sites
LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES
Figure No. B-1 Typical Sections - Preferred Alternative
Figure No. B-2 Roadway Plans - Preferred Alternative
Figure No. D-1 & D-2 Location of Wetland and Open Water Crossings
FOLLOWING PAGE
3
3
19
20
26
32
32
43
46
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
Table 1- Intersection Level of Service Summary
Table 2- Arterial Level of Service Summary
Table 3- NC 49 Summary of Impacts for Build Alternatives
Table 4- Community Impacts By Alternate (in Acres)
Table 5- Stream Characteristics and Ecological Classifications
Table 6- Soils Summary
Table 7- Cumulative Water/Wetland Impacts
Table 8- FHWA Design Noise Level/Activity Relationships
Table 9- Predicted Noise Levels
Table 10- Map Sites Master List
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Table D-1 - Wetland/Water Crossings
FOLLOWING PAGE
5
5
11
27
32
33
35
43
43
46

I SUMMARY
Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Environmental Assessment.
Additional Information - Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting the following persons:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E. Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Division Administrator Planning and Environmental Branch
Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue - Suite 410 P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone] Telephone [phone]
Actions Required By Other At*-encies
Nationwide Permits (33 CFR 330.5(x)(14) and (26)) are expected to apply. Incidental fill associated with
bridge extensions over waterways including Sugar Creek may be permitted under a General Permit
(Permit #198200031). Receipt of 401 Water Quality Certification issued by the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources' Division of Environmental Management may also be
required.

Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to improve NC 49 in Mecklenburg County. The project limits will extend from the Buster Boyd
Bridge to Tyvola Road Extension. The distance of the project is approximately 10.3 miles.
NC 49 is classified as a minor arterial in the Statewide Classification System.
The recommended improvement is a four-lane niral roadway separated by a 46-foot median from the
roadway approach at the Buster Boyd Bridge over the Catawba River (Lake Wylie) to SR 1441
(Carowinds Boulevard). A four-lane curb and gutter section with a raised 30-foot median is
recommended from SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) to Sugar Creek. From Sugar Creek to Tyvola Road
Extension a four-lane shoulder section with a 30 foot raised median is recommended. Alignment
alternatives for the replacement of the Buster Boyd Bridge are being evaluated under a separate project,
T.I.P. No. B-3004. The total cost of the NC 49 widening project including right-of-way and construction
is estimated to be $26,820,000. The estimated cost for the project presented in the 1995-2001
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) is $23,700,000.
Alternatives Considered - From the roadway approach at the Buster Boyd Bridge to SR 1441 (Carowinds
' Boulevard), two typical sections were evaluated: a four-lane rural section with a 46 foot median was
evaluated for symmetrical, cast-side, and/or west-side widening about the existing centerline. Also, a five-
lane undivided shoulder section with a continuous center turn lane was analyzed. From SR 1441
(Carowinds Boulevard) to Tyvola Road Extension, a 68-foot (from face of curb to face of curb) five-lane
curb and gutter section including a 16-foot continuous center turn lane was evaluated. A second
alternative considered for the north section of the project included a four-lane divided curb and gutter
section with a 30-foot raised median. This alternative involved widening to one side of the roadway or the
other.

f Postponement of the proposed improvements was considered but was rejected because the improvements
are warranted at the present time. A public transportation alternative was evaluated but was not
considered effective or financially feasible.
The do-nothing or no-build alternative was also considered, but rejected because the existing roadway
system cannot adequately service the projected traffic volumes along NC 49.
Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a positive overall impact on the
area involved by reducing congestion and accident potential, thereby increasing safety on NC 49. There
will be five (5) residences and one (1) business relocated by the proposed improvements. There may be
some erosion and siltation during construction; however, these effects will be short-term. No significant
effects to animal or plant life are expected and no recreation sites or sites listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places will be involved. Impacts to area wetlands are expected to be
minimal (approzimately .018 acres). Eighty-three (83) receptors are predicted to experience noise levels
which approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria. On the basis of project experience, traffic
noise abatement measures are not considered reasonable and feasible and none are recommended.
Coordination - The following federal, state and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of
this environmental assessment (an asterisk denotes the agencies that submitted comments):
* Charlotte Department of Transportation
* Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission
* Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Mayor of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners, Chairman
* Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection
* Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department
* Mecklenburg Utility Department
*
* NC Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
NC Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services
NC Department of Public Instruction
NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
* Division of Environmental Management
* Division of Forest Resources
* Division of Land Resource
* Division of Parks and Recreation
* Division of Soil and Water Conservation
*
* Planning and Assessment
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture
US Environmental Protection Agency
* US Fish and Wildlife Service
' Geological Survey
*Input was received from these agencies.
Basis for Environmental Assessment - An analysis of potential environmental impacts was conducted
for the proposed project. No significant adverse effects on the quality of the human or natural
environment were identified as a result of the construction of the proposed project. The project has been
reviewed by appropriate federal, state and local agencies. No objections have been raised by these
agencies. As a result of the reviews by appropriate agencies, it is concluded that an Environmental
Assessment is applicable to this project. A public hearing will be held for this project.

I
1 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
' 1.1 General Description of Project Area
The proposed project begins at the southern approach to the Buster Boyd Bridge in the extreme southwest
sector of Mecklenburg County (see Figures 1 and 2). Existing NC 49, through this area, is a two-lane
rural undivided section. Existing right-of-way totals approximately 100 feet. NC 49 is a well-traveled
highway that provides traffic service between Charlotte and recreational origins and destinations at the
Catawba River (Lake Wylie) on the North Carolina/South Carolina State line. The roadway also services
commuters in this area. NC 49 becomes SC 49 as it crosses the Lake into York County, South Carolina,
and continues southwesterly through the communities of York and Union before terminating at US 276
' above Laurens, SC. North of the project area, NC 49 proceeds northeasterly through Charlotte and
Harrisburg prior to terminating at US 220 near Asheboro. The posted speed limit along NC 49 in the
project corridor is 45 miles per hour (mph) in the more congested urban area between SR 1441
(Carowinds Boulevard) and Tyvola Road Extension and 55 mph in the rural section between the Buster
Boyd Bridge and SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard). There is no control of access.
The southern section extends from the Buster Boyd Bridge to SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard), a distance
' of approximately 5.3 miles. Rural in character, roadside land uses consist of scattered farmland, small
stands of woodlands, a major county park and nature preserve (McDowell Park), and scattered rural
residential development. A volunteer fire department is located midway along this section of the project.
Recreational/lake-oriented development exists at the southern limit of the project although recent
development activity reflects substantial permanent residences in several subdivisions near the Catawba
River (Lake Wylie) and abutting it. A major mixed use development is planned at the juncture of NC 160
and NC 49.
The northern sector is located between SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) and Tyvola Road Extension, a
distance of approximately 5.0 miles. The adjacent roadside land uses consist of a suburban mixture of
subdivision development (both single family and multi-family), industrial/service developments, retail
commercial strip centers, several churches, a fire station, and some rural residential uses and scattered
farm fields. Numerous private drives associated with adjacent individual businesses, industries and
residences as well as strip shopping centers, industrial parks and residential complexes
(subdivisions/apart ment) are located along this section.
A number of roadways intersect NC 49 throughout the project corridor. Most of these are stop sign
controlled and will remain so unless future traffic volumes warrant the installation of traffic signals.
Signalized intersections occur at NC 49 and NC 160 (Steele Creek Road), SR 1441 (Carowinds
Boulevard), SR 1142 (Sandy Porter Road), SR 1128 (Westinghouse Boulevard), SR 1138 (Arrowood
Road), and Tyvola Road Extension.
The key drainage areas traversing the project corridor are tributaries of Steele Creek, Coffey Creek,
Walker Branch and Sugar Creek. Drainage generally occurs in roadside ditches which parallel the
roadway. Major utilities such as telephone, electric, gas, water and sewer also parallel the existing
roadways.
1.2 History, Thoroughfare Plan and Feasibility Studies
The proposed improvements are included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program
(T.I.P.). State T.I.P. Project No. U-2512 provides for widening to a multi-lane facility along this section
of roadway. The length of the project is approximately 10.3 miles. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled
to begin in Fiscal Year 1996 with construction scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1998.
J

e
i
i
i
I :. .. ??. ............
... 4X01
.....: t1 Yw....
c n
0
9
oIZ,
k.
e6 ?
Gastonia p
C LOTTE''%-....
oleRO d??' .:?
iy •. Go .4
NCAS .• .
?S ds•.1{
74
001
Lake Wylle C)' ,?
O
sxi'
Scale: 1 inch= approx 6.5 miles
I -L-
N
0 1 2
Legend Project Location
Project Limits NC49 Widening from the
Buster Boyd Bridge to
Tyvola Road Extension
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Figure 1
9
y~~? ?F NOH7N ?? oft
o a
?9 r
?'FNr OF 1%?N?ao
t
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
?k3 ?ypd ??Ml I
jDaOb wave
a
d'
I
• `? potetBj
proposed
W
'PN JeUod 6puag I•y
? eaflhehousa eryd•
d 0
o
IL
C
C o? ero
(D `c finds Blvd.
G y e
N $
CL
w
m,
cc Qb?° A6 7i
Oo m Este t
C7 G t?
CO O
O co
Z ?
N
a U
f- co
p6? ?
C/
171
e? a>
o
N
a? ? aFeti C
C U
c co a) r
75 C) E
M '•`? c x
U o
o n.
r Z a
0 Q - O
?t?1 NOIjy bo

N Pa
?' Y
?'fa

ED i
?fyls n P? ??.
C
L 0

.? O
0
*a 0 (ZS

U
¦
L G 4)

0.
L

O 04)
z
W

V ?mpC U

d'
> > -O
O M
Z
CL L v

.
'
?
.
.
_
E

a)
.^
O
Q?
J ?

I?
L_.1

f

11

A

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Transportation Improvement Program as revised (March 1990) includes the
proposed roadway improvements along NC 49 as the third highest priority project. No local or state level
feasibility studies have been published regarding the widening project. However, the 2005 Charlotte
Transportation Plan (prepared by the Charlotte Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning
Division) as well as the Southwest District Plan (prepared by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning
Commission) discusses the widening of NC 49 as a much-needed transportation improvement due to NC
49's importance as the only direct access to and from northeastern York County, South Carolina.
Several other projects are scheduled in the T.I.P. and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Transportation
Improvement Program which tie into the NC 49 Widening Project including: the Buster Boyd Bridge
Replacement Project (B-3004) for which planning is currently underway, the Charlotte Western Outer
Loop Project (R-2248AA) which is currently in the design phase, and SR 1128 (Westinghouse Boulevard)
Improvements (U-2806) which involves multi-lining SR 1128 (Westinghouse Boulevard) from NC 49 to
1-77. The U-2806 project is currently in the planning and design phase.
1.3 Traffic Volumes, Capacity and Levels of Service
The collection and projection of traffic data are a continuing process on both the state and local levels.
Traffic volumes were provided in the form of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and are expressed in vehicles
per day (vpd). The estimated 1998 traffic volumes on NC 49 range between 15,200 vpd and 24,200 vpd.
By the design year of 2018, these volumes are expected to increase to between 28,000 vpd and 46,600 vpd.
(See Appendix A, Sheets 1-9.)
Capacity of roadways is expressed in terms of level of service (LOS). For each type of facility for which
analysis procedures are available, there are six levels of service defined. They are given letter
designations, from A to F, with A representing the best operating conditions, and F, the worst. Basic
operating characteristics for each level of service are described below:
Level of Characteristics
Service
A Free flow conditions. Freedom to select desired speed and to maneuver within the
traffic stream is extremely high. General level of comfort/convenience for motorists is
excellent.
B Stable flow conditions. Presence of other vehicles in the traffic stream becomes
noticeable. Slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream.
C Stable flow conditions. Ability to maneuver and operating speed in the traffic stream
is significantly affected be other vehicles. General level of comfort/convenience
declines noticeably at this level.
D High density, but stable flow, approaching unstable flow. Speeds and freedom to
maneuver are severely restricted. General level of coin fort/convenience is poor. Small
increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level.
E Unstable flow. Speeds reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Volumes at or
near capacity, making freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream extremely
difficult. Comfort/convenience are extremely poor, driver fnistration is generally
high. Small increases in traffic flow or minor perturbations within the traffic stream
will cause breakdowns.
F Forced or breakdown flow conditions. Volumes exceed roadway capacity, resulting in
the formation of instable queues. Operation within the queue is characterized by stop
and go conditions. Stoppages for long periods of time occur due to traffic congestion.
Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Special Report 209 published by the Transportation
Research Board.
4

1
All signalized and unsignalized intersections within the project corridor, excluding SR 1128
(Westinghouse Boulevard) were analyzed using the methodology outlined in Chapters 9 and 10 of the
1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 (HCM) and the corresponding Highway Capacity
Software (Release 1.5). SR 1128 (Westinghouse Boulevard) at its' intersection with NC 49 was analyzed
by others as part of the SR 1128 (Westinghouse Boulevard) project (U-2806). The intersections were each
analyzed for ten separate conditions: AM and PM peak hours for the years 1992, 1998 and 2018 using
existing geometries (to represent the No-Build situation), and the AM and PM peak hours for the years
1998 and 2018 using the proposed improvements (Build Conditions). The resulting levels of service,
shown in Table 1, indicated a need for roadway improvements including additional through lanes on NC
49, construction of turn lanes at intersections with NC 49, and the installation of additional traffic signals
along the project corridor.
Several of the unsignalized intersections reported undesirable LOS during the design year even when
geometric improvements were implemented. These undesirable LOS can be directly attributed to the
' volumes of traffic on the side streets or to left turn volumes on NC 49. Each of these intersections was
examined for possible signal warrants. On the basis of this analysis, it was determined that six additional
traffic signals may be warranted along NC 49 before the year 2018: McDowell Farms Drive, SR 1122
(Moss Road), Stephendale Drive, SR 1109S (Pleasant Hill Road), Yorkdale Drive and SR 1 I 1 I (Shaherlia
Road). Traffic signal warrants were checked at one additional location, Riverpointe Drive, which also
exhibited an undesirable LOS. Signal warrants were not met at this location based on projected traffic
volumes.
1 Traffic signals are also recommended at live locations requiring double left turn lanes. Traffic control
signals should be installed at these locations when the double left turn lanes are operational. Based on
traffic projections these double left turn lanes and corresponding traffic control signals will be required in
the construction year (1998). These locations include: SR 1155 (Shopton Road), SR 1157 (Beam Road),
SR 1120 (Erwin Road), SR 1122 (Choate Circle) and SR 1116 (Shopton Road West)/SR 1109N
(Youngblood Road).
Mecklenburg County officials have expressed an interest in limiting the number and frequency of traffic
control signals to be installed along the project corridor. They have further recommended the
establishment of green times, traffic progression studies and interconnecting traffic control signals that
would favor NC 49 traffic. Final recommendations for installation of traffic signals will be made by the
NCDOT Division Engineer and Traffic Engineer based on actual field measurements of traffic and/or
' additional warrants.
Levels of service for segments between signalized intersections were estimated using the methodology
outlined in Chapter I1 of the HCM and the corresponding Highway Capacity Software. The existing
conditions were used as a basis for analyzing the segments for the current year (1992). The opening
(1998) and design (2018) years were analyzed using the proposed improvements consisting of two through
lanes in each direction with appropriate turning lanes. The estimated delay expected at the signalized
' intersections was based on the intersection capacity analyses performed at each location. Results of these
analyses are shown in Table 2. Like the intersection capacity analyses, the arterial analyses revealed the
need for improvements on NC 49 in the form of additional through lanes. As shown in Table 2, the
segment between SR 1157 (Beam Road) and SR 1155 (Shopton Road) is expected to operate at LOS E
during both peak hours of the design year. The distance between these two signalized intersections is
approximately 1700 feet. Due to this short distance and the occurrence during only one of the peak hours
examined, this LOS is considered acceptable.

1
Table 1
Intersection Level-of-Service
L os
INTERSECTION N O-BUILD SITUATIO N BUILD SI TUATION
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1992 1992 1998 1998 2018 2018 1998 1998 2018 2018

TYVOLA ROAD EXTENSION Y
C ..
C
x E
E v.?vrr.. v :. •:: .
B+
D..
D..
E
ac;}:;?:,?:<S:?o'+R;R'%;`:i•?r.'•fW.dlbkGfcA'hRi4S",rf:ts'Gk:<h:;::± i::i:r:y;.}:: :;: {..}fSw?:t???h'4 ?{ens+7ftC4C??r: :?atc6.gdffdR;t6r:? Y!: r:+#k;RC4?4: i.'f?f.`•k?.'•ck::;? oCd.4i?OJkK?I.,;, ?:.,.
.•..,•..
,N+rJ :.x.,;:t: w u
SR 1155 (SHOPTON RD) F F F F F F A A D D
h:1 i+::}::}::?•:{.:a:•::.....:5.....l.. S'.C,•o:...Fa, .....................:. :•:::::::.Y:::::: v::, :.: •: •:
•}: tk%i%?.;:.
....,::.,, fC:'?
.... :...v.v••:

::.:,:?:::•.4-5?C.'•

•:::.c?,5y,>:<?;;{:; rr
.. Y:
''n2.kk};;{

:....::.:::::: .::::.

. :
...
.
. •,:;:: h::{.{:::{.

.. .;{{twY v:•x

.?k•....
. •,

.'::KSC<C",?#?
MCDOWELL FARMS RD. D
C
F
D

F

F

D

C

***

E
:,•:',:x•:a:•:a•.a:{:?•;:h].:h}].o}h•.,..:.:r#•.:w.o:•.,•.4:•]]:•]:•:;?r: ?:::-::;.::;r:,:;•;:
• ... :?..
.: ......:.:.4:.
.}\?:2'?o'•'S:ik:F
.t,..,,.:.7k';Y,?>
't.., /...: n,•.RK •:
R;;.'•:::G:t:C C; ?aa••::
....w.03.`>t??S:>
x`:a::::.'•::S:Y;r:
`a>•?.:r:c5.:•<?;:f:5;
??••'.'.'•S:t^•.KR'tFk2i
? &?^::
SR 1157 (BEAM RD) C E E F F F B B B C
.v:: :•.v:+:.v:::::; :w::.v:::.:w:::::: : ................::.::::::::::::::::.]?: :}i++:;:ai;.}:•;.; .]}v:?ah:aa':;•i :]::: h:•i;h}ii':{;? ]:: ?'.]]:•nti4: •;.:' ':'?:::]:, :;i:
GRETNA GREEN DR D C E D F E C B F C
.:.:... ]...:4.,.:,.,.,,-: ::.}: ?::.Y. ..... a. xt.::. :,:...,:.,i;,Yrfi; •....: :..•„ .:a?.:,,Ct?:,t•: h,- .}}}hkS,Y:;?+AiS::? ?t::r:?:i::;:;::::::: :::: .::::: r. ;k:;}: :;] <??:;xt:2C•??c.'•: :6?fA9?R;'?R
YORKDALE DR
D
D
D
D

E

E

E

E

•••

•••
a;•:.;
a:.:•]: ;:::.>:•
>:<..; ;::.:•]:
: }••:>]:
:;::<>::: ;::•::< :•}:•:;:r
:;;•:;:: >>>:%
OLDE WHITEHALL RD D D D p E E D D E E

...............
:•i:•is4::?:;;•}}}}}}}:;;•;{;a]:i•.tii}::i,;,• :: :x:•••v:.vr
........::•.••:•:• x:: ;:.Yx:::: n}'. :v{:.vr.v •••...
7:{?h]:- .:::::-x
w.v::•]n ::vn;,v:rf nr:
:... ..
?k:^4^::;?\}::i?>i.'•:
.];;;?,::•]:•]:?•]+:•}:• •.v.,v
R?::S:k:,,•:; k':;:
;:;•.,;::]:i{:;:Yf:{y;:q
.v:.,22;'t:
THORNFIELD RD D C E D F E D D E D
.niiik i:;`:>.?k?'ri: i'r>iii'rj]f :Ji};({:L4}]::•:;• •] vk;•Yh a:•:
YORKHILLS DR
D
::::.:::...:.:,..::.::::.:.:.:..:.......... ........................ ;:...]:::]:.:••a. :. ? ..::. ;: •.;:.}}}:......]. . . • ..:.. .........,...::.: .........{sic?{.. k??xaarxta...
LONGDALE DR D D E D E E D D E E

::v.v :::::::.:::: ::w.:.:v:. w.::v.v:.:.: •:::::.:::::: ::v::::{4:

:h]':;??t•}]]}': n}

.}}•::.}}}}}}};u.;i ]:a:•:•

?•]++'4:•....

]:;': ::•]}]}:tixii
..

a]:• {;:. y;
...,.i is .,

}: ]]{::

L}?O:iiiii::iia:ii

:ii;a::<i?iiii}?'i;

j}$: ?'
SR 1138 (ARROWOOD RD) E E • • C C • •
r..h:I.?t.n..> ........::.::::::::::::::: .:
• ?-...
-..
..
•••
..• ,}};{{{{ihY.;a,:
. :? n:r4]:•:? .:

SR
1142 SANDY PORTER RD

C

B ? •

V >:zk:>:::•:k.z: > ..

+?? ?-

••• •• Ytt:
TOWNSHIP RD C C C D E E C C D E
::.v::::::.w:.,•:.w:n: :::::::.:....::::.:v::::.:;?.;::; ....................,1. .,v..-.v:.:v:....: ......::::?•: •..: ;h:r•:
+ .... ,
] ?? v:::v$i]'?{'4$i$:
r ;kF.....riQYi.,;.
SR 1344 (JOHN PRICE BLVD) C C C D E E C C E E
?t?:.Y•kYf•S::S:>::i:;ik?:::i:::r;:r: S:... .. ... •::•xv?;{{:: } {.
•
?
..
.•.
SR 1347 (NEVADA BLVD
F
D
C
E
D
•}:?•$}Yn]'C?C?:9:ahi;iJ:?;]:h-]]:4i]]]i]Y•:?h:
:.w::.::::::.v.:::::::::::nw::::. ... ..........:.... :•:
.:::::::::?.:: }:.
::.::.w: n.. n.,.
..........:.
.:.v:.,?+?hS}; }i:; :v,:{{•: '•:
:;......+:"5`rki;+. :4:, ;:.]v
..v:?.vn+f$.?+.'•.'•:•;
:•]i]:v:i4i]iii}i{.
{{{.:O:i:iv':>.}}:
...>.'{•'frkb:\v.
i$}?:A4'1{QQ?th"?:
SR 1348 (GENERAL DR) B D D D D E D E"" D E
.......................
SR 1441 (CAROWINDS BLVD) B B C E • B B B D
..... •v: •::::::::::: :v::::::nv:{.] •]]'+:4:a;0]}}':-}: :-i::: a}}}:•}:•::'?h; .}}•:.::• } : .... :..:: :.: v::.....v..
SR 1122 (MOSS RD) C C D D F F D D F*** E

SR 1120 (ERWIN RD) C D D E F F A A C B
..... ..•..,• '•`.'.
.... . .x}
STEPHENDALEDR C B D C F F C C F••• E
..... ' r..,. .::]]]}:•
:].:•]: ..,.... :
SR 1122 (CHOATE CIR) C D D E F F A A B B

NC 160 (STEELE CREEK RD) F • • B B D D

BIRNAMWOOD LN
D
D
....... ........
....... .......
...... .......
..? .. ..,rx
SR 1116 (SHOPTON RD) B E C F F F A A B B

SR 1109 N (YOUNGBLOOD RD) D A E C F F D A F""" D

.
•
?. MM WMAVOW
SR 1I
16/1109N REALIGNM
NT) NA NA NA N
.. A NA NA A C C

SR 1109 S (PLEASANT HILL RD) F F F F F F F"" F"" F""" F""•

MAJESTIC OAKS DR D B E C E D D C E E

M
W
`:. ?ii:<;'•:}ii Jii i}}ii?;?vii ?i .. ..

...
.
CDO
ELL PARK
Itv
E
E

SR 1110 (RED FEZ CLUB RD) D B E C E F C C E E

:::.: ..a?tK?I.4?R2'R
RIVERPOI
NTE OR
E
E
E
D
E
E
E
<•]:•]:•}];;;;;;:•]:;;;::-::.;;;:;?.}:.;:::;]:.::<.;:.]:;.]:.;:•:•]:•}::.;:.]:.]]:;.]:•;>:;;?]:•;;:•:;; :;:;;]]:;;:;:;:;:;:<:::: :;::•]:::r:::::;:::??::::: :>:•]::::;:si:::]:;;:: :s:?•:<]::::;::•]:::'< ::r •>:<:;:::::»:.:.;:: .......... h,,.... ,.; kr4?dcskxh
WOOLWINE RD B D D E E E D D E E

AHERLI
Signalized : -•arsedions are shown in bold
"Delay and LOS are meanmgless when volume/capacity ratio exceeds 1.2
:*Left turn movement from NC 49 is LOS (D) or better
""Signalization may be warranted before year 2018

t

u

r1

Table 2
Arterial Level -of-Service
NB SB
YEAR INTERSECTION PEAK AVG. AVG.
LOS SPEED LOS SPEED
Tyvola Rd to AM - - B 31.7
Arrowood Rd PM - - C 22.9
Arrowood Rd to AM E 15.2 B 32.5
Sandy Porter Rd PM D 21.4 B 33.2
Sandy Porter Rd to AM C 23.7 D 21.8
1992 Westinghouse Blvd PM C 25.1 E 13.8
Westinghouse Blvd to AM B 31.0 B 34.4
Carowinds Blvd PM B 33.0 B 31.5
Carowinds Blvd to AM A 36.1 A 35.3
Steele Creek Rd PM A 37.0 C 25.9
Steele Creek Rd to AM C 24.9 - -
Buster Boyd Bride PM C 27.8 - -
Tyvola Rd to AM - - A 38.3
Shopton Rd PM - - A 37.4
Shopton Rd to AM B 30.5 C 27.0
Beam Rd PM B 31.6 C 24.1
Beam Rd to AM A 37.3 B 33.2
Arrowood Rd PM A 37.8 B 28.2
Arrowood Rd to AM B 29.5 A 35.2
Sandy Porter Rd PM B 30.4 B 34.6
Sandy Porter Rd to AM A 37.2 A 36.5
1998 Carowinds Blvd PM A 37.3 B 35.0
Carowinds Blvd to AM B 33.9 A 35.8
Erwin Rd PM B 33.3 A 35.6
Erwin Rd to AM A 36.1 A 37.0
Choate Cir PM A 36.8 A 36.2
Choate Cir to AM A 37.9 B 30.9
Steele Creek Rd PM A 38.0 B 33.2
Steele Creek Rd to AM B 29.4 A 37.1
Shoptor?Youngblood PM B 31.9 B 33.8
Shopton/Youngblood to AM B 34.0 - -
Buster Boyd Bride PM B 33.6 - -
Tyvola Rd to AM - - A 35.1
Sho ton Rd PM - - C 22.4
Shopton Rd to AM E 13.5 D 20.3
Beam Rd PM C 26.4 E 16.8
Beam Rd to AM A 35.3 B 29.6
Arrowood Rd PM A 38.6 C 26.4
Arrowood Rd to AM D 19.6 B 29.9
Sandy Porter Rd PM C 27.1 C 22.4
Sandy Porter Rd to AM B 34.8 B 34.5
Carowinds Blvd PM A 37.2 B 33.0
2018 Carowinds Blvd to AM B 30.7 B 28.9
Erwin Rd PM C 26.4 B 28.6
Erwin Rd to AM B 34.1 A 35.7
Choate Cir PM A 36.0 B 32.3
t-:ioate Cir to AM B 31.4 D 18.6
Steele Creek Rd PM B 30.4 D 21.9
Steele Creek Rd to AM B 31.5 B 35.0
Shopton/Youngblood PM B 28.2 C 27.0
Shopton/Youngblood to AM B 32.1 -
Buster Boyd Bridge PM B 33.3 -
Fil

FJ

' The most prevalent type of accident was the rear end collision, which accounted for over 47 percent of all
accidents (see Chart 2). These types of accidents are expected to occur where a combination of high
volumes and a large number of slowing, stopping and/or turning movements cause interniptions of the
traffic flow. Just under 70 percent of all accidents occurred within roughly 315 feet of an intersection.
' The highest concentration of accidents (over 42 percent) occurred at or near the intersections of SR 1128
(Westinghouse Boulevard) and SR 1138 (Arrowood Road), as shown in Charts 3 and 4.

i]

11
1.4 Accident Information
A total of 397 accidents occurred along NC 49 in the project area during the time between January 1,
1989 to December 31, 1991. Accidents in this corridor have occurred at a steady rate during this time,
averaging 132 accidents per year (see Chart 1).
Chart 1
NC 49 Corridor
Accidents Per Year
Chart 2
NC 49 Corridor
Accident Type

LEFT RIGHT HEAD ON SIDE ANGLE OTHER
TURN TURN SWIPE
Accident Type

Chart 3
NC 49 Corridor
Accident Locations
Rural Section
60
50
40
0 30
22 21 21
3 20
z 12 9
10

0
2 3 0 0 0 4 1 3 1 2 0 7
4 7
0 0 0 2 0 0 2
1 3 0 0
2

?Wf rv O $
N N N N O j
W W !a5 ?i - a =
?
a 0 ?
6. ?
m
O `y
K O (
A l
/1 3 N
W O
?j m
ti O O U
6
Chart 4
Accident Locations
Urban Section
60 58
50

v
40

0 30 28 28 25 28
27

20 IS

10 3
2 4 2 7
o
4
3 5 8
3 6
1
1 0
M 1
0
m 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0
0
f
,
i
- =#
.
o a? o ?

g W j o
W
¢ ° 0 0
>>
Wm a0

Z ??

Z m oWS

.f F-

0 ??

V? 'x?

1? ?

`L or?

..] W K n t

v+ W x

'n O

O
W Z to w N O W O O O O S m O T

The accident rates for the nlral section of NC 49 were considerably lower than the statewide average for
coral two-lane undivided state highways (see Chart 5). In contrast, the accident rates for the urban section
were considerably higher than the statewide average, as shown in Chart 6. Five fatalities occurred during
the three year study period. Two of these accidents involved DUI's (both head-on) and of the remaining
three, one was a pedestrian fatality, one a head-on collision, and one was due to excessive speed.
7

Chart 5
Accident Rate Comparison
Rural
250.0
202.0 ® NC49-RURAL
200.0

g
150.0
140.8 ? STATEWIDE RURAL AVG
96.8
100.0
G1.1 60.3

_ 45.7
50.0 :1 32.7 31.6
1.1 2.7 :
1
0
0 .
. . I
TOTAL FATAL NON- NIGHT WET
ACCIDENT ACCIDENT FATAL ACCIDENT ACCIDENT
RATE RATE INJURY RA'Z'E RATE
ACCIDENT
Chart 6
Accident Rate Comparison
Urban
400.0 371.2
350.0 ®NC49-URBAN
300.0 275.3 ? STATEWIDE URBAN AVG
0 250.0
0
200.0
o 150.0 146.8
110
6
100
0 . 77.6 87.3
. 55.3 58.5
50.0 5.5 1.0
0
0
.
TOTAL FATAL NON- NIGHT WET
ACCIDENT ACCIDENT FATAL ACCIDENT ACCIDENT
RATE RATE INJURY RATE RATE
ACCIDENT
The proposed improvements, which will include turning lanes, will reduce the frequency of all accidents,
especially rear-end and left turn collisions. In addition, the proposed section will reduce the number and
severity of head-on collisions, and improve traffic (low dramatically along the entire corridor. The safety
of motorists will be enhanced by increasing lane widths, providing usable shoulders, increasing turning
radii at intersections and providing adequate sight distances. Additional safety benefits will be realized by
providing an improved connection between Charlotte and the Catawba River (Lake Wylie).
8

11

t

2.0 ALTERNATIVES
2.1 "Do Nothing" Alternative
The "do nothing" or no-build alternative would have a negative impact on transportation in the proposed
corridor. Turning movements along NC 49 now result in congested conditions at many intersections,
particularly during peak travel periods, and accidents have increased. As traffic continues to increase
along NC 49, traffic service will continue to deteriorate. The increased congestion will be accompanied
by longer travel times and higher operating costs.
Without the proposed improvements, the motorists using NC 49 would not enjoy the safety benefits that
are expected to accompany the improvements. As traffic volumes and associated congestion continue to
grow on the unimproved highway, the accident potential of the highway will rise.
The proposed roadway widening will result in improved access to the area, savings in operating costs, and
reduced travel time. The general improvement in the ease and convenience of travel will benefit the state
and region as well as the local neighborhoods adjacent to the route. Because of these identified benefits
provided by the proposed widening as well as the above-mentioned negative attributes associated with the
no-build alternative, the "do nothing" alternative was dropped from fiirther consideration.
2.2 Improvement Alternatives
The project will be located on existing alignment (except where modifications are necessary to satisfy
current design standards) to utilize available right-of-way along the roadway. Typical sections evaluated
include:
Buster Boyd Bridge to SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard).
a.) A four-lane rural section with a 46-foot median evaluated with regard to symmetrical,
east-side, and/or west-side widening about the existing centerline. (See Appendix B,
Figure B-1, Typical Section No. 1)
b.) A five-lane shoulder section with continuous center turn lane.
2. SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) to Sugar Creek.
a.) A 68-foot (from face of curb to face of curb) five-lane curb and gutter section with a 16
foot continuous center turn lane.
b.) A four-lane divided curb and gutter section with a 30-foot raised median with regard to
symmetrical, east-side, and/or west-side widening about the centerline. (See Appendix B,
Figure B-1, Typical Section No. 2.)
3. Sugar Creek to Tyvola Road Extension
a.) A four-lane shoulder section with a 30-foot raised median was studied with regard to east
side widening. (See Appendix B, Figure B-1, Typical Section No. 3.)
b.) A 68-foot (from face of curb to face of curb) five-lane curb and gutter section with a 16
foot continuous center turn lane.

u

Ll
J

r-?

2.3 Alternate Modes of Transportation
Alternate modes of transportation include transit options, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, and
associated traffic operations improvements. Currently, the Charlotte Transit System's bus service does not
extend along NC 49. Light rail transit has been studied for eventual service into adjacent outlying areas to
serve commuters; however, there are no transit options now available. Charlotte plans to extend bus
service to include this section of NC 49 in the future. Consideration has been given to providing bus
turnouts along the project corridor to facilitate future bus use. It has been determined that bus turnouts
will not enhance bus operations along the project due to the type of development found along the corridor.
Therefore, no bus turnouts are proposed.
Consideration was also given for provision of a "park- n-ride" lot as part of this project. An existing
"park-n-ride" lot is located near NC 49 on US 521. This lot was felt to provide sufficient access for
commuters in the area. Therefore, a "park-n-ride" lot is not considered for this project.
Charlotte actively promotes both carpool and vanpool service to reduce single occupancy vehicle (SOV)
use. There are currently 18 operating vanpools which serve the entire metropolitan area. A computer
matching service is available to assist potential carpool and vanpool users in finding suitable rides. A
commuter service has also been jointly developed with the City of Rock Hill, South Carolina, to assist ride
sharing for commuters who travel to work across the state lines.
Travel demand reduction strategies such as staggered work hours at local businesses, growth
management, and road use pricing were considered for this project. Growth management involves public
policies to regulate development so that trip generation follows a desired pattern. Road use pricing
involves charging motorists a "price" associated with their use of a particular facility. Growth
management and road use pricing were not considered feasible options because they involve area-wide
policies rather than policies applicable to discrete corridors.
Staggered working hours, flex-time, or modified work weeks can be implemented on a corridor level if
large employers along the corridor cause congestion at their entrances or exits. No such employers have
been identified along this project .
Congestion management strategies such as progressive signal timing, ramp metering and High Occupancy
Vehicle lanes were evaluated for this project. The numerous curb cuts and spacing of existing traffic
signals make progressive signal timing improvements non-effective. Ramp metering and high occupancy
vehicle lanes were not considered applicable to this project because NC 49 is not a controlled access
facility.
The dominance of the single unit vehicle in this area precludes further evaluation of other modes of
transportation.
2.4 Postponement Alternative
With the postponement alternative, it is presumed that the proposed action will be implemented at some
time in the future but not within the current schedule. The short-term advantages of this alternative are
similar to the "do nothing" alternative. There will be no immediate capital investment required for right-
of-way acquisition nor will there be disruption to residents or businesses located along or nearby the
proposed improvements. No temporary disruption due to construction or right-of-way acquisition will
occur.
The disadvantages to the postponement alternative include steadily worsening traffic and safety conditions
and poor traffic operations, particularly at intersections. The possibilities may be more restrictive at a
10

future date due to potentially higher acquisition and constriction costs. Also, funding for the
improvements is available in the T.I.P. Postponement is not recommended.
Some short-term, limited improvements can be made by improving traffic operations at high volume
intersection locations. Traffic volumes, however, are anticipated to increase to a level that the costs of
evaluating and upgrading signalization outweigh the immediate short-term benefits. Capacity analyses
performed at key intersections indicated poor traffic operations with future projected traffic expected to
affect these intersections more adversely.
2.5 Preferred Alternative
Following a thorough analysis of the social, economic and physical impacts of all alternatives, primary
typical sections and associated alignments were selected as the preferred alternative for the NC 49
improvements.
The Preferred Alternative for the NC 49 widening project consists of three typical sections. Typical
Section No. 1 (see Appendix B, Figure B-1) consists of a four-lane shoulder section with a 46-foot
median. This section is proposed from the approach to the Buster Boyd Bridge to SR 1441 (Carowinds
Boulevard).
Typical Section No. 2 (see Appendix B, Figure B-1 ) will be a four-lane divided curb and gutter section
with a 30-foot raised median. This section will be used from SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) to Sugar
Creek and will measure 82 feet from face to face of curb.
Typical Section No. 3 (see Appendix B, Figure B-1) consists of a four-lane divided shoulder section with a
30-foot raised median. This section is proposed to extend from Sugar Creek to Tyvola Road Extension.
Plans for the preferred alternative are provided in Appendix B as Figure B-2. Widening is proposed for
the east side of the existing alignment, from the approach to the Buster Boyd Bridge to the vicinity of SR
1116 (Shopton Road). The widening is symmetrical from the vicinity SR 1116 (Shopton Road) to the
vicinity of Birnamwood Lane where the widening shifts back to the east side of the existing alignment.
Approximately midway between Birnamwood Lane and NC 160 (Steele Creek Road) the widening shifts
to the west side of the existing alignment. Widening remains along the west side to SR 1441 (Carowinds
Boulevard) except between SR 1122 (Choate Circle) and SR 1120• (Ervin Road) where the proposed
widening transitions to the east side and then back to the west side of the existing alignment.
Symmetrical widening is proposed from the vicinity of SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) to the vicinity of
SR 1138 (West Arrowood Road). In the vicinity of SR 1 138 (West Arrowood Road), widening shifts to
the west side of the existing alignment and remains on the west side to SR 1155 (Shopton Road).
Widening then shifts to east side of the existing alignment and ties into the existing alignment north of
Tyvola Road.
2.6 Reasons For Selection of Preferred Alternative
A matrix detailing the individual criteria examined and the impacts of each alternative is included as
Table 3. Although the typical sections are similar in cost and impacts, the four-lane divided sections were
selected as the preferred alternatives through the project corridor.
As shown in Table 3, the four-lane section minimizes residential relocations. Seven (7) residential
relocations are expected with the proposed action. Symmetrical widening evaluated with S5 and N5C
resulted in ten (10) residential relocations.
The four-lane section also results in reduced impacts to parks and recreational areas, as well as forest lands
and wetlands. One park was impacted along alternative S5 due to the symmetrical widening of the

L

1

Table 3
NC 49 Summitry of Impacts for Build Alternatives
ALTERN ATIVES
IMPACT S4*
(Recommended) S5* N5* N4C*
(Recommended)
Residences Relocated 7 10 0 0
Businesses Relocated 2 1 0 0
Known Cemeteries Potentially Relocated 0 0 0 0
Parks and Recreational Sites Affected 0 1 1 1
Historic Sites Affected 0 0 0 0
Archaeological Sites Affected 0 0 0 0
Noise Receptors Equal to or Exceeding 67
dBA Criterion
43 of 58
43 of 58
40 of 44
40 of 44
Hazardous Waste Sites Potentially
Affected
0
0
0
0
AST's1UST's Affected 3 of 5 4 of 5 3 of 8 4 of 8
Farmland Conversion N/A N/A N/A N/A
Stream Crossings 8 8 7 7
Floodplain Encroachments (Acres) 1.3 0.7 3.1 3.5
Forest Land (Acres) 14.9 17.6 8.2 7.9
Agricultural Land (Acres) 8.1 5.7 N/A N/A
Wetlands (Acres) N/A N/A 0.055 0.018
Right-of-Way Cost $3,577,500 $3,622,500 $1,937,500 $2,642,500
Construction Cost $11,200,000 $10,900,000 $8,800,000 $9,400,000
Total Cost $14,777,500 $14,522,500 $10,737,500 $12,042,500

* Description of Alternatives:
Alternative S4 - (Recommended) Four-lane shoulder section with 46-foot median extending from the Buster Boyd Bridge
to SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard).
Alternative S5 - Five-lane shoulder section with continuous center turn-lane extending from the Buster Boyd Bridge to SR
1441 (Carowinds Boulevard).
Alternative N5 - Five-lane curb and gutter section with continuous center turn-lane extending from SR 1441 (Carowinds
Boulevard) to Tyvola Road Extension.
Alternative N4C - (Recommended) Four-lane curb and gutter section with 30-foot raised median extending from SR 1441
(Carowinds Boulevard) to Tyvola Road Extension.

' roadway considered with this alternative. Alternative S4 avoided the park by widening on the side of
existing NC 49 opposite the park. No cemeteries or historical/archaeological sites were impacted-with any
' of the alternatives investigated.
The four lane divided section provides a safer operating design by restricting. vehicular turns to median
openings. This reduces accident potential and improves vehicular flow. In comparison a five-lane section
' with unregulated access provides more opportunity for vehicular conflict thus increasing the potential for
accidents.
' On the basis of human and physical impacts, and environmental considerations, the four-lane divided
section was considered to provide the safest operation with the fewest adverse impacts (See Figure B-2 in
Appendix B).
H

1

1

12
1

1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1 3.1 General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to improve NC 49 in
Mecklenburg County from the roadway approach to the Buster Boyd Bridge over the Catawba River (Lake
Wylie) to Tyvola Road Extension. The existing two-lane roadway will be widened to a multi-lane
roadway throughout the entire length of the project. The estimated cost of this improvement including
' right-of-way and construction is $26,820,000. The estimated T.I.P. cost for the proposed improvements is
$23,700,000
3.2 Proposed Recommended Alternative
3.2.1 Project Termini and Length
The proposed project begins at the end of the roadway section approaching the Buster Boyd Bridge over
' the Catawba River (Lake Wylie) and terminates near the Tyvola Road Extension/NC 49 intersection. The
total project length is approximately 10.3 miles.
3.2.2 Design Criteria
The design speeds and posted speeds for t he typical roadway sections studied are shown below:
Section Design Speed Posted Speed
' Five lane curb and gutter
Four lane divided 50 mph
60 mph 45 mph
55 mph
Five lane shoulder 60 mph 55 mph
Four lane curb and gutter
(with raised median) 50 mph 45 mph
3.2.3 Typical Roadway Sections
Three typical sections are recommended for the NC 49 improvements. Typical Section No. 1 (see Figure
B-1 in Appendix B) consists of a four-lane divided rural roadway separated by a 46-foot median. The
inside shoulders will also include a two-foot paved shoulder and four-foot earth shoulder for a total
shoulder width of six feet. The outside shoulders will consist of an eight-foot paved shoulder and two-foot
earth shoulder for a total width of ten feet. This section will be used in the 5.3-mile part of the project
that begins at the approach to the Buster Boyd Bridge and terminates at SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard).
Typical Section No. 2 (see Figure B-1 in Appendix B) will be a four-lane divided curb and gutter section
with a 30-foot raised median. A two-foot-six-inch concrete curb and gutter will line the outside edges of
pavement and the inside edge of pavement will be lined by a eighteen (18) inch mountable curb and
gutter. The section will measure 82 feet from face to face of curb will be used from SR 1441 (Carowinds
Boulevard) to Sugar Creek.
1 Typical Section No. 3 (see Figure B-1 in Appendix B) is a four-lane divided section with a 30 foot raised
median. Outside shoulder widths are ten feet consisting of an eight-foot paved shoulder and two-foot
13

earth shoulder. Typical Section No. 3 is recommended for use from Sugar Creek to Tyvola Road
Extension.
3.2.4 Right-of-Way
Existing right-of-way along the proposed project varies. Right-of-way is 100 feet throughout the majority
of the project corridor. In the vicinity of the Charlotte Pet Cemetery (see Figure B-2 in Appendix B), the
right-of-way along NC 49 is currently 90 feet for approximately 300 feet. At the SR 1138 (Arrowood
Road) intersection, the right-of-way is 150 feet for a distance of approximately 1600 feet.
The proposed right-of-way will vary with the typical section constructed. Right-of-way for the four-lane
' divided shoulder section (Typical Section No. 1) will vary from 170 feet to 200 feet. Right-of-way for the
four-lane divided curb and gutter (Typical Section No. 2) section will be 50 feet each side of the roadway
centerline or 100 feet total. Right-of-way for the four-lane divided shoulder section with the 30-foot
raised median (Typical Section No. 3) will be variable. Widening in this section will be predominately
along the east side of the existing alignment.
3.2.5 Access Control
No access control is recommended for the proposed project.
3.2.6 Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
A discussion of levels of service is included in Section 1.3. In areas where the four-lane rural section will
be constricted, a bulb type configuration will be used for intersecting streets. This type of intersection
provides for safer turning movements through the use of channelization. In the urban section, side streets
will be turned out to a minimum width of 34 feet and then tapered to meet existing pavement; therefore,
side street widths will vary. The purpose of the turn out is to provide a wider throat at the intersection,
thereby providing for safer turning movements and allowing for future widening of side streets. The
vertical profiles will be reconstructed to meet current design standards.
Two projects are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed NC 49 project including the widening
of SR 1128 (Westinghouse Boulevard) (U-2806) from NC 49 to I-77 and construction of the Charlotte
Western Outer Loop (R-2248).
The SR 1128 (Westinghouse Boulevard) project is currently in the final design stages. An estimated
completion of the design is fiscal year 1995, with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in fiscal year
1994 and constriction to begin in fiscal year 1995.
Design and right-of-way acquisition are currently underway for the Charlotte Western Outer Loop project
and these activities are expected to continue past fiscal year 2000. Construction activity on a portion of
the project is currently scheduled for fiscal year 1994. Included in this construction is the portion of the
Charlotte Western Outer Loop in the vicinity of the proposed NC 49 improvements. The recommended
cross-section for NC 49 as part of the Charlotte Western Outer Loop Project includes a five-lane curb and
gutter section. The proposed NC 49 project will include transitions to the proposed cross-section in the
vicinity of the Charlotte Western Outer Loop.
r

1 14

11
1

t
1

1

r

3.2.7 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The horizontal and vertical alignments are compatible with the proposed design speed of the project.
Terrain is level to gently rolling throughout the project limits. Maximum grades are between six to seven
percent. There are no horizontal curves greater than four degrees, 45 minutes for the four-lane divided
shoulder section. Six degrees, 45 minutes is the maximum horizontal curvature proposed for the four-lane
curb and gutter section (with the exception of intersecting side roads).
Stopping sight distance is 525 feet to 650 feet with the four-lane divided shoulder section and 400 feet to
475 feet with the four-lane curb and gutter section. Passing sight distance is 2100 feet and 1800 feet for
each typical section, respectively.
3.2.8 Railroad Work Required
Exposure index warrants were evaluated for the Southern Railway crossing of NC 49 just north of SR
1441 (Carowinds Boulevard). The exposure index is the product of the number of trains and traffic at the
end of the design period. Rail traffic at this location totals two trains per day, Monday through Friday.
Vehicular traffic in this area is projected to be 15,600 vehicles per day (VPD) in the construction year
(1998) and 34,200 VPD in the design year (2018). The exposure index, based on this information, is
calculated to be 31,200 in the construct year (1998) and 68,400 in the design year (2018). Grade
separation is typically recommended where the exposure index is 30,000 or more, however, it is not
recommended at this location for the following reasons.
1. Existing physical constraints imposed by existing topography and a nearby stream (Steele Creek).
2. Low volume of train traffic (two trains per day) and their low travel speeds (10 miles per hour).
3. Excessive expense of providing grade separation. (Estimated cost is approximately $1,366,000
including right-of-way and construction.)
4. Train traffic operates during off-peak travel times, therefore, capacity of the facility will not be
affected by an at-grade crossing.
Addition of canti-lever supported flashing light signals, automatic gates, warning signs and pavement
markings, in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, is the preferred action at
this location.
3.2.9 Bridge Work Required
The proposed improvements include a crossing of Sugar Creek. The existing structure that carries NC 49
over Sugar Creek was originally constructed in 1940 and it now has an overall Sufficiency Rating of 53.2.
It has a reinforced concrete deck girder superstructure consisting of three (3) spans with an overall length
of 165 feet. The original design load was H-15. The bridge is currently not posted and has an estimated
remaining life of eleven (11) years. The stricture consists of two twelve-foot travel lanes with a clearance
from face-to-face of curb totaling 28 feet.
The design characteristics for the proposed bridge at Sugar Creek include construction of two three-span
structures. The preferred alternative involves retaining the existing structure while the first of the two
new structures is being constricted. Traffic will then be shined to the new structure. The existing
structure will be demolished and a new structure built in its' place. Each of these parallel structures will
consist of two twelve-foot travel lanes and a four-foot wide sidewalk (see Figure B-1, Sheet 2 of 2). The
clearance, from face-to-face of curb, will total 26 feet-9 inches.
15

In addition to the major structure at Sugar Creek, there are numerous box culverts located along NC 49
that accommodate small stream flows and storm water. Larger double box culverts are located at Steele
Creek and Walker Branch and a triple box culvert is located at Coffey Creek. The culverts at Steele Creek
and Coffey Creek will need to be extended during construction of the improvements. In addition to
extending the existing double box culvert at Walker Branch, improvements will need to include
construction of an additional 7' x 1 F RC Box at this location. The remaining culverts are small and will
also need to be extended during constriction of the improvements.
3.2.10 Parking
Parking is not permitted along NC 49 and will not be provided for or permitted along the project. Several
parking areas next to the roadway may be minimally affected with the proposed improvements.
3.2.11 Sidewalks
There are no existing sidewalks located along the proposed project and none are proposed to be
constructed as part of this project. However, right-of-way will be sufficient such that sidewalks could be
constructed at a later date should they be warranted. The City of Charlotte Department of Transportation
responded in their scoping letter that five-foot sidewalks should be constricted along the entire project
length. A request has been received from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (See Appendix E) to
provide sidewalks along both sides of the stricture at Sugar Creek. NCDOT's current policy on
"Construction and Maintenance of Sidewalks and Other Pedestrian Facilities" is to consider the needs of
pedestrians and not create hazards to pedestrian movements. In accordance with this policy, the proposed
project considers pedestrian movements by providing; 1) a graded area behind the curb for walking
and/or the future placement of sidewalk (see Figure B-l, Sheet 1 of 2) and ; 2) four-foot wide sidewalks on
the outside of each of the strictures crossing Sugar Creek (see Figure B- 1, Sheet 2 of 2).
3.2.12 Bicycles
NC 49 is not part of the Bicycling Highway system. Continents received from the Office of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation for NCDOT indicated that there did not appear to be any need for special
accommodations for bicycles on this project. Attempts will be made in the design phase to prevent any
new barriers to bicyclists traveling through the corridor.
3.2.13 Construction Staging
Constriction will be staged to minimize traffic impacts on the existing roadways within the constriction
limits. The sequence of constriction operations for a widening project such as this makes maintenance of
traffic relatively simple. Where a four-lane divided curb and gutter section is proposed, traffic can be
maintained on the existing roadway as the new travel lanes are constricted. The same constriction
staging techniques can be applied in areas of the project where opposing traffic lanes will be separated by
a grassed median.
Similar constriction staging techniques can be applied for the new stricture over Sugar Creek. Traffic can
be maintained on the existing roadway while one structure is built over Sugar Creek. Traffic can then be
shifted onto the new stricture while the parallel bridge structure is built.

16

1

1

1
t

J
1
r

r

r

3.2.14 Special Permits Required of the Division of Highways
Based on the information currently available, it is anticipated that general permit No. CESAW-C082-N-
000-0031 (bridge general permit) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with the
proposed improvements at Sugar Creek will be applicable. NCDOT will work closely with the Regulatory
Branch of the Corps to review final plans prior to constriction. Incidental fill associated with the bridge
extensions over waterways including Sugar Creek may be permitted under a General Permit (Permit
#198200031). Also, receipt of 401 Water Quality Certification issued by the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources's Division of Environmental Management is required.
Nationwide Permits 33 CFR 330.5(x)(14) and (26) are expected to apply in those areas where construction
results in perpendicular crossings of small headwater tributaries and impacts the single Palustrine
Emergent Wetland (PEM) pocket less than i acre in size.
3.2.15 Relation to the State Highway System
No changes to the State Highway Classification System are anticipated with the proposed improvements.
NC 49 will remain a minor arterial in the state system. The other existing roadways in the project
corridor will remain the same in the state system.
3.2.16 Utilities
Electric lines were observed overhead on both sides of existing roadways within the project corridor.
Telephone lines are located both overhead and underground along both sides of existing roadways. High
tension transmission lines cross the project.
The constriction of the proposed improvements is not expected to cause any serious disruptions in utility
service. A pre-constriction conference involving the contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Division
of Highways will be held prior to commencement of constriction. This conference will discuss specific
construction practices, including precautionary steps to be taken during the time of constriction that will
minimize interruption of service. In all cases, the contractor is required to notify the utility owner in
advance of any work.
3.2.17 Speed Zones
Current speed limits in the project corridor range from 45 mph in the more congested urban areas to 55
mph in the remainder of the corridor. Speed limits will remain the same with the improvements until
development infill increases the density of people and traffic.
3.2.18 LandscapingNisual Issues
The project area is part of a larger setting that includes developing suburban mixed uses within the
northern section and rural residential and limited agriculture in the southern section leading to the water
oriented and recreational uses of the Catawba River (Lake Wylie). The southern part of the project
corridor is enhanced by gently rolling topography and views afforded by the open fields and pasture land.
Views at the stream crossings and other low-lying areas include mixed vegetation lining the drainage
corridors. Some stands of mixed hardwood and pines are interspersed with cleared areas. In the southern
half of the project, the view of the road from neighboring residences and fields is good due to the rural
character of the area. Near the Buster Boyd Bridge, the elevation of land next to the roadway affords a
scenic view for roadside residents. The existing narrow two-lane facility is a rural section with shoulder
17

r
1

t

1
LI
1

1
1
1

1
that minimizes the urban effect present with curb and gutter. Roadway user views are somewhat limited
due to the narrowness of the existing roadway, vertical alignment with respect to higher elevations for
roadside land uses and intermittent curves that require concentration by the driver.
Views of the road in the northern half of the project are mixed. The view at the extreme north end next to
Renaissance Golf Course is scenic and pleasant. The view then becomes mixed with small undeveloped
wooded areas interrupted by new subdivision and multi-family development that changes to strip
commercial and service/industrial development as the driver proceeds south. View of the road through
this area is clear with few sight distance problems due to the gently sloping terrain.
Landscaping the proposed 30 foot median has been requested by both the Mecklenburg-Union
Metropolitan Planning Organization and SHPO in the vicinity of the historic sites. This request is
currently under consideration and will be further addressed during the final design phase of this project.
3.2.19 Cost Estimates
The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are provided below from the 1995-2001
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.).
T.I.P. Proicct No. U-2512:
- Construction Cost: $14,000,000 (including engineering and constniction)
- Right-of-Way Cost: $ 9,700,000 (including acquisition and utility)
TOTAL COST $23,700,000
The estimated cost for the proposed improvements as developed in the planning and preliminary design
phase is $26,820,000 which includes $6,220,000 for right-of-way acquisition and $20,600,000 for
construction.
18

r 4.0 SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1 4.1 Land Use
4.1.1 Existing Land Use
Land use within the 10.3-mile corridor consists of a mixture of roadside residential, retail commercial,
and service uses with scattered churches and several industrial use concentrations (see Figure 3). As
expressed in the Southwest District Plan "...the district has retained a predominantly rural character while
experiencing rapid residential and employment growth in recent years." This plan was prepared by the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission for the general area encompassed by the NC 49 study
corridor. A number of newly developing and already established subdivisions are provided access to and
from NC 49. The area can generally be characterized as developing suburban.
In the southern sector, a more rural residential/agricultural character prevails. Residences line the
roadway intermittently with tracts of undeveloped property or farmland/pasture land sited in between.
Subdivisions such as Royal Oaks, Yorkshire, RiverPointe and Walkers Creek are developing in the south
sector. Multi-family units in the south project sector include South Pointe Apartments and York Ridge
Apartments that are located near SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) off NC 49. There is very little
commercial development south of SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard). Most of the businesses are
neighborhood commercial in orientation and consist of two service stations, a junk shop, an exterior
maintenance contracting business and an income tax service. South Point Business Park is in the early
phases of development and is located just cast of NC 49, south of SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard). Lake
oriented retail businesses located at the North Carolina approach to the Buster Boyd Bridge include
Carolina Crossing Marina and Bourbon Street Yacht Club.
Public/semi-public uses in the southern sector of the corridor include Pleasant Hill Presbyterian Church
and cemetery (also include a manse) which is located adjacent to the entrance to McDowell Park, Lake
Wylie Baptist Church on SR 1 110 (Red Fez Club Road), and Steele Creek Volunteer Fire Department just
south of NC 160 (Steele Creek Road).
The north section of the project is much more urbanized and is rapidly developing as a suburban
outgrowth of the Charlotte community. Numerous subdivisions and multi-family complexes abut NC 49
and are interspersed with neighborhood and community strip shopping centers and other business and
service development. Scattered older individual residences also abut the roadway in less developed parts
of the corridor. The Steele Creek area which lies roughly in the middle section of the NC 49 project is an
18th century community which was one of the first settlement areas of Mecklenburg County.
Neighborhood mixed use and convenience centers, including such retail uses as restaurants, service
stations, grocery stores, pharmacies, cleaners, hardware stores, insurance companies and other specialized
services, are located at the following major intersections in the north part of the project corridor: SR 1441
(Carowinds Boulevard) (49 Crossing Shopping Center); SR 1128 (Westinghouse Boulevard) (York
Crossing); SR 1142 (Sandy Porter Road) (Steele Creek Commons and Olympic Square); and between SR
1138 (Arrowood Road) and Longdale Drive (small strip center with six businesses). Other key
business/office uses include: Homestead Lodge and Yorkshire hill which are located just north of the
Southern Railroad crossing and across from Nevada Boulevard, respectively; Arrowood Medical Center,
Boy Scouts of America National Distribution Center, and Steele Creek Animal Hospital which are sited
south of SR 1128 (Westinghouse Boulevard) near SR 1344 (John Price Road); and Piedmont Medical
Clinic which is located north of Township Road.
Service and industrial uses are grouped primarily in an area between SR 1128 (Westinghouse Boulevard)
and the Southern Railroad Crossing. Major uses in this area include: Arrowood Southern Industrial
1 19
f!

I
1

1
I

r
v
Ik3 abp? b7pn?l[ ?
PBpQ
5'O?`oc P"o?o®aA
Ne8 ? /
Pesodoi'
'O6
o c
40. ° g\v d
Nweg LL Westlngho?
c
® tea.
Jc c ?
arowinds B
me
•Ob
P!/ ssoW
U.
JseM
A?
6 Go'
N
N
N
n
C cu
O E
U o
s a
0 o
Z

M v! 1 J,tt

pp c
°s ?
o

?1r?t b
. ? P?,1?R
ro
.C
ZC
C

U co
0
E"i
D
-C Fu
''
)
C
C u

J CmW
S
C ci

N
C ?m
r U ?h
c l
V/
"R H ? a
m
W ZmH a 4'
U ?

i
?0 0
c?
I N d c7 li
J 0 00+

1?
e

1
1
t

1

1

Park; Ace Chemical Corporation; Lowe's; General Foods Warehouse; Stanly Home Products; and
Charlotte Hardware & Supply Company. Other services include Hacoba Textile Machines and Mega
Pumps which are both located north of SR 1142 (Sandy Porter Road) on the cast side of NC 49. Scattered
other service businesses such as Molts Oil, Engines and Service and Roberts Systems are located in the
same sector of the corridor as Hacoba and Mega Pumps.
Coffey Creek Apartments (292 high-rise uni(s) and Arrowood Crossing (100 medium density units) are
located east of NC 49 just south of SR 1138 (Arrowood Road). Other multi-family units in the north part
of the corridor include Summerficld Apartments (a subsidized complex consisting of 54 high-rise units),
located near SR 1142 (Sandy Porter Road) at the end of Township Road and Timber Stone Apartments
(96 townhouse units) sited above SR 1138 (Arrowood Road).
Subdivision development consisting of new and established neighborhoods provides the major land use in
the northernmost part of the project corridor. Older subdivisions include Olde Whitehall and Olde
Whitehall II located west of NC 49 south of SR 1157 (Beam Road) and Yorkwood on the east side of NC
49. New subdivision development located to the north of these more established developments include
McDowell Meadows and McDowell Farms which are both sited east of NC 49.
Other public/semi-public uses in the north sector include the following churches: Central Steele Creek
Presbyterian; The Rod of God Ministries; and Steele Creek AME Zion which includes a cemetery and
recreational area. Fire Station No. 26 is located on the cast side of NC 49 at its intersection with
Township Road. Central Steele Creek Community Center is sited just north of SR 1142 (Sandy Porter
Road) on the west side of NC 49. There is a small, established Charlotte Pet Cemetery adjacent to NC 49.
It is located on the east side of NC 49 just south of Yorkdale Drive.
4.1.2 Existing Zoning
Zoning along the project corridor is compatible with the existing development pattern. The southern
section from the Catawba River (Lake Wylie) to Riverpointe subdivision is zoned resort-residential (R-R)
to provide for the mixture of uses found in a recreational/residential/resort community. The majority of
the area along NC 49 from this area north to SR 1122 (Choate Circle) is zoned R-15 to allow for single-
family residential development of low to medium densities. Some Neighborhood Business District (B-1)
and General Business District (B-2) zoning is located in this area to accommodate the marina and
accompanying uses at the Catawba River (Lake Wylie) and some neighborhood retail commercial uses
along NC 49.
The multi-family developments in the vicinity of SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) are zoned
appropriately. South Point Industrial Park and much of the area east of NC 49 from the Park to SR 1348
(General Drive) are zoned Light Industrial District (1-1) which is in keeping with existing land use in this
area. The General Industrial District (1-2) zoning classification is in effect for the more intensive
industrial and service uses identified earlier in the area between the Southern Railroad and SR 1138
(Arrowood Road). 1-I zoning continues along NC 49 northward with scattered business zoning
interspersed along the roadway frontage. As NC 49 approaches Whitehall and Olde Whitehall
subdivisions, the zoning changes to single-family residential (R-3 and R-4) which continues up to
Renaissance Park and the termination of the project at Tyvola Road Extension. To summarize, existing
zoning throughout the project corridor is compatible with existing land use.
4.1.3 Proposed Land Use and Zoning
Land uses within the study area will remain fairly stable with a substantial amount of infill development
expected (see Figure 4). Expansion of existing subdivisions such as RiverPointe and Royal Oaks in the
south sector of the project and McDowell Farms and McDowell Meadows in the north sector will occur.
20
I

1
1
1

1
f

1
A
1

t
rn
v
?J
oboe ??
?lL

°
u
Pia
3 ton Rd.
c I I
I ?
Pa01d .00

bb
?e
a a Q

wegun?l

??d
OySB e

J z
QP Car"kna, Blvd.
mF

?$ U

E ry
F
?
d
U
d?
J?
4S
c
N
O

/ G ?0? c0
P? UJ

C N
c r
O

co
U x
o
n.
C
o

r O
z
•
.
cn
Y NOISY
s
OA s ?
w W, ?s

CZ
C
L"z
O
N EOp (? a

'00) O o
E m W 2

N 'o 0 m
$mm Z
U
?b
O 0) N
0)

?m

Q Re -
Z \ b
AL mF .c$
U d
U $

m
a
a
m i
r ?
5
a
v
c ? c
>a 0
a m
u
OF]
m
aO c U -c
c
U
x m
x e

T v 8
8 i C
v

C YE E
-° w S w
E s 8 8

V, „
Ix U)i i
ixa E U EE t t
8 w p
¦?¦¦ 0000`

Other planned subdivisions include Chelsea Commons (a 76-lot subdivision located off Stephendale Drive
south of SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard)) and a residential development proposed as part of the Lower
Steele Creek Mixed-Use Development Center at the intersection of NC 160 and NC 49. There is a mixed
density residential project planned between SR 1122 (Moss Road) and Erwin Road along the west side of
NC 49. This development will contain a mix of single family and multi-family development and will
incorporate greenways and open space associated with the Polk Ditch, Walker Branch and Steele Creek
tributaries.
The Lower Steele Creek Mixed-Use Development Center, according to a special project plan produced by
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, will include a mixture of residential development,
including approximately 422 single family units, 559 cluster single family units, and over 3,000 multi-
family units. This development will be integrated with open space, greenways, and non-residential
development. The special project plan initiated for this development states that it "... will create an
identity and a new focus for the Southwest and be a catalyst for other residential development" and "It will
also establish the quality of development for the Lower Steele Creek Community". Other development in
the Lower Steele Creek area will include: approximately 600,000 square feet (SF) of
retail/commercial/hotel on over 129 acres; 50,000 SF of office/retail on almost eight acres; 100,000 SF of
office on over 27 acres; 2,500 SF of day care on over two acres; 65 acres of open space/greenway; and over
32 acres of road infrastructure.
Other planned community mixed centers include the area surrounding the NC 49/Proposed Charlotte
Western Outer Loop Interchange. According to the Southwest District Plan, this center should contain
commercial, retail and low intensity office of a residential scale and high density multi-family
development. Approximately 500,000 square feet of commercial and retail is recommended along NC 49
between the proposed Charlotte Western Outer Loop and the proposed Arrowood Road Extension with a
proposed buffer of less intense offices and multi-family housing. Neighborhood convenience centers are
recommended for future development along NC 49 at Tyvola Road Extension and at SR 1 155 (Shopton
Road) and SR 1 157 (Beam Road).
York Road Commerce Center is a multi-use development center planned for the area west of NC 49 and
just north of the Southern Railway crossing. One access roadway (York Center Drive) from NC 49 is
planned. Another cul-de-sac (York Commerce Drive) is planned to connect to the access roadway. This
center will provide 19 lots for industrially related business development between NC 49 and SR 1344
(John Price Road) in an area already zoned for the proposed types of uses. Three of the 19 lots in this
development are located south of the Southern Railway crossing of NC 49.
Employment growth opportunities within the project corridor will be in the SR 1128 (Westinghouse
Boulevard) and SR 1138 (Arrowood Road) areas. These areas currently provide the largest regional
employment base outside the Central City of Charlotte. Opportunities in the SR 1128 (Westinghouse
Boulevard) area include primarily blue collar jobs among the manufacturing and industrial uses. In the
Arrowood Road area opportunities exist for predominantly white collar jobs with major corporations. The
Southwest District Plan states that approximately 40 percent of nonresidential zoned land in this area is
undeveloped. The Plan suggests the industrial development should be maintained within the limits of
current zoning.
An additional consideration in the proposed land use and zoning pattern within the project corridor is
planned park and recreation development. McDowell Park has already been identified as a major park
and nature preserve in the south sector of the project. The total size of the park is expected to exceed
1,000 acres. Appropriate zoning to protect this valuable resource should remain. In addition, York Road
Renaissance Park should be allowed to complete its additional recreational opportunities as a major
community park within the Charlotte community.
Overall, zoning will continue to be compatible with existing and expected land uses within the study area.
The Lower Steele Creek Plan, described earlier, will involve extensive rezoning to accommodate this
1 21

planned mixed use development. The project is being closely coordinated with local engineering and
planning officials. Other planned developments may require rezoning in accordance with locally adopted
plans.
The NC 49 widening project is compatible with the current adopted Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare
Plan (adopted 30 November 1988 with amendments through 11/21/91). All of the planning entities are
aware that the designs for the NC 49 improvements are underway and representatives of local planning
and engineering agencies have provided input in developing the proposed widening improvements.
Coordination with Mecklenburg County Engineering and City of Charlotte DOT personnel has been
ongoing throughout the planning process due to the many land use proposals and other roadway
improvements planned for the area. In addition to the proposed Charlotte Western Outer Loop
interchange with NC 49, other roadway improvements currently being developed include: the widening of
SR 1128 (Westinghouse Boulevard) from NC 49 to 1-77, Shopton Road Extension, Arrowood Road
Extension, York Road Commerce Center access roadway (described above), an extension of SR 1441
(Carowinds Boulevard) across existing SR 1344 (John Price Road) to tie into NC 160 (Steele Creek Road)
and following on to SR 1116 (Shopton Road West), Moss Road Extension (described above), the
relocation of NC 160 in conjunction with the Lower Steele Creek Mixed Use Development (described
above), and a realignment of SR 1109 (Youngblood Road). Coordination of the NC 49 widening with
these projects will continue to ensure compatibility of planning and design.

4.1.4 Farmland
The project has been coordinated with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) as required by the Farmland
Protection Policy Act. The SCS identified a number of soil types within the NC 49 corridor that meet the
soil criteria for prime and important farmlands. Six soil types were identified for prime farmland
properties. An additional 12 soil types were identified as having properties for farmlands of statewide or
local importance. Of these soil types, the most prevalent are the Cecil sandy clay loams (CeB2 and CeD2)
found along NC 49 from the Catawba River (Lake Wylie) to SR 11 16 (Shopton Road West), (lie Iredell fine
sandy loams (IrA and IrB) within the middle section of the project, and Mecklenburg fine sandy loam
(MeB) found in the middle and north sections of the NC 49 project. The Cecil and Iredell soil types have
statewide or local importance for farmlands. Mecklenburg fine sandy loam (MeB) is considered prime
farmland soil. Also interspersed throughout the corridor is the Monocan (MO) soil type. This soil type
occurs mainly in association with flood plains along stream and channel crossings
An analysis was conducted to assess the effects to areas with these soils that met the criteria for prime
farmlands and for state and/or locally important farmlands. These areas include existing agricultural land
or land that could potentially be used in the future for agricultural purposes and are located immediately
adjacent to the existing roadway and will be irretrievably altered from constriction. Because of the
intensity of development that has occurred in the north section of the project corridor, very little property
along the right-of-way was considered suitable for farming. The south section of the project corridor,
although more rural in nature, has been committed to urban or suburban uses. Very little land was
determined to be suitable in light of anticipated development trends for farmland usage. The loss of
farmland is not considered excessive, primarily because the improvements will occur along an already
disturbed area where a portion of the land considered for farmland has been committed to drainage for the
existing roadway.
The proposed improvements will occur within the planning and -zoning jurisdiction of the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg County Planning Commission in an area designated for mixed residential and commercial
use. Because this project follows existing alignment through a corridor that is zoned and/or committed to
urban use, it is exempt from further consideration of the Farmland Protection Policy Act.

1 22

4.2 Social Impacts
There are a number of residential subdivisions within the overall study area where neighborhood cohesion
and residential community characteristics are prevalent. Older, established subdivisions within the
corridor include Olde Whitehall and Olde Whitehall 11 in the north sector of the project. Newer
subdivisions such as McDowell Meadows and McDowell Farms in the north section of the project and
Royal Oaks, RiverPointe, Yorkshire and Walkers Creek in the south section are developing and are
partially still under construction. The proposed improvements will not split any neighborhoods. The
mixed use development which is proposed in the intersection area of NC 49 and NC 160 (Steele Creek
Road) will be divided by NC 49. However, no parcels are expected to be divided by the roadway
improvements. The proposed improvements will result in the displacement and relocation of five (5)
residences and one (1) business. As indicated in the discussion of relocation impacts, every effort will be
made to relocate displacees in nearby areas which should help to mitigate the negative impacts.
The population of the area will not be adversely affected by tl?e construction of the proposed NC 49
improvements. Population trends estimated by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission
indicated that population in the Southwest District will grow by approximately 29 percent from 1985 to
2005. Roughly 18 percent of this growth will occur between 1985 and 1995. Residential growth is not
expected to be as high as growth in the commercial, office, industrial and institutional sectors within the
general area. Households are projected to grow by almost 43 percent from 1985 to 2005. Employment is
expected to rise by over 66 percent in the 20-year period.
An evaluation of 1990 Census data was conducted for the project corridor to yield some general
demographic statistics. Tract data better defines the corridor area than district data due to the size of the
units under study. The NC 49 project falls roughly within three census tracts (38.03, 59.02 and 59.03). A
broad brush demographic profile of the area shows that the area can be characterized as primarily white,
middle class family households with an above average median income. The area is split between a
predominance of owner occupancy in single family residences (approximately 71 percent) and renter
occupancy (approximately 21 percent) in the multi-family complexes. The vacancy rate currently
averages approximately seven percent.
Approximately 100 single family residences are located along or just off NC 49 within the project limits.
Some of these are located within abutting subdivisions and others are scattered along the project. Multi-
family housing within the project corridor accounts for approximately 950 units in six complexes. There
are no mobile home units currently being used for housing located within the project corridor. By
applying an average of 2.82 persons per household, a general population estimate for the project corridor
can be derived. This population estimate is just over 2,750 persons for the primary corridor (those persons
living immediately adjacent to NC 49). This estimate was determined to be high considering the large
number of apartments which are primarily non-family households. By applying separate persons per
household figures for multi-family units, a revised primary corridor estimate was calculated at
approximately 1,300 persons.
The 1990 median household income for the three tracts averages $41,243 which is 22 percent higher than
the County average. Median family income is $43,187 which is approximately six percent higher than the
County average. The unemployment rate in this part of Mecklenburg County averages 4.3 percent This is
lower than the County average.
1

1 23
I
1 4.3 Displacement and Relocation
The proposed improvements will result in the displacement and relocation of seven (7) residences and two
(2) businesses. Relocation studies indicated that the proposed improvements will not require the
relocation of any minorities. No large families, elderly, disabled persons or others who would have
special problems relocating were identified. No schools, churches or cemeteries were identified to be
affected by displacement.
An evaluation of the availability of replacement housing for those families and businesses who will be
displaced by the project was conducted. The relocation study showed a current availability in the general
to be sufficient to handle the projected relocations due to the proposed project without causing a housing
shortage. It is expected that available housing could be identified through the use of multiple listing
services, newspapers, realtors, real estate publications, on-ground canvassing, and apartment guides.
Business services are expected to be available upon completion of the proposed project. Please refer to the
relocation report included as Appendix C.
The involuntary relocation of families and businesses causes disruptions and inconveniences that cannot
be avoided. It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing would be
available prior to construction of transportation projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
l.) Relocation Assistance
2.) Relocation Moving Payments, and
3.) Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available to assist displacees.
Information will be made available including the availability and prices of homes, apartments, or
businesses for sale or rent, and financing available for other housing programs. The Relocation Moving
Payments Program provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where
displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a
favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify, and
tip to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The relocation program is
designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or
do business. A minimum of one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project to provide the
required assistance.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of the displaced families, individuals, businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard to
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule the proposed project to allow
ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations, and possession of replacement housing that meets
decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after
NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally
less desirable with regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices or replacement
housing offered will be within (lie financial means of the individuals displaced. Replacement housing
offered will also be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also
assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving replacement property.
24

All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an explanation regarding
all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing,
either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The
relocation officer will also supply information concerning other state programs offering assistance to
displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to
displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for the costs of moving
personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a
highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable
incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and
other closing costs, and if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement
dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest
payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 combined total.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement
dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement
dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the rent
supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's construction projects unless and
until comparable or replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a
reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as
income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or extent of eligibility for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available or when it
is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal
and state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of
implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is
not felt that this program will be necessary since it is used, as the name implies, only as a "last resort" and
there appears to be adequate opportunities for relocation within the area. However, it will be available if
necessary.
4.4 Economic Impacts
The construction of the proposed improvements will have a positive overall economic impact on the area.
The widened roadway will facilitate traffic (low and will reduce commuter and other travel time within
the corridor, thereby helping to stimulate development.
Some temporary tax revenue may be lost from (lie conversion of privately owned land into highway right-
of-way. The amount of this loss is small when compared to the total tax base of Charlotte and
Mecklenburg County. The loss of taxable land will likely be offset by the new development that will be
stimulated from the improvements.
4.5 Visual Impacts
The No-Build Alternative will not directly alter any visual resources within the study area. However, as
future traffic increases along the existing roadways it will become increasingly difficult to enjoy roadside
views. Upgrading the existing roadway, within the project corridor will provide a wider roadway thereby
25

making travel and roadside viewing easier. Design of the roadway will help alleviate adverse effects where
possible.
4.6 Cultural Resources
4.6.1 Historic and Archaeological Resources
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, an Architectural
Resources Survey for the proposed project was conducted. The goals of the survey were to: (1) determine
the area of potential effects (APE) for the proposed widening project; (2) locate and identify all resources
50 years of age or older with the APE; and (3) determine the potential eligibility of these resources for the
National Register of Historic Places.
The APE boundary designated for the NC 49 Widening project generally follows topographical features
and modern development, and extends between approximately .10 and .5 miles beyond the project area,
usually to points where sight lines are significantly broken by woodland, rolling terrain, or post World
War 11 construction. Seven properties within the APE were evaluated to determine their eligibility for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The McDowell House and the Frank Watt House (see
Figure 5) were found to be eligible for the National Register. The remaining properties were assessed as
not eligible for inclusion in the National Register. This evaluation was verified by the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) by letter dated December 10, 1993 (see Appendix E).
The 1912 McDowell House is an imposing two-and-a-half story, frame, Colonial Revival residence. The
McDowell House is a rare surviving example of an essentially intact early twentieth-century farmhouse in
Mecklenburg County. It epitomizes the Colonial Revival style due to its frame, boxy form and bold
classical features. The house commands a broad lot, shaded by mature trees, that overlooks NC 49. It is
located on the east side of NC 49 across from its intersection with SR 1 157 (Beam Road).
The 1913 Frank Watt House is a handsome one-and-a-half story, frame dwelling displaying Colonial
Revival design elements. The house is situated on a 24.61-acre rural tract along the east side of NC 49
just south of the intersection of NC 49 with SR 1 157 (Beam Road). It is an example of a rare surviving
essentially intact Mecklenburg County farmhouse of the early twentieth century.
The proposed four-lane section will be widened to the west side of NC 49 through this area, thereby
avoiding any impacts to either the McDowell House or the Frank Walt House. Correspondence from the
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) dated February 17, 1994 concurred that the proposed project
would have no effect on either the McDowell House or the Frank Walt House (see Appendix E).
Although no impacts are expected to either properly, landscaping will be provided in the raised earth
median.
Correspondence received from the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) dated October 13,
' 1992, stated that there are no known archaeological sites within the proposed projccl area. The Deputy
SHPO further commented that based on present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any
archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will
I be affected by the project construction. The SHPO recommended that no further archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with the NC 49 Widening project.
A copy of all correspondence received from the SHPO is included in Appendix E.

26

t
t

I
r

A

?k3 Obp? ??? I
N N
0 0
N 3 c0
^ Paoa ures8 ,e
d7 LL
a OP6Posa
B
` ` ? ? Proposed Ou?j I /
PH je>rod APuus ^ w
afingnouBe 0Na" 0
^
a)
a m
roomy COro
4) ids Blvd.
E y QQ
a) 3° mF
a a?,
O J,y Pa.
? ;o s
00 Co Gala G?c
Cfl 0
0
om
z?
a?
?m
,
o?
o L
Gam' :.'
w aFe? 3 c CV
i Pe U
c c Z vi
(D
co E
• a? E
O ? U aU E
cd ?•` L
U r o
O
L z
n
' ¢ -- o
v) •.
°
``?? NOI?? bo
Po
Lo yr Y
~?
s
=
o

df?f p D ' ? ti+
cts

Vd r
o cu
.,
•

U)
C
_ N
0
-
00
?- ".
r 'k 0
Z
C j / coca W
C
•
000 O
'
° co
GG
G1
U
v = ?tc?
•%m C) N G
ou
L Z -0
?a
2
a?

rn
rn ?
W c

.a Q1 C 0)
C a) a)

O O
tc 0-
> 1 O
`
) s a? ca
a
-? nz C ).Z
O 0-
CL o --o

A 4.6.2 Parks and Recreational Open Space
The largest single public/semi-public use in the entire corridor is McDowell Park and Nature Preserve
which is located in the south sector of the project, on the northerly side of NC 49, between Shopton Road
and Pleasant Hill Presbyterian Church. Located on the Catawba River (Lake Wylie), the Park consists of
roughly 900 acres and offers a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities ranging from water
activities such as canoeing and paddle boating to playgrounds, campsites and six miles of nature trails.
Other attractions include an amphitheater, horseshoes, picnic facilities and a nature center. The proposed
improvement will not impact McDowell Park and Nature Preserve since widening in this area occurs
along the opposite side of NC 49. A temporary construction casement will be required at the park
entrance to tie the existing drive to the proposed improvements.
The Grcenways Master Plan, adopted by the County in 1980, includes approximately 42 acres within the
southwest district for proposed greenway development. The objectives of the greenway plan include
preservation of the 100-year flood plain as open space and construction of recreation/transportation trails
for walking and bicycling. Creeks within the original Master Plan proposed for development as
greemvays include Big Sugar and Coffey Creeks. Steele Creek and Walker Branch were not included in
the original Master Plan but are proposed additions to the Greenway System. One piece of property has
been acquired for development as part of the greenway system. This property is located adjacent to Coffey
Creek on the easterly side NC 49 and is currently undeveloped. The primary goal with regard to the
greenways is that continuity of the system be accommodated via an underpass/bridge or other safe
pedestrian crossing of the proposed highway improvements. The proposed improvement will not impact
this property since widening in this area occurs along the westerly side of NC 49. Further coordination
with the Parks and Recreation Department regarding clearances under proposed structures for bike and
walking trails will be necessary.
The major public use in the northern project sector is York Road Renaissance Park. The eighteen hole
golf course which is part of this community park abuts NC 49 on the west from Sugar Creek north to
Tyvola Road Extension. Other features of the 472-acre park include a tennis center and lighted softball
and soccer fields. An amphitheater is proposed for the park. No taking of publicly owned property for
right-of-way is expected to result from the proposed improvements in this area, however, temporary
construction easements will be required.
There will be no right-of-way taken from any of the section 4(f) resources mentioned. A temporary
construction easement will be needed at the McDowell Park entrance to tie the existing drive to the
proposed improvements. Temporary construction casements will also be required in the vicinity of the
York Road Renaissance Park. As a result, further coordination with the Mecklenburg County Parks and
Recreation Department is required to obtain concurrence with the proposed improvements. This will be
addressed in the subsequent environmental document.
1 4.7 Biotic Resources
4.7.1 Plant Communities
4.7.1.1 Plant Community Patterns. Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the
project area reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past or present land use
practices. Although, natural community patterns have been heavily modified by previous disturbances, at
least eight communities were identified within the study area. These communities are shown in Table 4.
1 27
i
r

y
L
u
d
C
C
c?
CIS
F u
Co
C
E
O
U
Ede d
O U
d'I
w
3MI
1?1
a
al
FG
C7
d
U
e
C ?

L
d
o h r -4 00
M M M W) wl,
C?O? CN00
M `t m M M
't fl! "": M 00
N M N -+
0 0 0
-r N n 00
00 ,n
N :? t- ?t D\
CT O 06 O
n r o0 r \p
?r- 00 00000
O M
V1 In
a
o ?

e
u u
'c

W
? a L ? V

z z z

a 0 bmo
CIS
° cl
L m
ti
U .
ew
ada QQ
?? k = o ?
tj W u?U

L C?

4
z
a r r+ r
3 t
°
v
i0 , CA
v
h
fd

b
Cd r?
2 Cd
r
O b
t: cd

H
c? o
r

°u? ob
C,
2 C
[
,
0 ?° c

w o
E ? zl
.:°` O
y V. 6

tn 'E
d
0
O ++

'E 53
c
r+
U w
9 CV0 s r O1O

?
O C1. N
? C
y
I
+
?
Q y w 5
•C r
?' ? aO+ q
O 1 40
'o ° •? U bA ,b
C
b
b r
m
s U u
b
b U Ei ;?
[
;roe ?
bCP 15
,

co
N u

?•o a.aG

x
?
C,4 E 10,

a
c
b [ 'n .? 'ti ?' 'o on
fl `°
-- u ° u a
oc° c c
,? O CPJ
o
C!
.D V
?
V) ?? 5 v ad y m
?a °u?°

U a

wO c
v
co m
::D to o -t d .? can
.? a u
a,
h vi U .. ?'
Q zzzv?(n
n
A
l-A

I

1
1

The following community profile descriptions have been adopted and modified from the NCNHP
classification scheme (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) to reflect local variations within the study alignment.
Pine Woodlands (P). Pine woodlands typically occur on xeric, upland sites characterized by a dominant
loblolly pine inus taeda canopy with inclusions of shortleaf inus echinata) and Virginia pine inus
virginiana). Many of these systems formed from old-field natural regeneration with limited management
for pulpwood or timber production. Variations in species composition within the pine woodland
community are closely associated with stand age.
In young stands, canopy closure is complete, limiting the understory to an impenetrable net of greenbrier
Smilax lauca , honeysuckle onicera Japonica), yellow jasmine (Gelsemium sempervirens), and
trumpet creeper Cam sis radicans . In older, unmanaged stands, a variety of tree species appear in the
midstory and understory, including sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple Acer rubrum ,
hickory species Ca a spp.), scarlet oak uercus coccinea , southern red oak uercus falcata , willow
oak uercus hellos , and white oak uercus alba). Dogwood Cornus florida , black cherry runus
serotina ,winged elm Imtus alata , and red cedar Juni emus virginiana) appear in the understory as
these stands grade into the pine mixed hardwood community type. Pine woodlands along the alignment
represent a seral precursor of NCNHP's Dry Oak-Hickory Forest classification type.
Pine Mixed Hardwood Forest (PHW). Pine mixed hardwood forest cover represents a variant of the pine
woodlands described above. These communities are reflective of stand age and the degree of
maintenance. The primary identification is the mix of co-dominant pines and hardwoods in the canopy.
Loblolly, Virginia, and shortleaf pine share canopy dominance with willow oak, water oak, southern red
oak, sweet gum, and hickory. Pine/hardwood ratios may vary considerably from site to site; older stands
or those tracts subjected to selective logging practices demonstrate a prevalence of hardwoods in the
overstory. Midstory and shrub species include dogwood, red maple, American holly Ilex o aca), and
black cherry. In pine mixed hardwood stands, the herbaceous component exhibits slightly higher diversity
and greater abundance than in older pine woodlands due to variable crown shapes in the canopy,
increased solar radiation, and the heterogeneity of mixed pine hardwood litter. Herbaceous species include
those described for pine woodlands along with pipsissewa (Chinuaphila maculata), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), false solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans . This vegetation profile represents a seral precursor of NCNHP's Dry Oak-Hickory Forest
classification type.
Upland Hardwood Forest (UHW). Upland hardwood forest is the dominant forest cover throughout the
project area. Most tracts supporting upland hardwood forests appear to be low productivity sites or sites
characterized by steep slopes which have not been farmed or developed this century. The intolerant pine
component is no longer present within the late-successional stricture exhibited in these stands. Dominant
trees include willow oak, white oak, southern red oak, scarlet oak, black gum (NLa Ivatica , and
hickory. Understory vegetation is generally lacking on xeric sites, relegated to saplings of those species
found in the overstory and occasional patches of low bush blueberry (Vaccinium vacillans). Mesic upland
hardwood sites, which are concentrated on steeper slopes near the South Fork Catawba River (Lake
Wylie), contain considerable understory vegetation, including those species found in pine mixed
hardwood communities along with rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera pubcscens), arrow wood (Viburnum
rafinesquianum), and ebony spleenwort (Esplenium platyncuron). Upland hardwood forests correspond to
NCNHP's Dry Oak-Hickory Forest type.
Mesic Forest (MF). Mesic forest communities are prevalent along stream channels and mesic slopes
bordering intermittent tributaries. This cover type is dominated by sweet glum, red maple, and
cottonwood Po ulus deltoides). Other important species include yellow poplar (Liriodendron hulpifera),
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American beech (Fa us grandifolia), and occasional green
ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The understory is generally sparse, with dogwood and sassafras Sassafras
albidum commonly occupying canopy gaps. Ground cover is generally restricted to liverleaf (Hepatica
28
Ci
americana), wild ginger Hexas lis arifolia , and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrosticoides). This
vegetation profile corresponds to NCNHP's Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype).
Agricultural (Ag). Agricultural land along NC 49 is restricted to a broad upland flat supporting Iredell
soils between SR 1122 and NC 160. This area consists primarily of pasture land utilized for hay
(fescue/clover) production. Limited production of feed corn is evident on a few agricultural fields near the
' project corridor. Present pastures within the study corridor are most likely included in fallow pasture/feed
corn rotations. Thus, feed corn has been included as a viable product on agricultural lands in the study
area.
Successional (Suc). Successional fields are typically fallow pasture land or previously forested areas
cleared for residential/commercial development. Natural red cedar and loblolly pine regeneration are
extensive in these successional areas. Loblolly pine seedlings and red cedar saplings are commonly
interspersed with a number of ephemeral species including: trumpet creeper, honeysuckle, aster Aster
spp.), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), butterfly weed Ascle ias tuberosa), thistle Carduus spp.),
Queen Anne's lace aucus carota), smooth sumac hus labs), winged sumac (Rhos co allina ,
blackberry ubus ar utus , ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), and poke berry (Phvtolacca
americana).
Urban/Disturbed (U/D). Urban/disturbed areas occupy a large percentage of land along the NC 49
corridor. These systems are places where industries, businesses, residences and other related human
activities dominate the landscape. As a result, vegetation in non-paved areas is limited to landscape
plantings and successional species interspersed with indigenous specimens.
4.7.1.2 Plant Community Impacts. Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative
abundance of each system present in the study area. Table 4 summarizes potential plant community losses
by segment that could result from roadway development. Plant community impacts have been segregated
into two segments for design purposes. These segments include: 1) metropolitan impacts occurring in
areas between SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) and the Tyvola Road extension in Charlotte (northern
segment); and 2) suburban impacts extending from the South Fork Catawba River (Lake Wylie) to SR
1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) (southern segment). Three alternative alignments have been proposed for
the northern segment including a 4-lane divided highway (symmetrical widening) (N4S), a 4-lane divided
highway (widening to one side) (N4C), and a 5-lane thoroughfare (symmetrical widening) with a
continuous center turn lane (N5). All northern alternatives involve curb and gutter improvements. Two
roadway options have been proposed for the southern segment including a 4-lane divided highway
(widening to one side) (S4), and a 5-lane alternative (symmetrical widening) with a continuous center
turn lane (S5).
Potential plant community impacts exhibit negligible variation between alternates. Along the northern
segment between SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) and the Tyvola Road extension in Charlotte,
approximately 78% (28 acres) of total losses from road widening will occur in urban/disturbed and highly
modified successional areas that have been cleared for development.
Impacts upon urban\disturbcd and successional areas decrease along the southern segment from SR 1441
(Carowinds Boulevard) to the South Fork Catawba River (Lake Wylie). Community impacts within urban
' areas represent 36% (19 acres) of total impacts while successional areas average an additional 19% (9.5
acres) of total losses estimated for the southern segment.
Agricultural losses in the southern segment are isolated along a broad upland flat which supports iredell
soils. Iredell represents the only soil series of agricultural significance along the project alignment. A
large majority of productive, agricultural lands within the project corridors have previously been
converted for residential and commercial development. Presently, only 14% (7,2 acres) of the total land
1 29

r area along the southern segment corridors consists of agricultural land utilized for hay/feed corn
production.
Impacts on upland dry forests (pine, pine mixed hardwood, upland hardwood) average 25% (22 acres) of
total losses for NC 49 widening with minimal variation per alternate. Dry forests' losses are greatest
within contiguous upland hardwood and pine-mixed hardwood tracts near the South Fork Catawba River
' (Lake Wylie).
Impacts on mesic forests are concentrated within narrow riparian corridors along drainageways, streams,
and rivers crossed by the alignment. Mesic forest losses are greatest along Sugar Creek which contains
56% (2.18 acres) of total mesic forests for the northern segment alternatives. Mesic forest losses along the
southern half of the alignment primarily occur in cove forests associated with drainage into the South
Fork Catawba River (Lake Wylie). These systems tend to be limited in width and heavily disturbed; often
isolated within residential neighborhoods. Ecosystem functions associated with riparian mesic forests
have largely been negated due to extensive fragmentation.
Impacts to natural plant communities by road widening are considered minimal due to the highly
disturbed and fragmented conditions adjacent to the highway corridor. The impact corridor contains few
contiguous, natural plant communities. Impacts tend to be concentrated in urbardresidential areas or
successional tracts scheduled for development. Negligible variation in plant community impacts is evident
between the various proposed alternatives.
4.7.2 Wildlife
4,7.2.1 Terrestrial Communities. Most of the project area consists of metropolitan and suburban areas.
Clearing and conversion of large tracts of land for industrial, commercial, and residential uses has
eliminated cover and protection for many traditional forms of wildlife. Even so, limited plant community
mosaics provide suitable habitat for cosmopolitan forms of wildlife. Forested systems offer all the
' necessary components (food, water, cover) to support a number of small mammals and birds. Woodland
strips bordering small tributaries complement existing ecotypes, often serving as travel corridors between
habitat areas for transient species. Common mammals noted or expected include the grey squirrel
Sciunis carolinensis), opossum Didel his virginiana), Eastern cottontail rabbit (ylvilagus floridanus),
raccoon Pro on lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus),
Southeastern shrew Sorex longirostris), Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leuco us), and fox Vul es vulpes, Urocyon cineareoargenteus).
Larger mammals, such as white tailed deer (Ocdocoilcus virginianus), are considered common in rural
areas of Mecklenburg County. Harvest records indicate that 175 deer harvests were reported in 1990-91
for Mecklenburg County (NCWRC 1992). All of these deer were reported on non-game lands that may
include upland hardwood tracts within project limits near the South Fork Catawba River (Lake Wylie).
Avifaunal abundance is typical of urban areas in the Piedmont region of North Carolina where a
patchwork of habitat types is available. The highway corridor provides few resources for avifaunal
inhabitants. Resident populations are anticipated in areas away from the highway alignment where better
cover and protection are provided. Bird sightings within the study corridor are considered transient fly-
overs to disjunct habitat areas. Common passerine species, which were sighted or can be expected, include
grackle uiscalus uiscula), American robin (Turdus migratorius), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), blue
jay (Cyanocitta cristata), mockingbird (Mimes poly dottus), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus),
Carolina chickadee Panis carilonensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), wood thrush (Hylocichla
mustelina), common crow Corvus brachyrhynchos), killdeer (Charadrius vocifenis), solitary vireo Vireo
solitarius), and while-throated sparrows (Zonotrichia albicollis).

1 30

L

4.7.2.2 Aquatic Communities. Many of the streams crossed by the project alignment provide adequate
habitat for the propagation of aquatic organisms which are tolerant to organic loading. Large streams and
rivers with adequate water quality, such as the South Fork Catawba River (Lake Wylie), are expected to
support a more diverse fishery than smaller tributaries. Largemouth bass (Micropterus saltnoides), white
bass, bluegill Le omis macrochirns), crappie, and catfish Ictalurus spp.) are common gamefish typically
found in Piedmont rivers and large streams.
Remaining creeks and streams in the project area are generally too small or too polluted to be of fishing
significance. These tributaries most likely do not support a viable recreational fishery. However, a
number of small fish are likely to exist in these headwater systems including mosquitofish (Gambusia
affinis , creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus), and golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas). Streams
along the alignment may provide marginal riparian and benthic habitat in less degraded areas for a variety
of amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the Eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), Northern dusky
salamander (Desmognanthus fiiscus , green frog (Rana clamitans), snapping turtle Chel dra se entina ,
painted turtle (Chrysemys pieta), and Northern water snake erodia fasciata).
Limited populations of blue gill, catfish, and mosquitofish are expected in one small pond situated in the
study area. Snapping turtle, crayfish, and Southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), are also expected.
4.7.2.3 Wildlife Impacts. Fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat are an unavoidable consequence of
development. However, highway widening that utilizes existing roadways are not expected to result in
adverse impacts to local wildlife; most constriction will be concentrated within disturbed right-of-way
limits. Variations in wildlife impacts by alternative are negligible. Although some loss of urban habitat
would result, many of these communities are currently of limited value to wildlife. Infringement on
contiguous natural systems will not result in significant loss or displacement of known plant or animal
populations. Resident species, such as passerine birds and squirrels, are cosmopolitan in nature, easily
adapting to urbanization. However, movement from one side of the road to the other will become more
dangerous for many transient species, including raccoons and opossums.
The magnitude of potential habitat loss for larger mammals, such as deer, increases with increasing
distance from the Charlotte metropolitan area. Areas between SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) and
Charlotte, which are predominately urban, provide virtually no habitat for white-tailed deer. However,
upland hardwood tracts near the South Fork Catawba River (Lake Wylie) may provide marginal habitat
and serve as riparian travel corridors to disjunct habitat areas. Road widening will likely make travel for
large mammals along the river basin area more precarious.
4.7.3 Rare/Unique Natural Areas
There are no rare or unique natural areas identified in the project vicinity by the NCNHP. There are no
water bodies deserving of special attention as denoted under the federal Wildlife and Scenic Rivers Act of
1968 (Pub. L. No. 90-542, 82 Stat. 906; codified and amended at 16 U.S.C. 1217-1287 (1982)) or under
the N.C. Natural and Scenic Rivers Act of 1971 (G.S. 113A-30). Because rare or unique resources were
not identified within the study area, no adverse impacts are expected.
31
t
J
4.8 Physical Resources
' 4.8.1 Water Resources
4.8.1.1 Flood Hazard. There are several areas of flood hazard along the project corridor as identified by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (see Figures 6A - 6C). In the extreme south sector of the
project, the flood hazard area roughly follows the shoreline of the South Fork Catawba River (Lake
Wylie). Just above the intersection of NC 49 and NC 160 (Steele Creek Road), the 100-year flood plain of
' the Walker Branch crosses NC 49 in a band approximately 596 feet wide. No development now exists
along the flood plain at this location although numerous concrete pipes associated with utility
improvements were sited along the creek bed during the fieldwork. Polk Ditch crosses NC 49 just north
of Erwin Road but the flood hazard area consists of a narrow strip. The Steele Creek flood hazard area
' traverses NC 49 between SR 1344 (John Price Road) and SR 1348 (General Drive) and also crosses the
Southern Railroad tracks at this site. The boundary of the flood hazard as it crosses over NC 49 is roughly
500 feet.

r

Just south of SR 1138 (Arrowood Road) is a flood hazard area associated with Coffey Creek which occurs
in a band approximately 580 feet wide. A note on the FEMA mapping (see Figure 6C) cites that the 100-
year flood is contained within the culvert at NC 49. On the north end of the project just north of SR 1155
(Shopton Road), the Sugar Creek flood hazard area crosses NC 49 at an approximate width of 585 feet.
The proposed improvements will be designed to minimize the effects on the flood plain by:
1.) implementation of appropriate erosion control measures and
2.) by designing hydraulic strictures such that the resulting 100-year backwater flood elevations
are within one foot of existing 100-year flood elevations in accordance with FEMA regulations.
4.8.1.2 Surface Water and Water Quality. Watercourses in the vicinity of proposed highway
improvements are part of the Catawba River Drainage Basin. The project alignment is located in the
Sugar Creek sub-basin which comprises part of the Lower Catawba River Drainage area.
The Sugar Creek sub-basin drains one of the most heavily industrialized areas in North Carolina. Water
quality data indicates poor water quality throughout its entire course. This includes headwater sections
from Charlotte to the South Carolina state line (DEM 1989). Point source and non point source pollution
appear to contribute equally to water quality degradation in the segment of Sugar Creek which crosses the
project corridor. Erosion and sedimentation from urban n?noff, a former sanitary landfill, and a large
municipal waste water discharge upstream comprise primary sources of non point and point source
pollution in the project area. Sugar Creek is considered non-supporting for intended uses (DEM 1988).
Six major stream crossings and nine unnamed tributaries/drainage ways are encountered along the project
alignment, of which two flow north into the South Fork Catawba River via Porter Branch. The remaining
drainage ways/streani crossings flow from north to south, eventually entering Sugar Creek.
Stream crossings, by location, are depicted in Appendix D. Best usage, ecological classifications, and
flow characteristics for major streams crossed by the alignment as well as (lie South Fork Catawba River
(Lake Wylie) are depicted in Table 5.
Four Benthic Macro invertebrate Network (BMAN) sampling stations are located in the project vicinity
(DEM 1989; Figure 7). Sampling stations several miles north of NC 49 on Irvin Creek (Stations #1,2)
were established to assess landfill impacts on water quality within headwater tributaries to Sugar Creek.
Data from these locations indicate poor water quality in Sugar Creek headwaters as a result of point
source pollution associated with waste water discharge. Poor water quality is considered characteristic of
32
1 1

See Figure 6B

1

u

1
J

Feeny
Strolloway
Road Court
ZONE C
York County,
South Carolina
?. /
Mecklenburg County '. •,
?'?'•
North Carolina ? \
' 1
/ 1 %
•• `, - 9
. `_.
1 ?` 1 V Camp Steere
Road / ? \
o o
,?
49
?
i
W
l \ z
?? 9
49
w
oo
ne /
Road
1

?
?L
Fez
tub Drlve j,

It 10 Ork

w
? Shaherila 41
•
Road / ?
&0 n /
'70
o
7 A m
Q .
ZONE C Hill

Approximate Scale
ti 2000 0 2000 feet
Flood Hazard Area
NC 49 Widening from the
Buster Boyd Bridge to
Tyvola Road Extension
Mecklenburg County, NC
500-Year Flood Boundary
100-Year Flood Boundary
Zone Designations' With
Date of Identification
e.g., 12/2/74
100-Year Flood Boundary
-
500-Year Flood Boundary
?
ZONE C -Areas of Minimal Flooding
Figure 6A
Source: Flood Insurance Rate Maps
Panel 325 of 400,
Community-Panel Number 370158 0325 A
Effective Date June 1, 1981
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Insurance Administration

U
m
rn
,
,
?cU
8 0
U)

U)
a

'PM6 VPBAGN
?j 1Q ?Ilo? ?..`..-_. •.
.
a
IL
u
3
a?
a? g
o
X
0
CL
Noll
d
v
i
?'??1s • D
eo
00
LO
M
. m
00
B z?
°s
E? P.d w
.=OC U
W 'ir *0 O
L ¦?
Q O
.= W U
W O O
m m
O ENO v
U.
z ?-
? Sr
g:j
'SS ..... .' r
VX.
>o
S S o0 a aq
2
= = m m r r = r m m r m m r m . . r i

?I
100 Year Flood/
Contained In --
Culvert
See Figure 6B

ZONE A4
ZONE B-
567
566
Illlllff 565
563
-Sugar Irwin Creek
Approximate Scale
1000 0 1000 feet (v
Flood Hazard Area
NC 49 Widening from the
Buster Boyd Bridge to
Tyvola Road Extension
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
500-Year Flood Boundary
100-Year Flood Boundary
Zone Designations' With
Date of Identification
e.g., 12/2/74
100-Year Flood Boundary 500-Year Flood Boundary
ZONE C - Areas of Minimal Flooding
ZONE A4 - Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations
and flood hazard factors determined.
Figure 6C
Source: Flood Insurance Rate Maps
Panel 220 of 400, Community-Panel Number 370158 0220 A
Effective Date June 1, 1981; and
Panel 23 of 31, Community-Panel Number 370158 0023 B
Effective Date February 26 1982
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Insurance Administration
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
h
c
0
U
u
.o
u
w
F~ W)
u
h
u
L
R1
V
L

d b W)
(L) CO
V c
Ei
a y

b4
a
b
:
b o
in m
0
a- L
U
9
? , ^g
Ct ? o
u ?
4, ? 4' -0 4 ? U o c"
u
u u
??

tii CL a ? z
O O

LL ^'
N I 0
? N 4"? fC 'p «?-. {tea
25
a V
W w a a w U 0 C a c a
ca ro
: U

G
G
C .O &

e
u
u cC
>> a
?
ea c or. rm. °p cra w oC', w w H > c°
aa
u co °c w [ c
.01

v? v

J

? 'Zo

?
c
?

v

?

O

o
h

W V ._
y Vl CC
cC .
. ? C?C+ CC

C. CC fV

N y 0 t1
2 '10
U N
.L
8h ,y
8? Ban ,L
a? 8on 8on H
o
c
pq

r. r. C14
G .2 U
N
U
U
U
U
V
U M
> w
U

3
?U?
?0

u

cC
7
E
td
f?C' >.
U E
N N j
6 ca

C Q
?
?
? U
`y
V U
?
?
1
Q Q?
a?
V) cn N
Qa EL
'?
N
?
w

v
y
L
O

N a

v ;;

N
>
O
> u

N v
uy.,
y
rr p O i N
W
? ro r
U
C
.Y U 'L7
'? H O
b
r+
bA v O

? ?
M
M
N
V
^'
V
? A
d i
r
Q L y °
A v ? a
u
0
0
L O i w
O
?.
O
O
't
i

V) 0
e.
3 o
d ?
?

N n"
0 co
E 2 2 3 ob
i u U U a co 3 ON b
c
s ?1 a Q O w y
CID
(n .
L) r,
a° cV
3
a°
vd
Q?
?3
as U
rrn 3 '1 \ .?
t'••' D7 T
?, rr1 " •1 p c r
? ' %
top. lip
ICU z
ALI L )j C03
3Y ?'„ l:11 r•1 r, fl;J?{ •... 3 I.: t , •\ /,
Lm to
NNIN 2911 Y • •j • tL
yap
Jr.
,. • .. `
14
• .::.
Lau
Alf
77 t
t.•rt?? t' 'n :? Tc rsi? Jt f ..
w
Co.
Pow
PAU
I. a
•N• y... V
2
Aro-
6a
a ?? .,, F ...+ ??+ CHARLOTTE '? • ?s mv 313.4),j
t... 3
)1 ifw !1 f \ i
lee
LEG .• ;,'..•M'.' .)- fl. • ??
rJ JN ir,'
1: BMAN station, Irwin Creek and NC 21 +•:=•'? '?`? ??; y'-
2: BMAN station, Irwin Creek and NC 21. ?.
' 3: BMAN station, Irwin Creek and NC521.
4: SMAN station Sugar Creek and SR 1156. elm - r'
10: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
Department, Irwin Creek.
N CM
1 `t M
BMAN AND DISCHARGER Figure 7
LOCATIONS
' NC 49 Widening TIP No. U-2512
Mecklenburg County
North Carolina Scale: 1" - 42,000'
I

' most streams crossed by the project corridor. Minor improvements in sediment loading within streams
crossed by the corridor are apparent with increasing distance from the Charlotte metropolitan area.
However, expected water quality improvements in more suburban areas are apparently negated by
increasing susceptibility of the landscape to erosion near the South Fork Catawba River (Lake Wylie).
One point source discharge over 0.5 mgd exists in the project area (DEM 1989; Figure 7). The Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) (Station #10), located approximately one mile north of the
project alignment, carries a permitted discharge of 15.0 mgd into Irwin Creek. Point source dischargers
will not be affected by proposed improvements.
The segment of the Catawba River (Lake Wylie) crossed by NC 49 is classified as WS-V&B, denoting
waters protected as water supplies which are generally upstream of more stringently protected WS-IV
waters. The portion of the Catawba River (Lake Wylie) designated as a Critical Area within WS-IV
' waters is situated north from the Paw Creek inlet to the 1-85 highway crossing, approximately eight miles
upstream of the NC 49 Buster Boyd Bridge. It is a common occurrence to have a water supply source with
poor water quality as indicated in Table 5.
4.8.2 Physiography, Topography and Land Use
Mecklenburg County is located within the Charlotte Belt in the midland plateau region of the Piedmont
physiographic province. The Charlotte Belt, which consists of a diverse mosaic of metamorphic and
igneous rock, supports a wide variety of parent materials, soils, and soil types. The Charlotte Belt
' contains notably hilly terrain with numerous, narrow inter stream divides exhibiting dense, dendritic
drainage patterns (Myers et al. 1986). The project area is considered susceptible to heavy erosion when
disturbed due to the diverse geomorphology, frequent dissection, and rigged topography characteristic of
this portion of the Charlotte Belt. Elevations within the project vicinity range from 165-215 meters (550-
710 feet) above mean sea level (USGS quadrangles). The project corridor generally follows an
infrequently dissected upland ridge as indicated by the relatively few streams and bottom land areas
' crossed by the alignment.
Mecklenburg County supports a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural
development. As such, the landscape is variable, dictated by past and present land use practices. Land
use in the project vicinity varies with distance from the Charlotte metropolitan area. Industrial and large
commercial development occupies a large majority of the land area along the northern half of the highway
corridor. A small, residual farming community along a broad upland flat between SR 1441 (Carowinds
Boulevard) and NC 160 represents the only remaining agricultural land use in the study area. A majority
of productive, agricultural lands along this upland flat have previously been converted for residential and
commercial development. Land use at the southern end of the study area is primarily residential and
small commercial development concentrated near the South Fork Catawba River (Lake Wylie). Limited
forest management, including prescribed burns and selective harvesting, is evident in a portion of pine
mixed hardwood forests near the Catawba River (Lake Wylie).
1 4.8.3 Soils
Soil patterns are the result of a number of biotic and abiotic influences including past geologic activities,
parent material, environmental and human influences, age of sediments, and topographic position. The
study corridor extends through three major soil associations identified by the Soil Conservation Service
(USDA 1980). These soil associations include the Iredell-Mecklenburg, Cecil, and Pacolet-Cecil
complexes. Seven soil series from the major associations were identified along the proposed alignment.
Soil series include the Davidson, Cecil, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Pacolet, and Wilkes series that are
commonly associated with well-drained uplands supporting clayey subsoils in Mecklenburg County (see
Table 6).
33

1

?o
d
.Q
c?
F
z
b?A
7
.o
e
? O
3
U
z
a O ca C O
N N Q)
c? w
N C ?, N r> j G
O C ? O 'g u ca '?
I?r ? •y N H ? ? 'b N
° O 'y" C O
cC
O y a?i c d a? ` '`? O
b c? y •' tz `r yc O
C GOL A N O C cy0
cdDy N is .O a) V cam, ?- G D
V) C13 0
E Q
F? O b .r Vl ,?,
a a? o °
4-i 0
N O
cl to 1 y a b n b? b d t r
O H O v' ~O v, 7 cC b C
0 423 s o b u
'° io C N ti ca ° C fl V C,
CO = N b cC Q! C O fC
to cl
y b U H b Cs 7 X b p cu
c`C y cC0 20
.2 o
d ° C C cd C r
0 to
0 -0 O c ro OOr C c?V a? G
C ? C C
° "' E cCC c M w (n M CL CIS 'A
Q oD
° C a .D O A 0 0 w v 'b .C G
r
° 0. 'd . C ca O v
C r0 r0 ?. O E d 8
O •.^. n
N ?. coo c0 cV C ca . .d N , •o C
y V v C .C C O C %% C ?..
cq b O m o
CZ V) -rj c? ° `C abi • ° a? v u aGi A ?' C
C «J > CA 0 G C cob C O
0 vi y b b b b y ?? V m `a
G
0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 ??l ?rl o o
77 ? ,il ? o o rl N ? o ??1 0
p --? .-r I --?
0 00 i 00 00 ?? in 00 N
N 00 C N 00 N rt 00 O
ro' b' C 'tl•fl
cC? t,? G C
? V ? vcC1i ?
L yr u :,
:3 E
fn co w .D ro C C
w C O CZ
_ V
t/] C N E V b x C O
0 Cc0 ? N O C u co O cv
U ° ° ° a ° 3
u u
C ? C
U : u
C Q ? u O
z u U Q a s Z 2.

t
Hydric soils are uncommon in the vicinity of the project. Hydric soils are defined as "soils that are
saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in
the upper part (USDA 1987). There are no soil series in Mecklenburg County which are all hydric or
have hydric characteristics as a major component. Soils with hydric inclusions belonging to the Monacan
series are predominately isolated within stream channels along the project corridor where inundation and
' saturation are prevalent. Soil characteristics are summarized in Table 6.
4.8.4 Summary of Physical Resource Impacts
Project impacts on topography and area soils are expected to be restricted to localized changes in micro-
relief. Notable landscape features are relegated to rolling topography with minor potential for changes as
a result of highway construction.
The primary sources of long term water quality degradation in the project area are urban runoff and waste
' water discharge. Continuing degradations from sedimentation and organic loading in Sugar Creek,
Coffey Creek, and Steele Creek may jeopardize the existence of most intolerant aquatic organisms.
Expansion of the existing roadway will encourage and support additional development around these
' streams which may contribute to continuing declines in water quality. However, long term impacts on
water quality as a direct result of road constriction are expected to be minimal.
A number of streams crossed by the highway corridor will be temporarily and locally affected by road
' widening. Temporary constriction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation can be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and use of best management practices. The
contractor will be required to follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as
' outlined in the NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Strictures (January 1990) Section 107-13
entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution". Dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment
measures can be used as needed to control runoff. Rapid re-seeding of disturbed sites will also help
' alleviate sediment loading within area stream channels. Increased runoff from new highway surfaces will
be partially mitigated by providing for grassed road shoulders and limited use of ditching whenever
possible.
' At this stage of the planning process, the need for stream relocation has not been addressed. However, no
stream relocations or channel changes are anticipated. Should such actions be required, the NCDOT must
coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission in
' accordance with mandates expressed in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (72 Stat. 563, as
amended; 16 USC 661 et seq. (1976)).
4.9 Special Topics
4.9.1 Wetlands
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into "waters of the United
States." Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the COE has major responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions
of the Act. The COE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under the Section
404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered "waters of the United States."
Wetlands have been described as:
34

' Those areas that are inundated or saturated by 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 (33 CFR 328.3(b) (1986)).
The COE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and evidence of
' hydrology) in support of a jurisdictional determination.
For the purposes of this assessment, it has been assumed that all lands which appear to be actively
cultivated or utilized for the production of farm commodities do not constitute jurisdictional wetlands.
' Regulatory guidance from the COE (RGL 90-7, 9/26/90) indicates that "prior converted" crop lands that
have been modified to the extent that these systems no longer provide wetland functions, are not subject to
Section 404 permit requirements. With the exception of fallow pasture lands and successional tracts, all
agricultural fields in the project area appear to meet conditions of the "prior converted" exemption.
Jurisdictional wetlands in the study area are limited to one small palustrine emergent (PEM) system of
' approximately 0.25 acres, which is located adjacent to an unnamed tributary to Sugar Creek. This PEM
pocket appears to have formed as a result of long-term impeded drainage downstream from the project
corridor. Dominant species include Microstegium (Eulalia viminea), mock-orange (Philadelphuus
' inodonus , smartweeds (Polytonuum spp.), nislues Juuncus spp.), sedges Carex spp.) and black willow
Salix ni ra . Functional characteristics such as sediment stabilization, sediment/toxicant retention,
nutrient removal/transformation and flood flow alteration are minimal due to the disturbed nature and
small size of the community. Although this palustrine emergent system may provide occasional food and
' cover and for a few passerine birds, wildlife habitat value is considered minimal. The small size of the

i
1

community and the disturbed nature of the site suggest minimal ecological importance
Locations of wetlands and open water crossings likely to be affected by the various project alternatives are
depicted in Appendix Figures DI and D2. Impacts at individual crossings are summarized in Appendix
Table D 1.
4.9.1.1 Wetland Impacts. Table 7 summarizes the relative impacts of project alternatives on waters and
wetlands subject to jurisdictional consideration under the Clean Water Act.
As discussed above, wetland losses will be minimal with negligible variation between alternatives. Along
the northern segment, wetland impacts are restricted to a portion of one small PEM pocket. These
infringements range from 0.02 acres for alternate N4C to 0.06 acres for alternates N4S and N5. There are
no jurisdictional wetlands within alternative alignments along the southern segment.
However, a number of small above headwater tributaries subject to jurisdictional consideration will be
crossed by the alignment. Impacts at individual crossings will be limited in scope, with cumulative
impacts along any one crossing generally totaling less than 0.05 acres. Individual streams,
impoundments, and the palustrine emergent system crossed by the alternative corridors are mapped and
quantified in Appendix D.
4.9.1.2 Permitting. A variety of permit options are available to allow for encroachment into
jurisdictional waters/wetlands. Because infringement will generally be limited to perpendicular crossings
of small headwater tributaries and encroachment on a single isolated PEM pocket less than I acre in size,
Nationwide Permits (33 CFR 330.5(x)(14) and (26)) are expected to apply.
Incidental full associated with bridge extensions over waterways including Sugar Creek may be permitted
under a General Permit (Permit #198200031). Receipt of 401 Water Quality Certification issued by the
35
u
CIS
C(?L
r?
C
r ?
a?
? L
ro V
H 3
i
E
a
U
b
v
y
y
O
L
U
c
v
8^
C u
o ro
C v
4
.b
v
L
U
4t
H

d
O
L
V
h
i
v
cd

W
a
C
v
8
to
N
0 0 0 O Cl
?.
CIO
o
i l i I i
ro
L ?,
w
O ?.
O b O
''?
y 4r
ro
L
n r1 O
1
b p L 0
co
L
?+ b
'

?O ?O ?O
r oo .
G O L
O
4
y ? v V
1?
w b ? ?
8 4
..
-0 U
b
N fV N ?O ?D cii ro
O r
O O O O E ++ O
Cl O Cl O O ?" ,• y U
b v co
U
4 C>
C
V
?
w on ? •?
K v ?
cUO ° [
o
oo
r C ds
..
C

O
-
OA

to
•
eLa E ? v
•v

:n 00 v') C ... L

O O O
I ? co ro
U ,r.??.
O O O E ;.,
N + 'C L
E? CC'G

s ' C7 a
t
-t z a4

L p C

u : J 'C7 00 CIJ
r L O C C
0

C
'V
G V
i ca , a' 3
C
C _
V
p -t -t rL
O
N
dv R7
0.p1"? v W
U ro
'
oa
C .. ce .b .. ° a v

k Cd
C
y t' 1=
':? V
L N i••? ?.•? ,, r
b ? V n ?±

G
°
a '? aj
v U u
a+ G
? °
Q b C U v
v o?
y cn
I ??PG
V •?? o[ 8 c c
C ro ro I: ro

V CC • i
V "f V a
a
• CL
O L w .-? S V a+
4
o >. U o 0C o c
-t -P
ZE-,.? cnv)w =ZZZLhV)

Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources' Division of Environmental Management may
also be required.
4.9.1.3 Mitigation. Mitigation is recommended in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the
CWA (40 CFR 230), FHWA step-down procedures (23 CFR 777.1 et seq.), and mandates expressed in
Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961 (1977)).
Avoidance is not a logical solution to eliminating impacts associated with this project. However,
avoidance can be best employed by widening existing roadways and avoiding roadway construction on
new location; highway construction on new location invariably results in significantly greater impacts to
natural communities - both wetlands and uplands. Thus, widening of the existing NC 49 corridor is
considered the preferred solution.
Minimization can be effectively employed along the route. Reduction of fill slopes at stream/wetland
crossings will reduce unnecessary wetland takings. Sensitive placement of drainage structures will
minimize further degradation of water quality and reduce adverse impacts on aquatic habitat viability in
streams and tributaries.
Due to the limited nature of the impacts, use of best management practices is recommended as appropriate
mitigation for unavoidable losses. Elimination of staging areas in lowland sites, careful containment of
oil, gasoline, and other hazardous materials near creeks and tributaries, reduced canopy removal in or
near flood plain systems, and employment of strict erosion and sediment control procedures are a few of
the practices that will be employed.
4.9.2 Protected Species
4.9.2.1 Federally Protected Species. Federally listed plant and animal species with Endangered (E) or
Threatened (T) status receive protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et
seq.). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified two species listed as endangered or proposed
endangered, and three candidate species that are currently under status review, which may occur in
Mecklenburg County. These species include:
Endpnuered or Proposed Endangered (E or PE)
Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) (E)
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) (E)
Status Review
Georgia Aster (Aster geor ianus) (C2)*
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri (C2)**
I Nestronia Nestronia umbellula) (C2)
* C2 designation indicates candidate species under status review; adequate information
I on biological vulnerability and threat(s) on biological vulnerability is insufficient to
support listing.
** Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
36
J
' Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) (E)
Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect herb, with one to several pubescent stems originating from a crown and
supporting lanceolate leaves. The plant, which produces typical "sunflowers", is discernible in the field
from other members of its genus by the presence of a tuberous root system, tomentose to pilose leaf
undersides, and harsh upper stems which arch upward in a candelabra-like manner (Kral 1983).
' Flowering occurs from September to frost. The species thrives in full sun characteristic of relic Piedmont
prairies, successional fields, forest ecotonal margins, and forest openings. Decline in the sunflower is
attributed to the disappearance of fire maintained prairies and pine savannahs in the Piedmont
' physiographic province. Schweinitz' sunflower is known to exist on 15 sites, all within 90 miles of
Charlotte (Venters 1992). However, no sites are recorded in or near the NC 49 corridor.
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmizona dccorata (E)
The Carolina heelsplitter is a freshwater mussel that reaches an average length of 78 mm, an average
height of 43 mm, and an average width of 27 nun (SCFTM 1990). Distinguishing characteristics include
an ovate trapezoid shaped shell, flattened untbo, and a yellowish, greenish, or brownish periostracum with
greenish or blackish rays (SCFTM 1990). This rare species is only found in a restricted area of the
Carolinas. Its current distribution is limited to two streams and a small river all originating out of Union
County, North Carolina. Historically, the Carolina heelsplitter has been found in creeks, streams, rivers,
and ponds (most likely millponds). Apparently, Lasmigona dccorata prefers shaded areas, either in a
ponded portion of a small stream, or in runs along steep banks with a moderate current (SCFTM 1990).
' The mussel has only been found in waters less than three feet deep with a soft mud, muddy-sand, or
sandy-gravel substrate. Rapid expansion of the metropolitan area of Charlotte may have resulted in
extirpation of the Carolina heelsplitter in Mecklenburg County. No existing populations of the mussel
have been documented in recent years in Mecklenburg county or within stream segments crossed by the
project (NCNHP 8/5/92; pers. comm. John Alderman, NCWRC, 8/12/92; pers. comm. Eugene Keferl,
Brunswick College, 8/14/92).
4,9.2.2 State-Protected Species. Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants with the
North Carolina status of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) receive limited
protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North
Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.).
1 A review of N.C. Natural Heritage Program records on 8/5/92 indicated no documented occurrences of
state listed species in the project vicinity. However, one federally listed species, smooth coneflower
(Echinaceae laevigata) (E), is documented by NCNHP as occurring in Mecklenburg County. Although
the USFWS does not recognize the occurrence of this endangered species in Mecklenburg County,
presence/absence of the coneflower within the project corridor was evaluated.
Smooth coneflower (Echinaceae laevi pata is a stiffly erect, rarely branched perennial up to 1.5 meters
' tall. Basal and stem leaves are large, glabrous, lanceolate to narrowly ovate blades reaching 15
centimeters in length. The plant flowers from late May to July, producing distinct purple flowers of
tubular or "cone-like" shape (Kral 1983). Smooth coneflower prefers calcareous soils often associated with
limestone, gabbro, diabase, and marble. The species is found on roadsides, clearcuts, power line right-of-
ways, old roadbeds, and limestone bluffs that provide abundant sunlight and little competition within the
herbaceous layer (Gaddy 1991).
' Historical occurrences of smooth coneflower near Charlotte in Mecklenburg County have been
documented through undated herbarium specimens located at N.C. State University (Gaddy 1991).
However, no existing populations of the plant are documented at NCNHP as occurring Mecklenburg
t
1 37

1

County. The range of existing populations of Echinaceae lavigatae is not recognized by the USFWS as
extending into Mecklenburg County.
4.9.2.3 Protected Species Impacts.
Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
The presence/absence of Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz' sunflower) was evaluated within the study
alignment from information concerning habitat requirements (Radford et al. 1968, Schafale and Weakley
1990, Kral 1983), and field investigations.NCNHP personnel (pers. comm. Dr. Harry Legrand, 8/15/92)
indicated that Schweinitz's sunflower could potentially occur along the project corridor. On September 1,
1992, field investigators canvassed existing populations of the endangered sunflower near Waxhaw in
Union County to verify initiation of flowering and to evaluate habitat requirements. Comprehensive field
surveys along the NC 49 project corridor were conducted within suitable habitat areas on September 2-3
1992. Transects were walked at intervals necessary for complete visual coverage within pasture margins,
rights-of-way, successional areas, xeric scrub oak stands, and forest gaps crossed by the project. All
flowering members of the genus were inspected. Results of plant-by-plant surveys in all suitable habitat
zones confirm that Helianthus schweinitzii does not occur in the project study area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmip_ona decorata)
Contact with resource agency personnel and review of NCNHP files indicated no documented sightings of
LasmiQOna decorata (Carolina heelsplitter) in the project vicinity (NCNHP 8/5/92; John Alderman,
NCWRC, 8/12/92, Eugene Keferl, Brunswick College, 8/14/92). The closest historical populations of the
mussel occurred approximately one mile north and one mile south of NC 49 on Sugar Creek (NCNHP
files). Range surveys were performed along Sugar Creek in 1989 which indicated no remaining
populations of the heelsplitter (pers. comm. Eugene Keferl, Brunswick College, 8/14/92). No evidence of
mussels of any species were found during surveys of project area streams and strean?side locations.
A total of four crossings along NC 49 were surveyed to determine presence of freshwater mussel
populations (see listing below).
Freshwater Mussel Survey Results
c

1
s

Stream Name Results
Location S ?ecies Conclusion
Sugar Creek No mussels Degraded
Asiatic Clam resent No Carolina Heels litter
Coffey Creek No mussels Severely dcgradcd
No Carolina Heels litter
Steele Creek No mussels Severely degradcd
No Carolina Heels litter
Unnamed Tributary to Steel No mussels Severely degradcd
Creek No Carolina Heels litter
Biological Conclusion: Given the survev results, and the degraded condition of all the streams, it
can be concluded that none of the streams within the project area support Carolina Heclsplittcr
populations. Therefore, no impacts to this species will result from project construction.
38

4.10 Construction Impacts
There are a number of environmental impacts normally associated with roadway constnuction. These are
generally of short term duration and measures will be taken to mitigate these impacts.
Traffic along the project route may experience brief periods of delay and disruption during construction.
Because the improvements will occur along the existing alignment, traffic lanes should be open during the
majority of the construction period.
Water, sewer, telephone, electric and gas lines exist in the project area. The Division of Highways will
hold a pre-construction conference between representatives of the NCDOT, the contractor, representatives
of the involved utility companies, and pertinent local officials. Methods to coordinate utility adjustments
and to minimize damage or rupture of existing service will be discussed at this conference.
The general requirements concerning erosion control and siltation are covered in Article 107-13 of the
Standard Specifications entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation and Pollution." The North Carolina
Division of Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program that has been
approved by the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission. This program consists of the
rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and sedimentation contained in the North Carolina Highway
Standard Specifications for Roads and Stnictures together with policies of the Division of Highways
concerning control of accelerated erosion and sedimentation on work performed by State Forces.
Waste or debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside 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 responsible engineer. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable
local laws and ordinances, along with regulations of the North Carolina Plan for Implementing National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Burning xvill only be done on the right-of-way, under constant
supervision, with good atmospheric conditions, as remote from existing dwellings as possible.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
In addition, care will be taken not to block drainage ditches. An extensive rodent control program will be
established where structures are to be removed or demolished to prevent the migration of rodents into
surrounding areas.
Coordination will be initiated with the N.C. Geodetic Survey to ensure that geodetic markers located
I along the project corridor will be protected
1

1

39

1 4.11.1 Conformity Determination
4.11 Air Quality
The project is located in the designated moderate non-attainment area that includes Mecklenburg County
' and Gaston County. Moderate non-attainment areas have a deadline of March 15, 1995 to demonstrate
attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for CO, However, the Mecklenburg-
Gaston County Area has submitted a proposal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
demonstrating attainment.
The project (TIP U-2512) is included in the FY 1994-97 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Area and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan. The FY
1994 TIP was found to conform to the Interim Conformity Guidance dated June 7, 1992 and the State
Implementation Plan. (SIP) by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) on September 10, 1993
and by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) on December 15, 1993. The Thoroughfare Plan
was found to conform to the Interim Conformity Guidance and the SIP by the Mecklenburg Urban Area
Transportation Advisory Committee on September 15, 1993 and the USDOT on November 15, 1993.
There have been no changes in the projects design concept or scope since the conformity determinations.
The SIP included several Traffic Control Measures (TCM's) for the Charlotte area; however, all TCM's
have been implemented as described in the applicable conformity determinations.
The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, (ISTEA) places restrictions on federally
funded projects that increase capacity for single occupancy vehicles (SOV). Section 1024 (a) of ISTEA
states that projects which increase SOV capacity in Transportation Management Areas classified as non-
attainment areas must be part of an approved Congestion Management System.
North Carolina is currently developing its Congestion Management System (CMS). Prior to
implementation of the CMS, projects that improve SOV capacity in non-attainment areas will be analyzed
to determine if travel demand reduction and operational management strategies can be used to reduce
SOV demand. Since Charlotte is classified as a moderate non-attainment area for carbon monoxide and
ozone and the widening of NC 49 will increase the capacity for SOV use, these measures were examined.
A discussion of the analysis and findings are included in Section 2.3 of this document. ISTEA
requirements, as amended in 23 USC 134, for the Charlotte TMA have been reviewed as described in
Section 2.3. The proposed action is a part of Charlotte's approved thoroughfare plan. Because the SOV
reduction strategies are not considered appropriate for this corridor, additional SOV capacity is warranted
and will be provided by the widening of NC 49.
The existing and future predicted CO levels were compared to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The base year
is 1992, the year construction is to begin is 1998, and the design year is 2018. All assumptions represent
probable traffic conditions for those years.
I

11

The CAL3QHC model was used to determine CO concentrations for the PM peak-hour in the years 1992,
1998, and 2018. CO analyses were conducted for the intersection that is expected to experience highest
volumes and the lowest levels-of-service (LOS) in the three analysis years.
The analysis shows that at the highest-volume intersection along the corridor, CO concentrations during
the PM peak-period in the years 1992, 1998, and 2018 will be below tile NAAQS.
40

Ci

1
1
1

1

1

4.11.2 Analysis
The intersection analyzed for CO concentrations was determined using the following methodology.
NCDOT estimated AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes at intersections throughout the corridor for
1992, 1998, and 2018. Level-of-service (LOS) analyses were performed using the Highway Capacity
Software (HCS) based on methodology from the Highway Capacity Manual, 1985 (Washington, D.C.:
Transportation Research Board, 1986).
The LOS analyses determined that the intersection of NC 49 and SR 1138 (Arrowood Road) is expected to
experience the worst LOS during the PM peak-hour in 1998 and 2018. Results of the LOS analyses for
this intersection are tabulated below. This information was used to establish a worst case condition for
predicted air quality for future years.
PM Peak-flour LOS Analyses for the
Intersection of NC 49 and SR 1138 (Arrowood Road)
Year 1992 1998 2018
Alternative No-Build No-Build Build No-Build Build
LOS E F C F F
4.11.3 CO Concentration Analysis Using CAL3QIIC
CAL3QHC requires emission factor data, meteorological data, intersection volume data, intersection
geometry data, and intersection signalization data, as inputs, for each analysis year. Intersection data
(volumes, geometries, and signalization) was obtained from the capacity (LOS) analyses described in
Section 4.11.1. The intersection of NC 49 and SR 1138 (Arrowood Road) was selected for further
analysis in the computer model since it represented a worst case condition.
Emission factor data were provided by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). NCDEHNR developed emission factors using the MOBILE5 model for
exhaust emissions and the MOBILE4.1 model for idle emissions. Shown below are the emission factors
as they were input into CAL3QHC. Exhaust emission factors assumed a suburban arterial road with a
free-flow speed of 45 mph. Idle emission factors were converted from grams/hour to grams/minute.
Carbon Monoxide Emission Factors
(Exhaust From MOBILE5, Idle from MOBILE 4.1)

Year Exhaust Emission Factor
gm/mile Idle Emission Factor
gm/min
1992 18.4 6.47423
1998 14.2 3.81982
2018 9.8 2.46623
Emission factors decrease substantially from 1992 to 1998 to 2018. This was due to the assumption of
progressively "cleaner" vehicle fleets over time.
41

J
?II
?J
1
t
1
11
1

1
a

1

E7

1
Meteorological data was provided by NCDEHNR. These include a wind speed of I ii/sec, an atmospheric
stability class of E, a mixing height of 400 m, and an ambient background CO concentration of 1.9 ppm
over one hour.
Intersection volumes, geometries, and signalization were developed from the highway capacity analyses
previously discussed.
CAL3QHC runs were conducted for the PM peak-hour. The No-Build Alternative was analyzed for 1992,
1998, and 2018, and the Build Alternative was analyzed for 1998 and 2018. The first set of runs analyzed
wind angles in five-degree increments. For each of these CAL3QHC nms, the highest CO concentration
was noted for all combinations of receptors and wind angles. Then, a second set of CAL3QHC runs
analyzed wind angles in one-degree increments, five degrees on either side of the previously identified
wind angle with the highest CO concentration. The final CAL3QHC CO concentrations for the purposes
of this memorandum were obtained from the second set of CAL3QHC runs. CAL3QHC output data from
the second set of nms are provided in the Air Quality Analysis Technical Memorandum that is on file
with NCDOT.
CAL3QHC predicts CO concentrations at intersections over one hour. The one-hour concentrations are
converted to eight-hour concentrations by applying a persistence factor of 0.70, recommended by USEPA.
The predicted eight-hour CO concentrations in parts per million (ppm) at the intersection of NC 49 and
SR 1138 (Arrowood Road) are shown below. These are the product of the one-hour concentrations, for
the worst receptors and wind angles from CAL3QHC, and a persistence factor of 0.70.
Eight-Hour CO Concentrations in ppm
Intersection of NC 49 and SR 1138 (Arrowood Road)
Year No-Build Alternative Build Alternative
1992 8.5 NA
1998 6.7 6.2
2018 6.3 7.1
NA - Nol Applicable.
The table above, indicates that there are no existing (1992) violations of the NAAQS standard of 9.0 ppm
for eight-hour CO concentrations. Also indicated in the table, is the reduction of CO concentrations for
the No- Build Alternative from 1992 to 2018. This reduction is attributed to inadequate capacity of the
facility which results in queues that back-up beyond the limits of the model. Eight-hour CO
concentrations for the Build Alternative are shown to increase from 1992 to 2018. This increase is
expected since the volume of traffic is also increasing, however, there are no new violations of the
NAAQS standard of 9.0 ppm for eight-hour CO concentrations.
The results of the analysis at the NC 49 (York Road)/SR 1138 (Arrowood Road) intersection are
representative of the entire project area, therefore, there are no existing violations and no new violations
NAAQS standard for eight-hour CO concentrations within the project limits.
4.12 Traffic Noise Analysis/Construction Noise Analysis
4.12.1 Introduction and Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)
A noise analysis was conducted to measure existing noise conditions and to predict future noise levels
associated with the proposed improvements along NC 49 from the Buster Boyd Bridge to Tyvola Road
42

A
I

1
E
i
L-J
1
I

r

Extension, south of Charlotte in Mecklenburg County. The noise analysis was consistent with procedures
of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772. The design year is 2018 and all assumptions
represent probable traffic conditions for that year. Noise receptors were selected based on proximity to the
road and types of land use.
The existing land uses along NC 49 in the project corridor are classified into two Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) categories for noise sensitivity. According to FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
(NAC - see Table 8), the single-family and multi-family homes located throughout the project corridor are
classified as Activity Category B, and should not receive exterior noise levels of more the 67 dBA Leq.
Pleasant Hill Presbyterian Church, Central Steele Creek Presbyterian Church, Rod of God Ministries, and
Steele Creek AME Zion Church are also classified in this category (these are also included in Category E
which should not experience interior levels more than 52. dBA Leq). Businesses are scattered throughout
the corridor, but are most concentrated between SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) and the proposed
Charlotte Western Outer Loop. They are classified as Activity Category C, and should not receive exterior
noise levels of more than 72 dBA Leq. Refer to Table 8 for a complete description of the FHWA NAC.
4.12.2 Existing Noise Levels
Existing exterior ambient noise measurements were taken at seven locations throughout the project
corridor. (See Figure 8). All locations were chosen to represent sensitive receptors which are land uses
that fall into Activity Categories B and C described above. At each location, the measurement was taken
along the building facade that faces the road. Noise monitoring was performed from July 21, 1992,
through July 23, 1992, during the afternoon peak period to ensure that the worst (loudest) case was
monitored. The field results are tabulated below.
Noise Monitoring Locations and Results
Receptor Number/
Measurement Location Distance to
Noise Source Noise Reading
dBA L, FHWA NAC
dBA L
I Residence at SR 1111 (Shaherlia Road) 70 fl. 66 67
2 Residence cast of Steele Creek
Volunteer Fire Dept. 50 A. 67 67
3 Residence between Envin and SR 1 122
(Moss Road) 60 ft. 68 67
4 Residence at SR 1 142 (Sandy Porter
Road) 80 ft. 67 67
5 Residence across from Roberts Systems 50 ft. 68 67
6 Residence at Thornfield Road 50 ft. 64 67
7 Steele Creek AME Zion Church 120 ft. 67 67
Automobiles on NC 49 and airplanes servicing Charlotte-Douglas International Airport are the
predominant noise sources. Monitored noise levels represent all exterior noise sources recorded at the
sites, including natural and mechanical sources and human activities, whereas calculated noise levels (as
shown in Table 9) represent noise generated by traffic only. The monitored noise levels are equal to or
exceed FHWA NAC at five of the seven receptors.
4.12.3 Future Noise Levels
Existing and firture afternoon peak-hour traffic volumes and vehicle mix for 1992 and 2018 and roadway
design data were obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Speeds in
the project corridor were observed to be between 40 and 50 mph during the afternoon peak hour. Traffic
volume and vehicle mix data are included in Appendix A.
43

A
1

a

C
0

C?

a
r
u
00
?S
F u
0
z
bo
W

A
d

x
G4

r

L
j

L
b?A
d
U+
y
d
w
O
C
O
{1r.
V
v
A
ti L
? O
h ?"I
?a
d
H
O L
z?" m
A ..a
w, <
V +
d?
«+ y i..,
?" G C G 0
?? b cd cC cV

?. a)

° 0
o
0) u N o
tVii O
U U N O
.
+
O
G GC,3
U
c0
b
G
«S
a
??
u
a?
r
°
.d
.n
G
O
u a a H ?

ty i b y b
h
G a N v
c0 ? C cGC Q i ." G.•. ca
cz
0 co v
'L? ? ctt y c~d Q N C O
N U ? GO
C's
y
H
u

N R. •d Q El 0
C a
,
.?
G
?
U
'
Cd
o to y N y Q
$ O
1.
C'3 '
i
a Q 7 v A a s t
u co
R7
N
A O b ?' c0 a N O C -0 r
G a? G ,; w
p p G U
? 6
E -?
b ?
a
cr = n y
b O G U V. 7
c
O N
. >
p, Q id

.may!
.
u..
l?
w r
u N a O
c?
' N U ...,
a o
cC
b ..U. 7
a
v a
N
Cu ,? cC

W v G o
; ai
V)
Q
)
3 a 4 c V? V)
CO LO
u
G
0
z
U cd rn O y
b a ,?
C ,
N O
t9 i5

G
•? v
G G -P
? ' p
? > °
G
G
C
b
R. 0 ? ro 7 G .
u
. 0 d b a y
b
0
?
,
° G p,
Co C' =
°
o
c C a
i C, .
u n v
N y •?
u a
75 p cv
u Cap " p
p
N QJ
?? °
o
o -

N

s- tn
o a u v o N C a a 2 0
H a O Cd a U s A a u cc E
? u
a?
C

O O O p

W ?.1 W G ? iz• ?
bA

w
.p U G °
? •[ ? C
U

?n u c ro v 0
.0
X
W
W
W E Q
... e. QE o
?
CT O N

O
o C,3 >
U U
p

N
Q
N
U
Q
W _
•.a b
c? y
a
N O
G
W o`?. a o
-- N b (n

t

f
i

1
1

A
s
s

V

?\?? NOl1? bo
0?
yr Y
Asa
= 6
?`
? c
Z ??
O
Ir
?I WO
?1r W??
?r"
18 , U ply

O 1
C ; U
C

CL
a)
0 m0 U

N
am ?
?
d
'
3
C
m l--
y Z JC
.
O ?
Z ?
CO
o,

J ?

Q. Z
J ? Q

P,

1

1

1

A
TABLE 9
Predicted Noise Levels
dBA Let,

Location
Receptor 1992
Measured 1992
Calculated 2018
No-Build 2018
Build
1 66 68 72 73
2 67 70 75 75
3 68 67 72 72
4 67 68 71 72
5 68 73 76 77
Buster Boyd 6 64 70 74 75
Bridge 7 67 66 70 70
To 8 NM* 73 77 78
SR 1110 9 NM 68 72 73
(Red Fez Club Rd.) 10 NM 70 74 74
11 NM 64 68 68
12 NM 64 68 67
13 NM 65 69 69
14 NM 68 72 72
15 NM 64 68 68
16 NM 64 68 68
SR 1110 17 NM 65 69 69
(Red Fez Club Rd.) 18 NM 61 65 65
To 19 NM 60 64 65
SR 1116 20 NM 62 66 66
(Shopton Rd. West) 21 NM 60 64 64
22 NM 63 67 67
23 NM 62 66 67
24 NM 66 71 70
25 NM 64 68 68
26 NM 66 71 70
27 NM 69 73 74
28 NM 59 63 63
29 NM 67 71 71
30 NM 67 72 72
SR 1116 31 NM 60 65 65
(Shopton Rd. West) 32 NM 67 71 72
To 33 NM 64 68 68
NC 160 34 NM 58 63 63
(Steele Creek Rd.) 35 NM 69 74 74
36 NM 62 66 66
37 NM 62 66 66
38 NM 65 69 70
39 NM 60 64 64
40 NM 60 64 65
41 NM 68 73 73
42 NM 69 73 74
43 NM 70 74 74

1

I_I

CJ

t
I

TABLE 9
(continued)

Location
Rece ptor 1992
Measured 1992
Calculated 2018
No-Build 2018
Build
NC 160 44 NM 62 66 66
(Steele Creek Rd.) 45 NM 68 73 73
To 46 NM 62 66 66
SR 1120 47 NM 64 68 69
twin Rd.) 48 NM 62 67 67
49 NM 60 64 64
SR 1120 50 NM 59 63 63
(Erwin Rd.) 51 NM 64 68 69
To 52 NM 63 67 68
SR 1122 53 NM 63 68 68
(Moss Rd.) 54 NM 66 70 71
55 NM 64 69 69
SR 1122 (Moss Rd.) 56 NM 64 68 69
To SR 1441 57 NM 64 69 71
Carowinds Blvd.) 58 NM 62 66 67
SR 1441 59 NM 67 70 70
(Carowinds Blvd.) 60 NM 67 70 70
To SR 1128 61 NM 68 71 71
(Westinghouse Blvd.) 62 NM 68 71 71
63 NM 71 75 77
SR 1128 64 NM 71 74 75
(Westinghouse Blvd.) 65 NM 70 74 75
To 66 NM 69 73 73
Charlotte Western 67 NM 72 76 76
Outer Loop (Future) 68 NM 71 75 75
69 NM 69 72 72
Charlotte Western 70 NM 65 69 69
Outer Loop (Future) 71 NM 66 70 69
To 72 NM 66 70 70
SR 1138 73 NM 60 64 64
(Arrowood Rd.) 74 NM 60 64 64
11

TABLE 9
(continued)

Location
Receptor 1992
Measured 1992
Calculated 2018
No-Build 2018
Build
75 NM 71 74 73
76 NM 70 73 73
77 NM 72 76 76
78 NM 64 68 68
79 NM 68 72 72
80 NM 68 72 73
SR 1138 81 NM 68 72 73
(Arrowood Rd.) 82 NM 65 69 69
To 83 NM 65 69 69
SR 1157 84 NM 68 72 73
(Beam Rd.) 85 NM 62 66 66
86 NM 68 72 73
87 NM 64 68 68
88 NM 68 72 72
89 NM 63 67 67
90 NM 64 68 68
91 NM 68 72 72
92 NM 63 67 67
SR 1157 93 NM 62 66 66
(Beam Rd.) 94 NM 67 71 70
To 95 NM 66 70 70
SR 1155 96 NM 67 71 71
(Shopton Rd.) 97 NM 69 72 73
98 NM 67 70 71
SR 1155 99 NM 68 72 72
(Shopton Rd.) 100 NM 68 72 73
To 101 NM 67 71 72
T ola Road Ext. 102 NM 67 71 72
I * NM - not measured.

1-1
1

Only preliminary alignment information was available for use in the noise analysis of the Build
Alternative. The proposed project is to widen the existing two-lane facility to a multi-lane section, which
would consist of either a four-lane divided highway or a five-lane highway with a bi-directional left-turn
lane. The results discussed in this report are based on a "worst-case" scenario. The roadway alignment
alternatives were studied to determine their effect on noise receptors and the alignment having the greatest
impact was selected to include in the analysis. The southern half of the project, from the Buster Boyd
Bridge to SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard), was analyzed using the five-lane section, and the northern
half, from SR 1441 (Carowinds Boulevard) to Tyvola Road Extension, was analyzed using the four-lane
divided section.
The traffic volume, vehicle mix, speed, and roadway design information were input into the FHWA-
accepted STAMINA 2.0 noise model to calculate 1992 noise levels and predict 2018 noise levels for the
No-Build and Build Alternatives. The 102 receptors utilized for this analysis are representative of the
residences and churches that are sited closest to the road. The calculated noise levels are indicated in
Table 9.
Differences occur between 1992 measured and 1992 calculated noise levels because field noise
measurements include all exterior noise sources. Also, traffic characteristics on the day of measurements
may differ with those of average afternoon peak-hour traffic. Calculated noise levels represent those
generated by average afternoon peak-hour traffic only.
Descriptions of Receptors 1-7, where noise monitoring was performed, are tabulated on page 43.
Descriptions of locations for Receptors 8-102 are provided in Table 9. All receptors from 8-102 represent
residences except at the following locations: Pleasant Hill Presbyterian Church (Receptor # 20), Central
Steele Creek Presbyterian Church (Receptor # 59). and Rod of God Ministries (Receptor # 78). Due to the
mix of residential and commercial development along the project corridor, commercial uses were not
modeled. These residences were considered more noise sensitive and were located the same proximity
from the roadway as the commercial uses. In addition residential uses are more likely to require noise
abatement measures such as noise barriers No schools were located along the corridor.
4.12.4 Traffic Noise Impacts
The criteria for determining noise impacts are:
? Comparison of predicted noise levels with FHWA NAC. Any predicted noise level that approaches or
exceeds the NAC level is considered an impact requiring consideration for noise abatement. NCDOT
has defined "approach" as I dBA Leq less than FHWA NAC.
? Determination of whether a substantial increase will occur from existing to predicted noise levels. A
substantial increase is considered an impact requiring consideration for noise abatement. NCDOT
has defined a "substantial increase" as a:
1. 10 dBA Leq or greater increase when existing dBA Leq is greater than 50 dBA or
2. 15 dBA Leq or greater increase when existing dBA Leq is less than 50 dBA.
In 1992, 55 of the 102 receptors experienced noise levels which approach or exceed FHWA NAC. In
2018, 90 of the 102 receptors are expected to experience noise levels which approach or exceed FHWA
NAC under both the No-Build and Build Alternatives. These 90 receptors include all of the 55 receptors
which approach or exceed FHWA NAC in 1992. All receptors experiencing noise levels approaching or
exceeding the NAC were Category B receptors (sec Table 8) and included the four churches described in
Section 4.12.3 of this document. Expected noise increases are between three and five dBA Leq under the
1 44

No-Build Alternative, and between two and seven dBA Leg under the Build Alternative. These increases
are attributed to increases in traffic volumes for the No-Build Alternative, and increases in traffic volumes
' and changes in distances between receptors and the roadway for the Build Alternative. These increases
are not considered substantial as defined above. The maximum extent of the 67 dBA Leq contour is
estimated to be approximately 170 to 220 feet from the centerline of NC 49 under both alternatives. This
distance may vary, however, throughout the corridor due to changes in traffic characteristics.
The four receptors representing churches located along the corridor (see Section 4.12.3) were examined to
determine compliance with NAC Category E. Exterior readings were converted to interior by reducing
' the exterior readings by 25 dBA to account for wall attenuation and interior ventilation systems. No noise
levels at these four receptors are expected to approach or exceed the NAC for Category E.
1 4.12,5 Abatement Measures
Title 23 CFR 772 requires that noise abatement measures be considered if a traffic noise impact is
identified. An analysis of reasonableness of providing noise abatement has been prepared for this project.
Highway Alignment. Highway alignment selection involves placing the horizontal or vertical orientation
of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and
other engineering and environmental factors. To provide noise abatement, the horizontal alignment
selection involves the siting of the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise-sensitive areas. Changing
the roadway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement.
Traffic System Management Measures. Traffic system management measures that limit vehicle types,
speeds, volumes, and times of operations can be effective noise abatement measures. For this project,
traffic management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the
capacity and level-of-service of the proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers. Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied with a
measurable degree of success. The application of noise barriers can effectively diffract, absorb, or reflect
roadway traffic noise. Noise barriers may include earth berms or noise walls.
The project will maintain no control of access; therefore, most residences, churches, and businesses will
have direct driveway connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at-
grade, except for the proposed Charlotte Western Outer Loop.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction, it must be high enough and long enough to shield
receptors from sections of the roadway. Access points (driveways, intersecting streets, etc.) which
necessitate openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically infeasible to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access points
due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide sufficient noise reduction, the
length of a barrier should be eight times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a
receptor located 50 feel from a barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access point of
40 feet in width (10 percent of the length of the barrier) would limit the barrier's potential noise reduction
' to approximately 4 dBA (/ undrnnenlnls and Abatement of Highwnv ern%lie Noise, Report No. FHWA-
HHi-HEV-73-7976-1, United States Department of Transportation).
In addition, churches, businesses, and other establishments located along the roadway normally require
accessibility and high visibility. Noise barriers tend to reduce accessibility and visibility, and, thus, are
not acceptable noise abatement measures for these land use types.
1 45

On the basis of the above discussion, noise abatement measures are not considered feasible, and are not
recommended for this project.
4.12.6 Construction Noise
No abnormal construction noise impacts are anticipated with this project. The major construction tasks
are expected to be earth moving and removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts such as temporary speech interference for passersby and individuals living or working adjacent to
the project corridor can be anticipated during certain phases of construction. If noise problems due to
construction activities are identified, the most effective means to control the noise is limiting the hours of
construction activities to daytime hours (7:00 AM to 5:00 PM). Other measures to be considered are noise
shields (temporary barriers) and to plan detours that do not create additional noise impacts to sensitive
receptors.
4.12.7 Summary
Generally, most of the receptors that are immediately adjacent to NC 49 experience traffic noise impacts
and are eligible for noise abatement consideration. Based on project experience of NCDOT, traffic noise
abatement measures are not considered reasonable or feasible, and none are recommended.
4.13 Hazardous Waste Involvement and Underground Storage Tanks
A hazardous materials review was conducted as part of the environmental assessment for the NC 49
Widening project. The review consisted of both a field reconnaissance and a limited search of public
records. The purpose of the review is to:
1. Identify sites where documented contamination exists, as well as sites where contamination
may exist although no documentation is available and
2. Identify sites where registered underground storage tanks (UST's) are located and
3. Identify sites with unregistered UST's.
There are 17 facilities which appear to have underground storage tanks (USTs) on the property (sec Table
10 and Figure 9). Registration information was available for 14 of these facilities. Thirteen (13) of these
sites are gas stations that are still in operation. The additional site is a gas station closed for business.
Sites where UST registration information was not available include two fire stations and an abandoned
gas station.
A review of files within the North Carolina Superfund Branch yielded identification of two facilities as
potential supcrfund sites, the Charlotte City Dump or York Road Landfill and Ace Chemical. The
Charlotte City Dump, formerly a municipal solid waste landfill, is located west of the Tyvola Road/NC 49
(York Road) intersection. The site has one above ground storage tank (AST) and has since been
developed into a public golf course. Ace Chemical, located at 1801 York Road, is a bulk chemical
repackaging facility. Ace Chemical does not manufacture hazardous materials although it does have a
history of spills.
Improvements in the area of the York Road Renaissance Park Golf Course (the former Charlotte City
Dump/York Road Landfill) consist of a four-lane divided shoulder section with cast side widening. (See
Appendix B, Figure B-1, Typical Section 3). The shoulder section, with a surface drainage ditch, was
favored over a curb-and-gutter section with a sub-surface drainage system, to eliminate the potential build-
1 46
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 10
Map Sites Master List
ID Letter Site Comments

A Old Charlotte City Dump/Golf Course AST on Property
B Texacco, Silver Express None
C Fast Fare/Crown Not Occupied
D Handy Mart None
E Circle K Leaking UST
F Shell/Handy Pantry Steel Dr uns on site
G Fire Station # 26 UST Registration not found
H Arrowood Exxon None
I Arrowood Amoco None
J Wells/Unocal None
K Ace Chemical Superfiind Site
L Scandura Small UST
M Crown/Fast Fare None
O Charlie's Sunoco None
P Steel Creek Fire Dept. UST Registration not found
Q Abandoned Gas Station Closed since 1975
R Ray's Quick Stop/Chevron None
S Carolina Crossing Marine None
T GO Minute Cleaners RCRA
N
o O
O r-
O
Qr)
11
:- O
Z
CY) Ol
? C
U) w
CD m
LLI M
\ Tye _ _ - ? ? ?--
- ---A LLI .r._.
CL ?. Lf
0 C\l
) D
U,
IAA O
S.R. 1156
/
fray ?l(
Creels • ? ^?11
?.LJ
40
142
cz E
/ -?S•?,,13 ; ?? _NoRThI CAROLINA O O
4 7 SOUTH CAROLINA
cli 0-
t S
z Jo S. R
z •ON
tip J) ¦
M??O ass
W
Cc
r:
U
c a
M n
M 3
U
O ul
Z Z 00
Lu a
it a
_? ai x a
w r m? m w m m m w S m r m w w r r m
' N
• I.-
0
O N
O
C)
II
T O
z
C"
C
p_) co
ro
?- Colo
Jo N
,?----J? ? oN 64iM T
V LO
98
r?olk \\\?z?! S acl?? 4o O
Southern
S. R
°\?? Wql 1122
\? I L
91 ker
J???\\ Brgiicl? \ \
-ice
C
Z I Z ^
\ ?° I I
O O
Al re
c?Qr Branch \\? `` _?// = I .C ? W
s S.R ? ?p9 '?' o o Q O
ck?
r4
C)
ui «
C 7.
61.. U
U) ¢
.A
.?.J 0
ui
M
Ua
o -) o i?
1.1A rr cc
l?? C7 a a ?
-cc U)
IJ N T R
m = r m = M S m r . , . ,.I.. . . ? ?

up of methane gas that could occur in drainage conduits and inlets. Correspondence with the City of
Charlotte involving this site can be found in Appendix E. Temporary construction easements will be
' required.
NCDOT's Geotechnical Unit has conducted a field reconnaissance survey to determine which facilities
with USTs might be impacted by the proposed improvements. Five facilities with registered underground
' storage tanks were identified which may be impacted by the alignment (see Appendix E). The sites which
may be impacted include Shell/Handy Pantry #62, Arrowood Amoco, Crown/Fast Fare, Ray's Quick
Shop/Chevron and the Fast Fare/Circle K. The Geotechnical Unit is currently conducting site
' assessments at each location to determine if contamination exists. The findings of this assessment, along
with any remediation required, will be discussed in the subsequent document. NCDOT's Geotechnical
Unit has also identified one (1) unregistered site (an abandoned gas station) which may be impacted by the
proposed improvements (see correspondence, Appendix E). NCDOT's Geotechnical Unit is conducting
further investigations of the above mentioned site. The results of this investigation and any mitigation
will also be discussed in the subsequent environmental document.
1 4.14 Secondary Impacts
Roadway improvements may stimulate indirect effects (secondary impacts) which are not directly related
to the construction of the facility. These secondary impacts may include such items as more rapid land
development or changed patterns of social or economic activities. It is difficult to accurately gauge
secondary impacts quantitatively; however, generalized secondary impacts may be noted based on similar
projects in similar areas. Roadway improvements such as the proposed NC 49 widening tend to stimulate
more rapid development in areas adjacent to or nearby the improved roadway. This trend is usually more
noticeable in areas where development pressures already exist. The project will likely stimulate some
additional development adjacent to the roadway.

Effects to the biological community can also occur in a secondary manner. Accelerated development
encouraged by the highway improvement may lead to the conversion of biologically productive land to
other uses sooner than if the improvements were not made. The land surrounding the project corridor is
developing at a rapid pace in the north sector and at a moderate pace in the south sector so secondary
impacts could occur. A number of mixed use and residential developments are planned for the south part
of the project corridor. Additional development of all types may be stimulated because of the improved
access for commuters who wish to live in a more rural environment.
4.15 Special Permits Required of the Division of Highways
Based on the information currently available, it is anticipated that general permit No. CESAW-CO82-N-
000-0031 (bridge general permit) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be applicable for the
proposed improvements at Sugar Creek. NCDOT will work closely with the Regulatory Branch of the
Corps to review final plans prior to construction. Incidental fill associated with the bridge extensions over
waterways including Sugar Creek, and the South Fork Catawba River (Lake Wylie) may be permitted
under a General Permit (Permit #198200031). Receipt of 401 Water Quality Certification issued by the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources' Division of Environmental Management is
also required.
As stated earlier, Nationwide Permits 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) and (26) are expected to apply in those areas
where construction results in perpendicular crossings of small headwater tributaries and impacts the
single PEM pocket less than I acre in size.
47
1 5.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
In accordance with the planning objectives, policies and procedures of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways, public participation is an essential element in the environmental
assessment process. Coordination with appropriate governmental agencies and organizations occurred at
the outset of the project as part of the "scoping" process.
"Scoping" consisted of sending a letter to key agencies and officials requesting input in determining and
classifying any outstanding issues relative to the project. The scoping letter is included in Appendix E
prior to key comment letters received as described in the Agency and Public Comments section below.
In addition to the "scoping" process, an initial citizen's information workshop was held on Thursday,
September 10, 1992, in the cafeteria of Olympic High School to give residents of the project area an
opportunity to comment on the project. Prior to the workshop, a mailing list was developed and a flyer
was mailed to approximately 195 citizens and officials to inform them of the workshop. Approximately
40 persons, including residents, local officials, and staff attended the workshop. The workshop was held
in an informal, question and answer format. Maps showing the proicct corridors were displayed on the
wall to provide participants with an overview of the project. A number of comments were received at the
workshop and in writing from persons voicing their viewpoints on alternative alignments. These
comments were taken into account in the planning and preparation of preliminary design alternatives.
A second citizen's information workshop was held on Thursday, February 24, 1994, in the cafeteria of
Olympic High School to show the public preliminary design alternatives and present recommendations.
Prior to the workshop, invitations to the citizen's information workshop were sent to approximately 200
citizens and officials listed on the mailing list to inform them of the workshop. Approximately 74 persons
were in attendance. An informal question and answer format was used for the workshop. Verbal and
written comments were received. Generally, the comments were favorable. Specific comments were
received with respect to placement of nncdian openings, project scheduling, and noise abatement requests.
' A design public hearing will be held in 1994. The purpose of this hearing will be to furnish residents
with the recommended alternative and associated impacts. Property owners, residents and other interested
citizens will be given the opportunity to express their views on the social, economic and environmental
effects the project will have on the community and on them personally. Data will be presented to acquaint
' the public with specific design features, describe the alternatives considered and review major impacts.
Notification of the design public hearing will be provided. Maps, exhibits and other graphic material will
be available for inspection to facilitate understanding of the proposed innprovenucnts.
5.1 Agency and Public Comments
The following federal, state and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this
environmental assessment (an asterisk denotes the agencies that submitted comments):
Centralina Council of Governments
* Charlotte Department of Transportation
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
* Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission
* Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Mayor of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners, Chairman
* Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection
* Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Departnncnt
* Mecklenburg Utility Department
48

' * NC Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse
* NC Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
NC Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services
NC Department of Public Instn?ction
NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
* Division of Environmental Management
* Division of Forest Resources
* Division of Land Resource
* Division of Parks and Recreation
* Division of Soil and Water Conservation
* Planning and Assessment
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission
' Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture
US Environmental Protection Agency
* US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Geological Survey
r Key comments from these agencies are included in Appendix E. Written requests for input from
appropriate agencies and governmental bodies were requested. The project has been closely coordinated
with local officials and property owners in the area. No major problems or objections to the proposed
connector have been received.

11
1

49

t
J
1
J

i]

1
APPENDIX A
Estimated 1998/2018 Average Daily Traffic

U-2512
Mecklenburg County
September, 1992
PVC-49
From the Buster Boyd Bridge to North of Tyvola Road
Estimated 1998/2018 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
TYVOLA
ROAD
r,9,rr ? ?gji'?s
A<>
v?AR r?' oP ? ?.
?0?`?" / q
' X20'9
00
SR-1155 9
1 0
1
-1157
f 20
,* r -?
r f q '>& ?•` M c D 0 W E L L
1- FARMS
4
DRIVE
.? r49
61 -? r49
JA ?1 r
A i QkoM# i of 0

i
i
U-2512
Mecklenburg County
September, 1992
NC-49
From the Buster Boyd Bridge to North of Tyvola Road
Estimated 1998/2018 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
A -
21 Of f 0
?I
s
2114, $
-LI
9
1 ?- {-5 14
r r GRETNA GREEN
$ DEVELOPMENT
201 5
U
z W 1 t 206
g 6 194 6 ?- L
YORKDALE 1 ` I ?1- g
DRIVE 5 11
s -}
5 -?
? r
?? 9 5
5
2 14
I ?U4
a?. ]-?
9
WHITEHALL 0 5 199
ROAD ?- j
0
a? 5 19g
5 ?.
20 1 1204
4 L 2
1 B 6
THORNFIELD
l r fl ROAD
11
1 8 5
203 r 203
6
B'
ShPP_t 9 of 9

U-2512
Mecklenburg County
September, 1992
NC-49
' From the Buster Boyd Bridge to North of Tyvola Road
Estimated 1998/2018 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
B
2031 120 s'
201 2
+ ?3 5
YORK HILLS
DRIVE
?- 5
20 ? 3
r 204 I ?O
Lg
1U1 7Z s
8
} LONGDALE
1 r
PROPOSED 0 1 DRIVE
ARROWOOD ROAD 11
EXTENSION Z 208 1 21
?
¦ \,` 3t3s 1 5 R a
ROPOSED ?0 e i-
ARLOTTE
..I } ?-? ? AR OD
OUTER LOOP 3132 -j
ROAD
\ ? 188
? I
6 121
? j Ac ?/x
/
0
s
n
,qhPP_t q of 9
t
t
U-2512
Mecklenburg County
September, 1992
NC-49
From the Buster Boyd Bridge to North of Tyvola Road
Estimated 1998/2018 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
0
TOWNSHIP
ROAD
SR-1410
r
1
SR-1344
1-94 29 r?@
so
'-a-Qq-1 1 r,?pQ
yy nn ?, 189 a
4 r±cG
4 -? r
4 4 r ?K
i s f 1
1 L P6
35
1831
(? 1
f24
R
gul r r
8?
1ZI-3 1 r
6
1
2
5 158
.j 1

4 1 8

4 'i
,6 1 r ,6
no
`1
SR-1128
Sheet 4 of ?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

SR-1344
MOSS
ROAD
U-2512
Mecklenburg County
September, 1992
NC-49
From the Buster Boyd Bridge to North of Tyvola Road
Estimated 1998/2018 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
I$
Q/ 62
L$
y
1r
i 51 ?8
1Z6
L.L
2
165 2
?r1Aa7
0
1 ?
3 5 ?r
7 4 r
4, 11 1?1`QO 10 0
222x, 1 r 2j?
LZ
$ 9 20
20 L
6
9 -? "--
11 2%
6
11
E 2? 22$
14
2 7'-
SR-1347
27
SR-1348
e`

1a
f 63
SR-1441
SR-1122
t
U-2512
Mecklenburg County
September, 1992
NC-49
From the Buster Boyd Bridge to North of Tyvola Road
Estimated 1998/2018 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
F
6 195
47
1
SR-112 0
- s 12 87
1Q 21 195
21
97
216 1 216
17
199 3 0 STEPHENDALE
l' DRIVE
30
a 92 4
199 13
Z 2 r 2
19
193 t
7 9 z JA
1 15 4 SR-1122
7 I- 1a
MC-160 193 5
2 8 1
\ 28
?Q
3 192 13 13
19*
\ ,c- s
J.
-?
a __ l r
19, 192 71
0
F 2? }
/2ji
t

Q
U-2512
Mecklenburg County
September, 1992
NC-49
From the Buster Boyd Bridge to North of Tyvola Road
Estimated 1998/2018 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
F
2g l?r
P
r r
22> I
SR-1116 2?C'
13 22 /
28
r3 ? l l
?$ 4, 2
29?t2?
t
! ¢'?21
2 10
2 209 2r

n1
]I
24
.1.?
24
F'

SR-1109 N
SR-1109 S
BIRNAMWOOr
LANE
C 1 ? 7 .-.4

U-2512
Mecklenburg County
September, 1992
' 14C-49
From the Buster Boyd Bridge to North of Tyvola Road
Estimated 1998/2018 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
1 \
1
' WDOWELL PARK
ROAD

8
y

8

/Y 1%.

2oF?2 32
r ?
? a
? ?3° T? a
1g 3 T 4
S?
228
ire C; 1
..i ? 9
3 71
?T9
)YI

0
SR-1110

G,
MAJESTIC
OAK
ROAD
Sheet 8 of ?
' U-2512
Mecklenburg County
September, 1992
NC-49
' From the Buster Boyd Bridge to North of Tyvola Road
Estimated 1998/2018 Average Daily Traffic in Hundreds
1

t---",

14
HI
111

I

1

APPENDIX B
Typical Sections, Preferred Alignment
and Profiles

N
LL
i O
co -
W f-
? N
91
r
t
g -
VI (V
8
40
z
W
W

a
8
a
to
00 ? --
K
W
60
S f- Gi
°z
1 Z
pQ Z
U > H
V) O a U
U or
U_ ~
CL
1} - - -?
? ?111

Z
? f-

\l Z

g ?
o

< ?_
°' U
N

U

40

i 8&
m m= m= m m= m m=== r= m um-.-?

N 1
Cl
x
O
N

O Z ? O
Y
??-Mvw

Lij
Z~~wcr
N U
O W =
pOooW
L)
\
\ 3
'(a
OZ?CD
? :D

\\

O m

) _j
Q W
Z
J w
\
x 0 >
10 E
L o
WW n-F?-
W

?~ W

F-

Q) ?
N L;l
o
cr-
I Q
N
I ?
N
I
I W
1
4
I
? 2
N
\

\ U-i
L
L J
+

L
2 j ? N
I
ti

a I
O
ti
ct: j N

?
LLJ
I
;
V
o
W
Q:
a ?
m W li cn U

Q:: Llj

O L, ? o
I ?
V)
,

I z

Q V

I
I ?

1 U-j

/ N
/
i
/ O
/
/
/ O
I
I d-

1 I
1
I
I

,•
?m ;
> n
mm.?m n
uzoo
0c?9
<2
O rn 0
zc: mv) oox?
00ZO?o ? E, o
C) Z m W 2 O
'J ox o z >
y 7y
Cm00
T N?Zm
M ZC
m N Z
m ?> O
W
N
G?
D
D
r
m
1 ?
1 ?
1
O 1
1 ?
1 ?
1 ?
N '
1 _
O '
1
O
1 ?
1 ?
1 ?
1 -
1 -
O 1
O C
-o m
O v
U)
m
0 0 ?
o ? ?p
O
= m
O m
m Z
0 1
° D ?
O
r
o
?n a
m
M
4i L r lI
0 v
'i1 - ° w
N co IV
?O _ S)
?i
nj
BEGIN PRn lr„_ _
r -
m
O
m
z
v
SOUTH CAROLINA
i
NORTH CAROLINA
Y

vi
y ,? S
14
t
r r = m m = m _ = m m r r= _ m = "
" ,

yrt???
iTF
u-,
r ??n
:r
. A +?a
f,?l
b, t

3NIIHOIVVY
N
U-
0
N
W
W
(n
O
Z
W
C7
W
J

'a O
p
oo
W Q
2 ?L
W =
>
O
CC p
CL O p
,d.
W
(A
O O
> O
Q o?
a. E
O
O
O
? i
O
O
i
W
J
Q
U
(n
U_
a.
Q
0
N
Cb
W
U Z R OC
? O 'n
N
C7Z?
a? C7

C-L

O 0 0
Q Q za? M
OO

O
a
?.
wmp .-
=
Z
F
°? f1 O C7
U
a. z $F- O
c
OfN¢=Z
`tm
O
a.
x
N O U J
U f'
Zw
OC7w

Z A r
F > n
O
a a? 0OZCO cr
a
w
LL -j

e U?
L cn

s ?
" m m m m m m m m r s m m m m m m s a

F- Q o
co co
Z
w
2
w ti
O
H
=
>
O
OC

o w
a0 iu a
-
O
W (A U
O cn
CL U
a- CL Q
ir
O C7
o
O
N
O
O
i
j
N
W m
O Z N CL
0,-
z Q , LL
O =
Q
hO IZO
m ? FL-u CC M
-
ZzoC7n WC130 .Z CD
a a o" ?Nm=)Z
U 0 Z .1. am UF-
xW,0 U UWQUU
rn ZT>C7L-U,
°z l iz ooz°
LE
19 ??.?_ +I ? N

' i

N
LL. Chi
FO ZN S
J Q
N U.
o? o19 QZ ¢a?-
a O mN2
oz >0 coc
d ZO U, W0Wz
oHw ozo
o
o z x amaOD Z,
U owo u
o ? ZF?M-o
A a x1 2 mCC
00 Zn.

a
? m
Dn
n
m m T
--1 :0
ZOO
z
co ??
O O
OC
-I
n?Omn n b
1o?2? x z o n
ZCMN O O o y
oo?oyp > Or
a?Zmwo 7 x?x z
w Om D d
OZ[o O v? y
N ? 70
CDOO -3
m N Z m
? cn O
c E:
N y
m D
N
C,
z
n ?
Ire

O ' D

7 N
O
O

O
i
' :1o
<< r
n rn
'a v
m d

=
O
< r, o
z
n

m
m

o -v
O
cn
o m
O m
Z
v D
O

=
O
m
71 9
O m
Ti Z
O '
o
0 D N

e 1
?I/

r
N
W Ch
O Z N OC
w p In NO
(D z
9 2
6
9
O m 2
>-
M
a z}? coa
z ?O++ yj WmWZtO
0 cc 04
Hx O ANmZ O
?Z
U o z x vmgo?-
N O U V w 0 U
z s Z?>?-?
O
Z A a"? m 0OZa
LL J
2N
14' ?)
i
j.
1
}
Q O

z
W I
LL
Q co
2 L
W ?
=
> UI
O
CC CC O
W

? U
Z ? O
W W CL U
W
O a
Q Lr
J it a Q
cr
1 O 0

1 O
1 N
? i

O
1

3
'i
f
3
41n
'An
h? r tt:: 'i? a a / `k 4
i
s f
m = = = = = = m = m = m = = m m r r

O
O w
U
U
Q
cr
O C7
O
O
N
O
O
d

i

N
01
p ZN K
O C7
U' Z
p < V N LL
O?
O m 'Z ¢w _
w d ?
C
A C70??,
O0 VQ W m,Zt2
..1 F Cycu<r Cp
Q p0 Of""cc OZ
U a0 z x 11mQOF
5 Z ZI-=0c7w
od4 >
Z A a W g?m'o
OOZa?L
LL - J F-
2
y

G1
D
u
n
n
D
r
m
(?
y m i Zoli
UZOO
O co
?tDoo ro C7 z
ormmo
i x O ro
ODCA z O n
oz C7ocntD OOy?p
oc o
'4ZXO? 7 a
o-?IZOO > b
fn co O y y
Cy Op
? Nm Zm
G1 LnO
D t- O
m
W
N
0
0
N
O
O
D
O C
0 m
O 0
o m
0 --0
o M
O O
2 m
? m
O m
m Z
00
0
D cn

}
x
m ;
m
R
00 ^' y ?: . ray ,

n
m r m r m m m m m m m m m m r m m m----

U)

z
w Q

LL
o O
°°
W =

D >
o
ft CD

M

U)

0

w

v
LU W 0. U
W Q
n.
a
cc a
Q
cc
O 0
O
? O

? i
O
O

if

N
w m
[C Z&
¢
z J r
LLJ
F{fy?'j'11 (DZ(rN LL
AAU?
¢y
a G mz
A Q CDp?? M
z wmwzw
J H OwQ?oO
da°0 3NXDz°
Jcz v,ao
a. 0
z) U UW0VU
Z >
0 d
o9L A a p ??m'o,
CL
xOJH
UJ N
r
r? r r? r r? r r? r? rr rr r r? r r? r? r
D
-o
C7
n
D
r
m
m
D? m
N?
zoo
0CCU:?3 r o
mz?
Or yy
2OCDCi. C1 z 70d
i0
O
4ZXO? a Z
O
0 ZOO mv
IV)M ^ O to
CDOO 7?
z C)
T N
C o
-C
N
m z
D O
N

i

r
z
of
i
I
I
i
}E
t
i
i
z
1
i
t

w N
o0
Z N
J
IlJ O
oz"
Q ?
U- ¢

U

LL
h
O
A
ZO W QN
m 2 '-
? Do Cc
ZmoZc?c
C ¢ ? ?
? Co?Q?ap
3Ncc
°
¢ a c?
U a 0 x
v? U ?z
vmgOF-
ZWOO
w

z A a W
??
O
(D
??m¢
Q°ww
LL YQ
LLJ N
I
m m = = m = = r
G'1
C
m
m
ao
N
MO
71
mM T
HM
mca mG z
°c<?ir
z S
n omo
?o?cmp z 0
ZCZmtn o O
rn < °om 4502 to-
WoX?z v
v,mvG? a
OH ZW oy
V) m
CDOp
N0Zm
j0
Nzz Y Om
L7
D
.D
N
n
D
r
m
o
O
O '
O
O
O C
0 m
O v
U)
o m
O
O
2 m
? rn
O m
z
co '
0 n
D ccn
r
m
M
m
Z
v
m = = m m
i ? ' ? I i

I

1

1
APPENDIX C
Relocation Report

UE:L-OCATION REPORT
E E.LS. Ej CORRMOR r)ESIGN

North Carolina Department of Transportation
ARKk RELOCATION OFFICE
REVISED
PROJEcr. 8.1673501 COUNTY MoCldcnb Aft=&e S-4
I.D. NO.: T J-2512 F.A. PROJECT STP-4
DESettIPTION OF no cr: N.C. 49 from Buster Boyd Bridge at South Carolina State Line to Tyvola
Ro ad Lvmslm C,liadott e
.?vn¢ ?? ,•.n„ • r . -0S4 ;? ,• rxvx}v?::.x w:., ••}yti; ;S?G`?

P of T
Own enants Total Mmonties 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-30M SOUP
Individuals O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Famma 7 0 7 0 0 5 0 2 0
Busuuases 1 1 2 0 ,,•.,,?;?. ':i;.
Fames 0 0 0 0 O*ners Tenants For S ale For Rent
Non-profit 0 0 0 0 0-MM 0 t0•i60 0 0-MM 0 lain 0

r 1.1,x..x;,,
n-41M 1 isa250 p 2wasc 24 {
lsa-= 0
Y.. No twin all "YES" amwmm 44670" S 2%4" 0 40-70M 41 250400 S
X 1. WM special relocation samioes be necessary? 71'-100K 1 4os-see 0 70.1"" 49 40e?a 11
X 2 Wilt schools or el?as be aMet by 110 m 0 i00 m 0 100 UP 59 MW 6
AwiJIMM TOTAL, 7 0 163 25
X 3_ Will business services stM be wvegable attar x; ?j}}? -?i ?•? . .a, , :r
project?
X 4. Wilt anybasineas be displaoad? If so. 3. No petmauQant displacement otbashwa m
indictee suer type;, est0nded number of
employees, mine its etc. 4. (1) Conshmedon company, 1400 square fast, tow employees.
R 5_ WM relocation cause a houms shortep? one mbdority.
6. Souroa for available housing Gist). (2) Accmalug oMcr, 300 square fast; two empl0yesiN ao
R 7. WM additional housing pro pms needed? ndW% ltT
X 8_ Should last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled. eldcdy, etc. 6. MIS, newspapers, ReattOroV, real aside pubHca on* ow
& MTM? ground canvassin& and apartment gWdes.
10- Wilipublio houang be needed for project!
11- Is public housing avwlabla? & WIG be admbdsfered according to Stars law.
12. Is it felt there wM be adequate DSS housing
housin avaffia& during rdocatian period?
13. Will them be a problem of housing widda
fin Mrw maans?
14. Are sortable business sites available (list
scum)-
15. Number mouths estimated to left
RELOCATIaN?
1
1...a
' Abort Dots
F? M4 anboi SM r
0
AMovedby - D AS
Orletwl & t CwT- sai. a load= A$"
2 Caff Acs. RslowfM 02SM

' RELOCATION REPORT

North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OH'P'ICL
E.I.S. FY-1 ? CORRIDOR 1:1 DESIGN REVISED
PRomer 8.1673501 COUNTY MmIdenburg Altarnata S-5
I.D. NO.: U-2512 F.A. PROJECT STP-4 2
DESCRn oN OF PROJBGT: N.C. 49 vvidening from Buster Boyd Bridge at South Card= State Line W Twla
Road ExpmWon, Cladatt o
41: T
? ? l?
C'i • .T•'?C.:'?e?Sir?i•
'?t }?+:i?SLL{?'''.'4•+.?S;S;S T.,R • • i- :Y?r i 'ti ti• r r ,
, .
,
Type of
Displacees Owners
Tenants Total Minoddes
0-15M 15.25M 25-35M 35-MM 30 UP
badividnals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FMOM 10 10 0
0
2 11 1
6
0 I 4 ....... 'f :c{
.............
Fauns 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenoft For Stale For R oot
Non - Profit 0 0 0 0 0-MM 0 $ a-M p $-me 0 = a-M 0
,+ti-:fjtiti }};7,:{: ?k?fi:!?? ia•}}X^?::::xti?::}r;}i{:s}j ??C i no-M a 14 M• a
TO NO I lakn aU *YES" wn*wL 4e••70M 5 2st•4m 0 4e•7e![ 41 ?4e0 8
X satvloes be necessau?
WM s mdd relocation
1 26-10mc 3 40-M 0 78-INK 49 46"M 11
X ,
.
2_ Will schools or abrmahes be afied by M vp 11 1 sto m 01 1 toe ? 59 ae u: 6
wp m? ?OW. 10 0 163
X WM business services still be avaiable a8ar
3 f= Ns c x:, . .?+,»'3 , •r
.
project?
X 4. WM any busi ore be displaced? If so, 3. No permanat disphcoment of businesse&
mdioaft aim type, estimated number of
employees, minors. cir. 4. (1) Consuvcdon company, 1400 sgmuv fe*4 fore' empbyvss
x 5. Will relocadan cause a housing shortage? ona mmivrit,r,
6. Somae for available housing (list).
X 7. WM additionalhousmg pros needed? 6. MI•St, newslwpas, R=ttors*, rest eslab pubHcaft" on-
X 8. Sbouid Lest Resort Housing bowed? ground canvassing. and apartmaait guides.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elde#. ata-
finill 8. WW be admtnlstuvil according to Shit law.
10. WM publla housing be seeded for project?
11. Is public housing avaW)la?
12. Is rtfbltthecawMbe adegneLe DSS housing
housing avmW9ft diming relocation period?
13. Wiii thane be a problem of housing withIIS
?naryCSalmeans4
14. Are suitable buskms sites avidWAs (list
Somtx).
15. Numbermonths estimated to late
2ZLOCAMOr .
1
FMS t0. na-d
Approved by D94
orwwd a r copy: 8tdzRs10eadon AVJt
2 CopT A[TSM0C2d** 0M-

' RELOCATION REPORT

x? E.I.S. 11 CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
' PROJECT: 8.1673501 COUNTY Mec
I.D. NO.: U-2512 F.A. PROJECT STP-
' DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: N.C. 49 widening
from
----------------------

Buster Boyd Bridge at South Carolina State Line to
Road Extension, Char]

North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
REVISED
lenburg Alternate N-4C
49(2)
ottc
__
-
of
E
cees
Disp
1 Owners Tenants Total Minorities
Individuals 0 0 0 0
Families 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0
Farins 0 0 0 0
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0
::: i4t Ii:4 7 t$ :::......:::: : :
Y" No FAphdn aU "YES" answers.
1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affect by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available after
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
It. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?
1
elocation Agent Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5M
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
.f D)M !!S.S!Et.E:tDtt:::: `::::JDAk3: DA?83C1E c3Y
Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
0-20M 0 $ 8-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
2040M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 14 160-250 0
40-70M 0 230-400 0 40-70M 41 250-400 g
70.100M 0 408-600 0 70-100M 49 400-600 it
100 UP
TOTAL 0
0 600 UP p
0 100 UP 59
163 600 UP 6
25
NO RELOCATION
Approved by Date
original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION REPORT
1
Fx] E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
REVISED
PROJECT: 8.1673501 COUNTY Meddenburg Alternate N-5
I.D. NO.: U-2512 F.A. PROJECT STP-4 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: N.C. 49 widening from Buster Bo yd Bridge at South Carolina State Line to Tyyola
Road Extenai0 Charlotte
:..
::::
= =
Type of
Displazzes Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0
?!1k1E4.
p
E:t. :::::::=:: 1D14
`:::
D1?Ctitrt
tt
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rta?1t
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 so-ISO 0 0-nm 0 = 01se 0
.:: ::::: :::: :: `• .... 2040M 0 150250 0 2e-410M 14 1511-250 Q
Yes No F- Vldn till "YES" answers. W70M 0 2504" 0 4070M 41 2504" g
1- Will special relocation services be necessary? 701"M 0 4W"$ 0 70100M 49 06'6110 11
2. Will schools or churches be affect by 1" ur 0 too ur 0 100 UP 59 60911P 6
displacement? TOTAL Q 0 163 25
3. Will business services still be available after
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? NO RELOCATION
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?
Relocation Agent Date
Form 15.4 Reined SM
Approved by Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office

J

APPENDIX D
Individual Water/Wetland Crossings

1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
Table D1
Wetlands/Water Crossings
NC 49
Mecklenburg County
Acres
Map Wetland Width of N4S N4C * N5 Comments
Number Type Wetland/Water
Crossings (feet)
1 B-B Trib1 50 -- - -- Sugar Creek (Bridged)
2 B-B Trib 3 0.004 0.004 0.004 Trib. to Sugar Creek
3 PEM2 80 0.055 0.018 0.055 Adjacent to trib. #2, east side
only
4 B-B Trib 15 0.021 0.021 0.021 Coffey Creek
5 B-B Trib 3 0.004 0.004 0.004 Trib. to Coffey Creek
6 B-B Trib 6 0.008 0.008 0.008 Trib. to Coffey Creek
7 B-B Trib 10 0.015 0.015 0.015 Steele Creek
Northern Segment Total 0.107 0.070 0.107
S4 S5
8 B-B Trib 3 - 0.006 Trib. to Steele Creek, east side
only
9 B-B Trib 1 0.002 0.002 Trib. to Steele Creck
10 B-B Trib 10 0.017 0.018 Polk Ditch
11 Pond - -- West Side of Road, 100 feet
from existing row (100'X 50')
12 B-B Trib 61 0.002 0.002 Trib. to Polk Ditch
13 B-B Trib 26 0.010 0.011 Walker Branch
14 B-B Trib 42 0.003 0.004 Trib. to Walker Branch
15 B-B Trib 34 0.007 0.007 Porter Branch
16 B-B Trib 3 0.005 0.006 Trib. to South Fork Catawba
River
17 B-B Trib -- - -- South Fork Catawba River
Southern Segment Total 0.046 0.056
1"B-B Trib" denotes a bank to bank tributary.
2PEM: Palu strine Emergent Wetland.
* N4C and S4 are the Preferred Alternatives.

APPENDIX E

t

s
t

a
Scoping Letter and Responses

1

JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
t

d ,,. S?ATF
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
September 18, 1992
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Dear
:
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for the Proposed NC 49 Widening
From Tyvola Road Extension to the South Carolina State Line,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, T.I.P. No. U-2512, State
Project No. 8.1673501
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, has retained the firm of CRS Sirrine Engineers, Inc., Raleigh,
North Carolina, to conduct environmental and design studies and prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the proposed widening of NC 49 from its
intersection with W. Tyvola Road to the South Carolina State Line in
Mecklenburg County (see attached map). As an integral part of this study,
we are soliciting input from agencies and individuals concerning the
potential impact of the proposed project on any structure or feature within
the project limits and the impacts this project may have upon social,
economic
cultural
h
sical or biolo
ic
l
diti
i
h
,
, p
y
g
a
con
ons
n t
e area.
The proposed improvement is included in the 1993-1999 Transportation
Improvement Program (T.I.P.). State T.I.P. Project No. U-2512 provides for
additional lanes and safety improvements along this section of roadway.
The length of the project is approximately 10.3 miles. Right-of-way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1996 with construction
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1998.
The scope of the proposed project consists generally of upgrading the
existing two-lane NC 49 to a multi-lane facility from Tyvola Road Extension
to the South Carolina State Line. Two major alternatives have been
identified: the Do-Nothing Alternative and the Improve Existing Facilities

September 18, 1992
Page 2
1
Alternative. The project will be located on existing alignment (except
where modifications are necessary to satisfy current design standards) to
utilize available right-of-way along the roadwa
T
ical secti
t
b
y.
yp
ons
o
e
evaluated include.
N 1) Tyvola Road Extension to Carowinds Boulevard:
A 64-foot five lane curb and gutter section with continuous center
turn lane.
2) Carowinds Boulevard to South Carolina State Line:
A four-lane rural section with a 46-foot median evaluated with regard
to symmetrical, east-side, and/or west-side widening about the
existing centerline. Also, a five lane section may be considered
' through this area.
Due to the abandoned landfill located west of NC 49 at Tyvola Road, one
alignment alternative will be considered between Beam Road and Tyvola Road
Extension, a distance of approximately 1.25 miles. Widening to the east
will be evaluated utilizing the typical sections listed in 1) above.
No access control is expected for the proposed project. There are
currently five traffic signals at major intersections within the limits of
the project. Other intersections along the project are stop sign
controlled and will remain so unless future traffic warra
t
i
t
ll
ti
n
s
a
a
ns
on
of a signal.
It is anticipated that the project will have minimal effects on the natural
and human environment. In the northern sector of the project from Tyvola
Road Extension to Carowinds Boulevard, the adjacent roadside lane uses
consist of a suburban mixture of subdivision development (both single
family and multi-family), industrial/service developments, retail
commercial strip centers, several churches, and some rural residential uses
and scattered farm fields. The southern section, from Carowinds Boulevard
to the South Carolina State Line, is more rural in character with scattered
farmland, small stands of woodlands, a major county park, and scattered
rural residential development. Recreational/lake-oriented development
exists at the southern limit of the project. No neighborhoods will be
split or disrupted by the project. Residential and business relocations
are anticipated to be minimal.

Three major drainage crossings and other intermittent drainage crossings
will be maintained through the proposed project. The key drainage areas
are tributaries of Steele Creek, Coffey Creek and Sugar Creek. Impacts are
anticipated to be minimal.
The North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) includes a
project, T.I.P. No. B-3004, to replace the Buster Boyd Bridge (Bridge No.
23) over the Catawba River at the southern terminus of the NC 49 Widening
project. This project, located at the South Carolina State line, will be
coordinated with the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public
Transportation (SCDHPT). Alternatives to be evaluated at the bridge
include constructing a separate parallel structure to accommodate a four

September 18, 1992
Page 3

lane divided highway section on the bridge approach and widening, the
existing structure to accommodate a five lane approach section. These
alternatives will be studied for east side and/or west side widening.
The best usage classification system for the Catawba River in this area is
Class WS-3 & B which designates the River as a water supply source with no
categorical restriction on watershed development. It also indicates that
the River is used primarily for recreational purposes.

Exposure index warrants will be evaluated for the Southern Railway crossing
of NC 49 just north of Carowinds Boulevard to determine if an overpass is
required.
Field investigation and evaluations will be conducted to identify aquatic
and biotic communities in the project area and to assess the impact of the
proposed project on these communities. Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), a federally-listed and state-listed endangered species of
plant, will need to be investigated for presence in the project area. The
corridor will be reviewed in the field for the presence of this species
during its flowering season in August/early September. No federally-listed
or state-listed animals are known at this time to be in the study area.
Historic/architectural resource studies will be conducted to determine the
presence of all significant or potentially significant historic resources
as defined by the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places.
1 The historic resource surveys will be conducted in compliance with state
and federal regulations.
A decision regarding the level of archaeological work to be conducted for
this project will be based upon the State Historic Preservation Office
staff's comments on archaeological resources.
I
A survey will be conducted of the project area to identify abandoned
service stations and other major potential sources of hazardous waste
contamination. Initial field investigations showed no evidence of such
sites within the project limits.
Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for
this project. This letter, therefore, constitutes solicitation for scoping
comments related to this project.
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 our consultants to stay on schedule and for your input to be
includes in their draft report, please respond by November 2, 1992.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact Ms. Leigh
Cobb, Project Engineer, Consultant Coordination Unit, NCDOT Planning and
Environmental Branch at [phone].
' Sincerely yours,
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
LC/plr Planning and Environmental Branch

r
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Field Supervisor
District Chief
Geological Survey
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
P. 0. Box 30728
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622
i
Fish & Wildlife Service
Endangered Species Field Station
1 330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Mr. T. Rodney Autrey
Chairman
Mecklenburg County Commissioner
600 E. Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

t
t
Environmental Review Branch
Environmental Protection Agency, Reg. IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Field Supervisor
Fish & Wildlife Service
Fish & Wildlife Enhancement
P. 0. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
The Honorable Richard Vinroot
Mayor of Charlotte
600 E. Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-2853
L
I
Mr. Martin
R Cramton, Jr., Director
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Comm.
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
1 Mr. Gerald Fox
Mecklenburg County Eng. Dept.
700 N. Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Manager
Mecklenburg County
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
CouMr.nty Keith Carpenter

Director
Charlotte Parks and Recreation Dept.
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
i
r Mr. Wayne Weston, Director
Mecklenburg County Park & Rec. Dept.
700 N. Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
t
Chairman
Mecklenburg Board of County Comm.
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Chairman
2005 Transportation Plan
Advisory Committee
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Mr. Joseph T. Lesch
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Comm.
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Mr. 0. Wendell White
City Manager
City of Charlotte
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Mr. Bobbie Shields
Mecklenburg County Eng. Dept.
700 N. Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Ms. Nancy Brunnemer
Mecklenburg County Park & Rec. Dept.
700 N. Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Chairman
Charlotte-Mecklenburg MPO
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Mr. R. N. Pressley, Jr.
Charlotte Department of Trans.
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Mr. Clark Reading
City Engineer
City of Charlotte
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

1

n
J
rl

e
Chairman
Southwest District Study Group
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Comm.
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Chairman
Greenway Site Selection Committee
Mecklenburg County Park & Rec. Dept.
700 N. Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Mr. Joseph T. Lesch
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Comm.
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Mr. R. N. Pressley, Jr.
Charlotte Dept. of Transportation
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Chairman
Mecklenburg Board of County Comm.
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Mr. Bob Binford
Mecklenburg County Engineering Dept.
700 N. Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Mr. Kia Whittlesoy
City Engineering Dept.
600 E. Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Chairman
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Comm.
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Mr. Bob Ferrell
Environmental Section
South Carolina DOT
P. 0. Box 191
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Ms. Nancy Brunnemer
Mecklenburg County Park and Rec. Dept.
700 N. Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Chairman
2005 Transportation Plan
Advisory Committee
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Mr. Bill Coxe
Mecklenburg County Engineering Dept.
700 N. Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Mr. Lynn Purnell
Charlotte DOT
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Councilperson Ella Scarborough
801 Braxfield Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217

I
Commissioner Edna Chirico
' P. 0. Box 561468
Charlotte, North Carolina 28256
1

a

I

Project Location
Legend
NC49 Widening from the
Project Limits Buster Boyd Bridge to
Tyvola Road Extension
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Figure 1
at1? OE NORiH C,? o,'
4
,
e ?
q ?
?9 r

Scale: 1 inch= approx 6.5 miles
I - .- N
- 0 -- -1 - 2
cf?? ?fMT OF iVk

i
c
r Peps WeBB
a
ooo
• ` ` Proposed O??? ? '
?.....
m_
'PH ieuod tpusS W
?e BHa'
U
0 p•
c'
C Ce
N ro?rk/e gNd.
E QQ
0 3° °6
cO +S a?
CL $?? TY
CD
O ? is
p m ® GV10°te Glc
C?
ma
0
6m
z?
n?
acl)
1= m
CJ N
Z,
??.
C \ cu ca r
o E
0
0
t Z n
0 ¢ o
O

N
t?' °•
'?f
? o
GTo Wo
dr?d ?s?
1rR
. p ??
ro
c
L

c ro
U
¦ c =
,
i G ooL
O W
C)
1 C:
C >• M
000
V U

O ?? C
L 0
, N
U

C_
E
1a J
C U
? N
.
O
.J CL

1-11

JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
Mr. Keith Carpenter
Project Manager
Engineering Department
City of Charlotte
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-2844

?-% .JL"1- ,g Ht"i 1 i 2

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
RE: Methane Collection Trench along NC 49
Dear Mr. Carpenter:
This is in response to your letter of July 8, 1992. The preliminary
plans which were submitted have been reviewed as requested. Regretfully, this
proposal cannot be approved at this time.
Insufficient detail has been provided in the plans to establish what
impact the proposed construction will have on the existing roadway and future
construction. We recommend that the proposed collection trench be placed off
the right of way or at the extreme limits of the right of way to avoid
conflict(s).
' If you can provide detailed plans which address the safety of the
traveling public during and after construction, and will not interfere with
construction of the future lanes of NC 49, we will be happy to review the for
an encroachment agreement. The concept of the methane collection trench is
acceptable provided sufficient details are provided with the plans.
Please contact us at [phone] if we may be of further assistance
regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Frank H. Bowen, Jr.
Encroachment Agent
FHB
Attachment
STATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
July 17, 1992
I CC: Hr. Doug Sossman, Assistant District Engineer
J

u

l?
a
[J

L'
J

1
CHARLOTTE
November 16, 1992
L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
1 n ,?
CE
O
NOV 19 1992
V
!C`4 OF
RE: City of Charlotte/Proposed Widening of North Carolina
Highway #49
Dear Mr. Ward:
I am writing in response to your September 18, 1992, letter soliciting
input concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts of the proposed
widening of NC-49 on the interests of the City of Charlotte Engineering
Department.
Your letter on page two mentions an abandoned landfill located west of
NC-49 at Tyvola Road. This is the former York Road Landfill, ,a
licensed, municipal landfill operated by the City from December 1968 to
May 1, 1986. The City currently uses this property as the York Road
Renaissance Park recreation area which includes, among other things, a
golf course, tennis courts and softball and soccer facilities. A
portion of the golf course borders part of the area involved in your
roadway widening project.
This roadway widening project could have a beneficial impact on the
City's efforts to control the migration of methane gas from the former
landfill. Methane gas is a natural by-product of decomposing material
found in a landfill. It first became an issue at the York Road
Landfill in 1984 when the migration and collection of methane gas
resulted in explosions in Southern Bell manholes.
Following this occurrence, the City hired the engineering Firm of
Henningson, Durham & Richardson ("HDR"), to develop a gas control plan
for the landfill. In its report, HDR concluded that the only
technically viable option was a pipe vent system where collection wells
containing pipes would either passively vent the methane to the
atmosphere or be connected to a fan or blower which would pull the gas
for venting to the atmosphere, incineration via a flare, or recovery
for the future use. HDR considered installation of a trench as a
barrier to methane gas migration but ultimately advised that such an
option was impractical given the fact that an effective trench would
have to be at least 60 feet deep.
Engineering Department 600 East Fourth Street Charlotte. NC 28202-2844 704/336-2201

1

1

Mr. Ward
November 16, 1992
Page 2
In April 1984, the City entered into a Lease Agreement with Getty
Synthetic Fuels for development of a system that would recover methane
gas which would then be sold by Getty as an alternative energy source.
Getty's proposed recovery system consisted of a series of collection
wells connected to a fan or blower, similar to what HDR had recommended
in its report. The lease was for two years. Due to falling energy
prices during this time, the project became uneconomical and Getty did
not renew the lease in 1986.
Even before Getty abandoned the gas recovery effort, the City had begun
to take other actions to address the methane gas issue. In February
1985, the City hired Woolpert Consultants to provide design services
for the golf course. Woolpert in turn hired Law Engineering as the
geotechnical subcontractor whose services were to include the
investigation and design of methane protection systems for the golf
course. When Getty did not renew the lease, Law included in its design
activities consideration of how to control methane at. the NC-49
property boundary. Law submitted its report regarding available
approaches for methane control in April 1987. The City received its
first Notice of Violation of methane gas migration regulations from the
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection during this
same time frame.
In the summer of 1987, the City issued a Request for Proposals for
design of a system to control methane gas along NC-49. The City
received three proposals. After a review of the proposals by City
staff and outside consultants, the city selected Getty Synthetic Fuels
for this project.
Getty began work on this project in early 1988. The system, as
designed by Getty consisted of a series of collection wells connected
to a vacuum pump which would transmit collected methane to a flare for
incineration. The system became operational in December 1988.
Immediately after the system became operational, methane levels
decreased 87 percent. Still, limited areas remained where methane
levels exceeded regulatory standards. Since then, the City has
installed additional collection wells and implemented other design
changes to address these areas. With these changes, the methane
control system has for considerable periods of time brought the entire
boundary area into regulatory compliance. There is still, however, a
limited area that, at times, exceeds regulatory standards.
In addition to the compliance issues in this one limited area, the City
has also found that the current system requires significant operations
and maintenance costs. These costs were not anticipated at the time
the system was designed and constructed. The City expects these costs
to continue to escalate over time.

Mr. Ward
' November 16, 1992
Page 3

The proposed road widening project now allows the City to consider a
system combining collection wells and a trench as an alternative
methane gas control option in this area. Previously, a trench system
of any kind was not technically or practically viable as it would
disrupt the existing NC-49 alignment. Such a disruption was then
unavoidable due to the depth of the trench and the fact that historic
waste materials from the landfill extended into the NC-49 right of
way. Now, the opportunity exists to coordinate this work with the
design and/or construction of the road widening project so as to avoid
this disruption.
' The City has successfully used such a methane gas control system at the
northeast boundary of the landfill since 1990. This evidence of proven
operation was not available when the City implemented the NC-49 venting
system in 1988. Although there is no guarantee that such a new system
will result in 100 percent regulatory compliance 100 percent of the
time, the design of such a system and the City's success with it
elsewhere increases the likelihood of a beneficial result.

Our project manager, Keith Carpenter, has been in contact with NCDOT
staff concerning the possible installation of such system along a
portion of NC-49. Due to the presence of landfill material in the
right of way, approximately 40 percent of the length of the collection
trench will be within the NCDOT right-of-way, with the remainder of the
system located on the City property. We submitted a conceptual plan
for this system to Nelson Frye of NCDOT on July 8, 1992. In his July
17, 1992 response (a copy of which is enclosed), Mr. Frye stated that
our proposal was acceptable provided that we supply sufficiently
detailed plans and an encroachment agreement. We will be responding to
Mr. Frye.
We thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this project. If
you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter
further, please contact the City's project manager, Keith Carpenter, at
[phone].
C. D
City
CDR:KAC/bsm
Enclosure
cc: R. N. Pressley, Jr-
I
Sincerely,

11

(HARLOTIT
November 18, 1993
Frank Vic
Branch Manager
Planning & Environmental
Division of Highways
NC Dept. of Transportation
Post Offico box 25201
Pn!ei;+h, NC 27611
RE: Methane Migration from York Roaa Landfill
NC49 Roadway Widening - Pro)E;ct #8.1673501
Dear Mr. Vic:
1?b E?
NOV 2 2
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS ? a
'' ONrIIE
This 1ett&17 is a follow-up to my r_'onverBations w.i.t_h Loigh Cobb, the
Project Manager for your NC49 wlideni_ng Project.
REQUE6TZI) ACTION:
1
That the NCL)01' consider` moth ane yet, migration froin thH York Road
Landfill in the design of the 11(.49 Widening Project and design thr
roadway to accommodate the migration. It the roadway can be built
t4 allow for the migration of the qas, the City will be able to
realize a savings of $250,000 that is now budgeted for construction
of the Methane Collection Trench.
BACKGROUND t
Earlier this year the City submitted a draft encroachment agreement
for a methane collection trench to the t4CDOT for review and
C0nul:?:;nt !,hF' i nt"en'- /1-F 1-},r_i riot 1 e.ot i nn -,vst'.F?m was to star) t:hA
methane from ms.grtat'ing from the York Road Landfill to the property
east of NC49. Your Real Estate Division rejected the proposed
trench because it vi olat-ed NCDOT policy on hazardous substances in
the R/w. Since the time of that submittal the City has become the
owner of the property east of ivC49. Ownerichip of the property puts
the city In the position of being able to allow the methane to
migrate from the landfill onto tho property without 'violating the
landfill regulations. There is still, however, the question of
methane within the NC45 Right-of-Way.
The conceptual design of your widening project takes the presence
of the landfill into account Y:ith the proposed widening to the
east, away from. the landfill.. The de .sign, however., did not take
' into account the possibility of methane being beneath the roadway,
'rhe curb & gutter section, and associated storm drainage system
proposed could possibly allow methane to collect within the storm
' Engineering peparr.ment 000 East Fourth Street Charlotte, NC 28202-2044 704n36.2291

drainage wipes. This situation ocourred ia-) 1.984 in the Southern
Bell underground eondtlit along this stretch of NC49. This system
however, wits a olosed system.
A possible alternative to a etorm drainage pipe system is side
ditches. This roadway section could be constructed between Tyvola
Road and Sugar Creek. T would recommend that no undergrourld
conduits be allowed, other than direct buried cablea, fc)r uti.litits
in this section of roadway.
As has been discussed in the past, the City is willing to negotiate
Elome donation of property for the wi.doning .projwct An exchange for
consideration of our problams with the landfill..
Please inform me on how you plan to proceed with this requ©st. Tf
you have any question .or comments, Call me at (704)116_3650,
Site ar ly,
e t ?a onter
Protect Manager
kaC
: KG Gillis
DG MOAChura
MM Gregor
Leigh Cobb,
NCDOT
? L

' STATE, CAE NOKI'l-i CAKAINA
DUARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
!Aml -s 5- Hu)R. DIV1510N OF FlIGHWAYS h. )-4.r.lli?t Hu'4r I II
G^?'ER FOR P.O BOX 25201, RALEIGH hl.C 2AM-5201 SFCRE e>'
December 2, 1913

' Keith Carpenter
Project Manager
Engineering Department
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-2844
' SUBJECT: Methane Migration from York R.oaI I,IWIfi I1 NC l=}
Roadway Widening, TIP No. U--2512, State Project No.
8.16735QI
Dear Mr. Car-penter;
Thank you for Y(Mr November 18, 191, letter, rxF)r'P3Sinr1 c,ncPr., c,ti,,r the
Ifligr'ation Of Illethdlle 9d` dlorl;l N' 4Q irl the viCirrlt,y Of t, h;:= ,i r'K Road
Landfill. Currently, we have a sked our GeoteChn?ca Unit to 4nve5t. r?dLN `.he
n;ethane leakage itu:It ion and a dvisr, u; Ot its effects on our- NC 1Q widenin??
project,
The Geotechnical Uriit. will advise uy of how we need to h,5ndie the
me, thane gm,.. leakage i)roblenl in cf,nionct. on with widcm inq NC =:9. Our
Geotechn1 cal Unit WOUI d like to review the plans for the Methane Co II t
Trench. Please send us a ropy as soon as possible.

We tilll cespond in writing as soon aS the Geotechnical Unit cQrlipletes
their dssi,tisnlFnt of the subject site. Thank you f--r' ycur .'ooper,ition. if
you haze any (pnestionr, plea call the Project Engineer, I.c gh Cobb
at
919-133-3141, ,
Sincer
F'rankI in Vick, P. E. , Manager
Planning and Environmental 8ranc.h
cc : Bi' 1 Noore
J
P"w .i?
' STATE. i-'F '\"''TIi CAK0LIN, A
DEPAVI'M. NT of TRANsv()I?I ATION
JArYtES B, Htit,,T. Jk. DIVISION OF f IGIIVIAYS R.. SAr??,ICI. hlt,!c,lr itl
!j?)vEP.NQR FC). BC)X2`l;)i, KA LE; :{{. ?i.C, 27OH-i2CI SECFETAKN'
MEMORANDUM TG: Bi l l Moore
Geotechni c a l Uri- it
' Attention: Gardne), ,tones
FROM. H. Franklin Vic,, P. ?'. hlnriageri ? -'
pl ann i r i q arud rr,t i romp n t i I Eranch
SUBJECT: r;C 49, {r,:?m ti ull Rc? r.l t0 t e Buster Boyd Bridge,
if No. U-2512, tats Pr,>irs: 8.16735QI
We have been notifiod 1''y Cfilariotte's Fnr,,I l:erirly Department of
prohlems with methane ua 1? (kage rc,rtl the York Road Landf; l l located on
the west side of 19 at i „o.la iii -i .id Th° _ to the
,ncr;?aches in
existing .Might of ',;a1 (?eF ?t.t achad n? lanc±fl ll
encroachment),
the city ha recently -se? tled (1 C.c)-e. .'ith thF. l?ropertI ov?nc;r across
from the landfill (east of Tne p,-ep?rty 'u',',rer a-,,as suing the city
because of the methane gas migration orto ills pr?)t;Frty. As a result, the
city purchased the propert) east co rdC 4`; ? rot Tyyyol,? Road to approximately
Sugar Creek,
Our preliminary designs for NI' V) in this ,area avoid any conflict with
the landfill by widening to the e-ist of eXisting .VC 49, However, the city
has asked us to trv,iiuate a resign tr_l acctnmiod,:rte the ,nigrmition of the,
methane gas under the rcariway (See rttached lnrter f: ?In city). As a
reSUit, wt' im.1st have yOUK Staff li!'FStlg.lrP" the it. Situ-tion along
NC 49 :+t the Yqr k Road i,.indf i i ! and a?-;Y i se Its of is '. tc Proceed with
designs to accommodate the c; ;s 1 eakag- l?r `, I i ms .
As you car. see from the attached {tetter, tie :_ity would like for us to
M allow the gas to continue lea?ino urger the re,ac%vri!, rathc,r than providing a
Methane Collection Trench.
' I have attached a Set of pre! im?nar'y icj ter N'_' 49. Also, I am in
the process t.f trying to obtain a set of plans F?)r th' purhospd Trenching
System. please let us knot: ts (Wr? l;osSib'p need to respond to
the city of Charlotte on this )SSIle. i y:?u ne,`d Fur'the'r information
' please contact the Project tnolrleer, Leigh Loh;., a,, 733-3141.
LCisdt
Attachments
CC: Koith IC..3rpenter
M ?,(
S-rm-E OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP,,ANspoRTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JP, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
' GovERNOR P.O. BOX 2$201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-$201 SECRETARY
March 4, 1994
' State Project: 8.1673501 (U-2512)
Federal. Project: STP-49(2)
County: Mecklenburg
Description: NC 49 From Buster Boyd Bridge at South Carolina
State Line to Tyvola Road Extension
Memorandum To: Mr. Frank Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
' Attn: Leigh Cobb
Q `
' From: Gregory mith, Environmental Geologist
Geotechnical Unit
Subject: Metfidne Migration From York Road Landfill
In response to a request from Leigh Cobb of your staff, we
have reviewed plans and correspondence regarding the Department's
proposed widening of NC; 49 alongside the former City of Charlotte's
York Road Landfill (now Renaissance Park). There are problems here
involving the underground, off-site migration of methane as it is
being produced within the landfill.
Charlotte contracted with Law Environmental, Inc. for the design
of a methane collection system to be constructed between the landfill
side slopes and NC 49. Charlotte has since asked DOT to include
design provisions for the passive flow of methane beneath our right
of way in the York Road widening project. This action is to avoid
the estimated $250,000 construction costs of the collection system.
I do recommend a southeastward relocation of NC 49 beside the
landfill situ as proposed by JBM Engineering. I further recommend
that all roadway drainage along the landfill, approximately from
Stations 617+00 to 647+00, be designed so that it minimizes any
pipes, drop inlets, catch basins and buried utilities. This
would limit the potentially hazardous collection of methane and
other contaminants within DOT right of way. These recommendations
have been discussed with Jim Speer of Roadway Design and Brian
Dehler of JBM Engineering.

Mr. Frank Vick, P.E.
February 15, 1994
Page 2
It is my understanding that the City of Charlotte has
' indicated it would donate land, across NC 49 from the landfill, to
the Department for right of way purposes. It may be advisable
to acquire this land through a permanent easement only, rather
than through fee simple title, in order to possibly minimize any
future remedial liability assigned to the property owner. Ms.
Elaine Humphreys of the Attorney General',s office should be
consulted in this matter.
I believe the Department should strongly encourage the City
of Charlotte to install the methane collection trench between NC
' 49 and the landfill site. This could help alleviate the potential
for hazards presented by the methane to contractors during
construction of NC 49, as well as to the travelling public both
during and after construction.
' Please contact me at [phone] if you require further
information.

L
1
1

r? t
I Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission

To: Mr. Tim Gibbs
From: Dr. Dan L. Morrill
Consulting Director `
Date: November 5, 1992
Re: Environmental Impact Assessment for State Project No.
8.1673501
Please find attached a letter to me from Ms. Frances Alexander,
' who upon my request has submitted an assessment of the
historically significant resources which might be adversely
affected by the subject project. Thank you for giving me the
' opportunity to comment upon this matter.
cc: Louis A. Bledsoe III, HLC Chairman

11
1

1
7

1 P n Rnx i54g4 • ."HARI nTTE. N.C. 28234 • [phone] • FAX [phone]

J

3 November 1992
Dr. Dan L. Morrill
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
P.O. Box 35434
Charlotte, North Carolina 28235
Re: Federal Environmental Assessment for the Proposed N.C. 49 Widening
From Tyvola Road Extension to the South Carolina State Line,
hecklenburg County, North Carolina, T.I.P. No. U-2512
Dear Dan:
Thank you for asking me to review the proposed widening of South N.C.49 for its effect on
potentially historic properties in Mecklenburg County. In general, the project would
appear to have few, if any, adverse effects on known historic resources. The general area
has clearly undergone a significant change in land use patterns during the past twenty
years. Consequently, the rural character of this part of the county has already been
largely transformed to a suburban landscape.

1

There are three properties which merit evaluation for National Register eligibility. All
are farmhouses located In that portion of the project between the Tyvola Road Extension
and Carowinds Boulevard. The three properties are: the Frank Watt House (1913), located
0.1 mile south of the junction with S.R. 1156; the McDowell House (1912); and the J.B. Watt
House (extensively remodeled ca. 1900). Both the McDowell House and the J.B. Watt House
are located on opposite sides of York Road at the junction with Beam Road. The J.B. Watt
House sustained damage during an airplane crash in the 1950s, and its integrity is
questionable. However, the house warrants evaluation because the relationship and
proximity of these two farmhouses to each other and their location at the junction of two
farm roads is now rare in the county.
I also have some general concerns about the effect of the widening, particularly on the
Intersection of Beam and York roads although this may fall outside the normal purview of
National Register evaluations. Throughout the county, numerous widenings and
alterations of former rural market roads leading to Charlotte has greatly obscured once
important rural/farm transportation and land use patterns. I am raising the issue here
because the geography of this setting - the intersection of two market roads flanked by
farms with potentially historic houses - illustrates these rural landscape and
transportation relationships. The widening would undeniably alter the rural character of
this location even if it does not require the actual taking of historic properties. The fork
of these roads would probably be straightened or reoriented to accommodate additional
and higher speed traffic. Other than these issues, the project would seem to have minimal
effect on potential historic properties. It is understood that plans are preliminary at this
point, and changes in the proposed project would need to be reevaluated.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Please let me know it you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Frances P. Alexander
Architectural Historian

M E C K L E N B U R G- U N I O N
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
' 600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-2853
[phone]

CHARLOTTE
February 9, 1994
CORNELIUS
DAVIDSON
HUNTERSVILLE Ms. Leigh Cobb
INDIAN TRAIL Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
MATTHEWS Post Office Box 25201
MECKLENBURG Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
COUNTY
MINT HILL Subject: TIP Project U-2512, York Road Widening
NCDOT
PINEVILLE Dear Ms. Cobb:
STALLINGS On January 19, 1994, the Mecklenburg-Union Technical
' UNION Coordinating Committee adopted the following comments
COUNTY concerning the widening of York Road (NC 49) between
WEDDINGTON Tyvola Road and the Catawba River:

1) The TCC reaffirms its strong support for a median the
entire length of the project. Benefits to capacity,
safety, pedestrian refuge, and aesthetics make a median
extremely important on this project.
2) The TCC reaffirms its position that provisions for
' pedestrians across all bridges on both sides is a bare
minimum response to the needs of pedestrians. Since
local policy is to provide for pedestrians on both sides
of all thoroughfares except freeways, if NCDOT does not
' provide a safe passage for those pedestrians across
bridges, a barrier to pedestrian movement will be
created.
3) The TCC does not believe that it is crucial to
provide a grade separation for the railroad spur line
crossing York Road southwest of General Drive. Given
that only two trains per day traveling 10 mph or less use
this spur, an at grade crossing with appropriate control
' devices should be adequate.
4) The TCC endorses a special median opening and
auxiliary lane policy for York Road to preserve its
capacity. Especially between the Catawba River and the
Outer Loop, NC 49 is and will increase in importance as
a major commuter route as well as a congestion management
relief corridor for I-77. Any request for a median
opening which might result in a traffic signal should
receive intense scrutiny in light of its potential effect
' on through traffic. Between the river and Carowinds

Ms. Leigh Cobb
February 9, 1994
Page 2
' Boulevard where the design speed is 60 mph, auxiliary
lanes should be constructed to allow at least partial
deceleration in the auxiliary rather than through lane.
5) We are told that NCDOT does not intend to fully
realign NC 160 at the NC 49 intersection in conformance
with an approved zoning plan at this location. Although
we are comfortable with that realignment waiting until
the commercial development occurs, the full right-of-way
is available when NCDOT requests it (see attached zoning
conditions). The developer should be formally contacted
to see if they wish to supplement NCDOT's efforts to
accomplish the ultimate realignment as part of this TIP
project.
' 6) We would appreciate any efforts that NCDOT could make
toward landscaping along this project. Certainly, some
' treatment is called for in the vicinity of the National
Register eligible sites in the area of Beam and Shopton
Roads. Local planting programs traditionally involve
' street trees which would mature into a canopy over the
road. We are aware that South Carolina is doing a fairly
extensive treatment west of the Buster Boyd bridge. Rob
Altoff with SCDOT Planning (803 737-1444) may have some
' knowledge of the planting program.
As always, we appreciate the opportunity for input into
' a TIP project. If you have any questions or comments,
please contact Tim Gibbs of the Charlotte DOT (336-3917)
or Bill Coxe of the Mecklenburg County- Engineering
' Department (336-3745).
Sincerely,
Robert N. Pressley,( P.E.
t Chairman, Mecklenburg- nion TCC
RNP/WSC
attachment
cc: TCC members
Tim Gibbs
1

8.0

t

Traffic/Phasing -
A. Traffic Study
1. The Petitioners agree to cooperate in a coordinated roadway improvement
program for the area as depicted on their Technical Data Sheet in
conjunction with the Mecklenburg County Engineering Department and
N.C. DOT. The basis for this cooperative approach is set forth in a study
prepared for the Petitioners entitled "Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lower
Steele Creek Area, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina", October, 1991,
by Heinrich & Klein Associates, Inc. and Tables 3, 4, and 5 of which were
revised in March, 1992 (the Traffic Analysis).
2. This program will include:
(a)
(b)
development of a relocated intersection at York Road and the
realignment of Steele Creek Road; and
improvements to York Road and Steele Creek Road. The
Petitioners will coordinate with the Mecklenburg County
Engineering Department and N.C. DOT on the design and
engineering for this program.C ach of the Petitioners agrees to
dedicate additional right of way along their respective property
frontages to N.C. DOT for the widening of York Road and
relocation of Steele Creek Road as shown on the Technical Data
iheet.
3. All road improvements indicated on the Technical Data Sheet as well as
all ingress/egress locations will be subject to approval by the Mecklenburg
County Engineering Department and N.C. DOT. All traffic control devices
shall conform to MUTCD standards and the accompanying notes thereto.
B. Development Rights Conditioned Upon the Existence of Supporting Infrastructure
' Development of the project will be dependent upon the availability of adequate
infrastructure to support the proposed development as more specifically set forth
under Paragraph E of this Section 8.0. Nothing in these Design Guidelines is
intended to require any petitioner to make any infrastructure improvement unless
he, she or it elects to exercise the development rights provided hereunder.
C. Steele Creek Road Realignment
' The Petitioners will coordinate the exact locations of the proposed realignment of
Steele Creek Road with the Mecklenburg County Engineering Department and
N.C. DOT. The proposed realignment will be designed and constructed in
accordance with standards adopted by Mecklenburg County Engineering
November 10, 1992 17

Department and N.C. DOT. The rights to seek abandonment of those sections of
Steele Creek Road that are no longer used for through traffic as a result of the
realignment are reserved by those of the Petitioners who own the adjoining land.
D. Transit Facility
Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary contained in these Design
Guidelines or the Technical Data Sheet, no more than 600,000 square feet of non-
residential development may be constructed on the site until after a Park `N' Ride
transit facility designed to accommodate a minimum of 100 automobiles has been
constructed on the site. This facility may be constructed on either the preferred
t or alternate site shown on the Technical Data Sheet or at any other location which
is acceptable to the Mecklenburg County Engineering Department or the Charlotte
D.O.T. The facility must be constructed to support transit vehicles and a
permanent easement will be recorded allowing transit vehicles access to the site.
E. Phasing
1. Development within the site will be phased according to market demand
and the availabil't of adequate infrastructure to support the proposed
development. Right-of-way required for road improvements shall be
dedicated incrementally in conjunction with development phasing or upon
the sooner request of N.C. D.O.T. No building permit can be issued for
' a particular phase of development until (1) all additional right-of-way
associated with that phase has been dedicated and (2) any required
roadway improvements shall either: (a) have been completed; or (b) have
had contracts let therefor, if public; or, if private, construction is secured
either by a surety bond or by an irrevocable letter of credit. No occupancy
permit for any development may be issued until roadway improvements
associated with that phase of development shall have been completed.
2. The Petitioners commit to a phasing and development program as follows:
' Phase I
Phase I may commence with the approval of this petition and shall
encompass the following components:
Phase I Development Rights:
a. Petitioners may proceed with development within the project
provided the morning and afternoon peak hour total two directional
traffic volume generated by such development shall not exceed the
equivalent traffic volume which would be generated by existing
zoning (2,181 total morning and afternoon peak hour trips as
presented in Table 4 of the Traffic Analysis). The morning and
t November 10, 1992 18

f
w

t
11,

I
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO October 30, 1992
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
E I li\
d
-? N011 0 3 1992
1. ?
222 DIVISION OF ci=
?a?HIGHWA S
MORON
This is in response to your letter of September 18, 1992,
requesting our comments on the "Federal Environmental Assessment
for the Proposed NC 49 Widening from Tyvola Road Extension to the
South Carolina State Line, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
T.I.P. No. U-2512, State Project No. 8.1673501" (Regulatory Branch
Action I.D. No. 199300259). We understand that this environmental
assessment will also include T.I.P. project No. B-3004 to replace
the Buster Boyd Bridge (Bridge No. 23) over the Catawba River at
the southern terminus of the NC 49 Widening project.
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 constructed COE navigation
or flood control project.
The proposed project is sited in the city of Charlotte and
Mecklenburg County, which participate in the Federal Flood
Insurance Program. The roadway crosses Sugar Irwin, Coffey, and
Steele Creeks and Walker Branch, which have been studied by
detailed methods with the 100-year flood elevations determined and
a floodway defined. The Catawba River, also crossed by the
project, is identified as being studied by approximate methods on
the June 1981 Mecklenburg County Flood Insurance Rate Map. The
hydraulic effects on the 100-year flood levels and floodways
should be addressed in the environmental document. The final
project's hydraulic effects should be coordinated with the city of
Charlotte and Mecklenburg County for compliance with their flood
plain ordinances and possible revision to their flood insurance
maps and reports. Executive Order 11988 should also be complied
with.

t

D

1

I

-2-
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, will be required
for the discharge of excavated or fill material, including
construction debris, into waters of the United States or any
adjacent and/or isolated wetlands. Please provide sufficient
information for our evaluation of environmental impacts for all
construction corridors which you are considering. Included shuulu
be wetland and soils mapping, indicating wetland and soils types,
and data regarding endangered species, cultural resources, and
fish and wildlife habitat. Adverse environmental impacts should
be avoided and then minimized. Mitigation must be provided to
compensate for unavoided impacts. Our comments will be provided
in response to such information. Because of this early review
and evaluation, we would expect a most expeditious processing of
your application for the specific activity requiring Federal
authorization. Questions or comments related to the permit may
be directed to Mr. Steve Lund, Asheville Field Office, Regulatory
Branch, 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.
Si e y,
Law ence W. Saunders
Ch ee lanning Division

1
I MEMORANDU
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Department of Environmental Protection
October
M:
To:
From

L

1

Bill Co
County
Don R.
Deputy
xe
Engineering
Willard j
Director
Subject: York Road Widening
29, 1992
The Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP) provides
the following comments regarding the environmental circumstances to be considered
during the planning of the widening of York Road:
Air Quality
The environmental assessment for the proposed widening of NC 49 from its
intersection with W. Tyvola Road to the South Carolina state line must include
consideration of possible effects on air quality. Specifically, the standard to
be considered in this case is the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for carbon monoxide, which is 9 ppm for an eight-hour averaging
period and 35 ppm for a one-hour averaging period, as defined in the Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 50.8. The assessment should show that
the expansion will not cause a violation of the NAAQS for CO.
Solid Waste
The York Road Sanitary landfill operation has encroached into the current
highway right-of-way. All of the current highway right-of-way is not useful
as it exists, since explosive gases continue migrating into the highway right-
of-way.
ty
Water Quali
The proposed bridge construction will be upstream of Rock Hill's drinking
water intake. Therefore, extreme caution should be exercised in order to
protect this intake from any negative water quality impacts during the
construction process. Also located immediately downstream of the proposed
bridge construction site are major recreational areas at Camp Thunderbird and
Tega Cay. Negative water quality impacts during construction, particularly
high bacterial counts due to siltation; could seriously effect recreation uses
of these areas.
Please call me if you have any questions.
DRW:jpb
?i \ Try„n err,- 0 G ir,. '1; 0 (1-1-- \I(' 7,47(17.?73F, • -111 ;;F._;;nn • FAV 17011 2Ir A201
i

I
w
t
I
1
t

MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Park and Recreation Department
September 23, 1992
T 7 P E.
Planning and Environment Branch
Nor-:. Carolina Department of Transa_ortation
u. BtJa 25-'01
Ralei NC 27611-5201
/GEI V?
DPS# X20;251992
A : NC
DP" #' k44 IVISION OF
IGHWAY HIGHWAYS
RESE
Re: Federal Environmental Assessment for Proposed NC 41)
:,livening, State Project No. 8.1673501
Dear Mr. Ward:
The .-.-closed correspondence provided comments regarding: (1)
--he _m.nact of the above project on McDowell Park and (2) the
tax oarcels included in this park site. The project will
affect other existing and proposed park/greenway facilities
misted below:
(i) Renaissance Park. This property has already been
identified as "abandoned l
dfill l
an
ocated west of
NC 49 at Tyvola Road" in your letter of September
i8. 1992.
'?
. Eig Sugar and Coffey Creeks. These creeks are on
the adopted Mecklenburg County Greenway Master Plan.
The objectives of the greenway plan include: (1)
preservation of the 100-year fioodplain as open
space (which reduces damages from flooding and
provides numerous environmental benefits) and (2)
,construction of recreation/transportation trails for
.alking and bicycling. One tract ad acent to
NTC 49 has been acquired to date (Tax Parcel 203-
.111-28) and another tract will be
d
d i
recor
e
n the
near future; both are on Coffey Creek (on the south-
east side of NC 49 at Arrowood Road).
'
-
Steele Creek and Walker Branch. These creeks are
Proposed additions to the Mecklenburg County Green-
way Master Plan; the updated plan is currently being

1

NC 49 Widening, State Project No. 8.1673501
z -eptember 23, 199
PdG'P_. TWO
d
reviewed by staff. Both a public review process an
,approval by elected officials will be required before
these creeks are added to the plan.
Primary concern at this time regarding the greenway program
is that continuity of the system is accommodated along Big
Suaar and Coffey Creeks e.g. via an underpass/bridge or other
safe pedestrian crossing of the improved roadway. Perhaps
the accommodation(s) for these two (2) projects could be
funded throuah the transportation "enhancements" portion
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) of 1991. We want to pursue all options available
under this act. I (or other staff in this department) will
be available to work through these options with NCDOT and CRS
Sirrine staff.
Please advise as you need more detailed information; my
telephone number is [phone].

Very truly yours,

Nancv M. Brunnemer
Chief Greenway Planner
r Copy to: R. Wayne Weston, Director
Fred H. Gray, Jr., Deputy Director
William S. Coxe, Assistant Division Manager for
Transportation and Technical Services, Mecklen-
burg County Engineering Department
Alice Barron Pearce Stewart, CRS Sirrine Enai-
neers, Inc., Suite 500, 5511 Capital Center
Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606
Encl. (3)

1
I
t

t

r

t
A
t

t

1

COMMENTS SHEET
Citizens Informational Workshop
U-2512 September 10, 1992
NC 49 Widening from the
Buster Boyd Bridge to
Tyvola Road Extension
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
NAME:
Nancy M. Brunnemer, Division of Greenway Planning
(Please print)
ADDRESS: Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department
700 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, N.C. 28202
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
Attached is a copy of correspondence confirming tax parcels which are
included in McDowell Park (i.e., owned by Mecklenburg County). An
improved park entrance drive is planned at the existing location to
provide a left turn (out) from the park. Plans for the upgraded entrance
have not been drawn but will be reviewed by Mecklenburg County's
(Engineering Department) Transportation staff and coordinated with NCDOT
as needed. Ingress/egress from the park relative to the widening of
NC 49 will also be coordinated/reviewed in the same manner.
Written statements or comments should be addressed to:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E. or
Manager of Planning and Research
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Brian D. Dehler, P.E.
Project Manager
CRS Sirrine Engineers, Inc.
Suite 500
5511 Capital Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
For additional information or questions concerning this project the following-
toll-free number has been established: 1-800-336-4515.
1

MECKLENBURG COUNTY
' Park and Recreation Department
August 28, 1992
DPS#8723/940
A:NCDNC49
DPS#3
Alice Barron Pearce Stewart
CRS Sirrine Engineers, Inc.
Suite 500
5511 - CaDltal Canter Drive
Raie-4ah, NC 37606
Dear A. B..
Followincq is a list of tax parcels with deed references for
all Mecklenburg County owned McDowell Park tracts that
front on NC 49. The :nap vr,,u sent to me is correct except
that the entrance drive is actually located on parcel #29
rather than #30. (Parcel #30 is owned by Larry William
Evans.)
(Your) Parcel # Tax Parcel # Deed Reference
26 199-031-03 4317-093
28 199-031-04 6418-319
29 199-031-01 3708-683
38 199-021-03 'l Z-7
40 199-031-10 4:;13-5'4
I look forward to working with your group on this protect.
Please advise if you need additional in_`3rmat-cn from this
department.
Very truly yours,
Nancy M. Brunnemer
Chief Gre wa P anner
l' A.A/
Cony to: ayne Weston, Director
7 reg.:, H. Gray, Deputy Director
Thomas P. McDermott. Park Development uf.icer
r '
I
700 N. Tryon Street Charlotte North Carolina 28202 [phone] FAX [phone]
t

L
I

I
1

t
1

COMMENTS SHEET
Citizens Informational Workshop
U-2512 September 10, 1992
NC 49 Widening from the
Buster Boyd Bridge to
Tyvola Road Extension
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
NAME: MS. SUSAN B. GIBSON, CHARLOTTE - MECKLENBURG UTILITY DEPARTMENT
(Please print)
ADDRESS: 5100 BROOKSHIRE BOULEVARD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28216
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
CMUD has several water and sewer projects either presently under construction
or funded for construction to be complete prior to the proposed construction
of the NC49 Widening project. However, we have one water main roi scheduled
to begin design sometime after FY98. This project consists of approximately
8000 linear feet of 12-inch main along York Road from Shopton Road to Lake Wylie
There is a possibility that we can accelerate the schedule of this Rroject so
that it would also be complete prior to the NC49 Widening project, Should you
have questions or comments,4iif You need further information, please contact
Ms Susan Gibson at 704-391-514'
In addition, we have a sewer force ma-in-shown as part of tb? I ake Area
Sewer Study. Unfortunately a schedule hoc not vat hPPn determined for this
roject.
Written statements or comments should be addressed to:
Mr. L J. Ward, P.E. or
Manager of Planning and Research
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Brian D. Dehler, P.E.
Project Manager
CRS Sirrine Engineers, Inc.
Suite 500
5511 Capital Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
For additional information or questions concerning this project the following
toll-free number has been established: 1-800-336-4515.
r
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
206 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
MAILED TO FROM
NC DOT MS- JEANETTE FURNEY
LEIGH C09B ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
HIGHWAY BUILDING STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
RALEIGH NC
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROPOSED NC 49 WIDENING FROM TYVOLA ROAD ' EXTENSION TO THE SOUTH
CAROLINA STATE LINE MECKLENBURG CO T- I-P- NO- U-2512
TYPE - ENVIRON- ASSESS-
THE N-C- STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW- THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 93£42200207- PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE-
REVIEIL OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 10/30/92-
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL 919 733-0499-
1
I

r
r
A'S
North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso ces
I ;-
James G. Martin, Governor Division' of??fchives 4nd F,-Fistory
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William" tRZ.Lce,??Director
October 13, 1992
MEMORANDUM TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager'
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State H sto c Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: NC 49 from Tyvola Road Extension to South Carolina
State Line, Mecklenburg County, U-2512,
8.1673501, CH 93-E-4220-0207
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical-or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
McDowell House. Southeast side of NC 49, 0.1 mile northeast of the
junction with SR 1156. The McDowell House was placed on our state
study list on April 13, 1989, because it appears worthy of further
investigation to definitely determine its eligibility for listing in the National
Register.
McClintock Rosenwald School. Northeast side of SR 1120, 0.35 mile
southeast of junction with NC 160. The school is a locally designated
historic property.
The following properties have not been evaluated for National Register-
eligibility:
J. B. Grier House. Southeast side of NC 49, 0.2 mile northeast of the
junction with SR 1142.
Frank Watt House. Southeast side of NC 49, 0.1 mile south of the junction
with SR 1156.
' J. B. Watt House. Northwest side of NC 49, at junction with SR 115 6.
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

L. J. Ward
October 13, 1992, Page 2
' Pleasant Hill Church/Cemetery. North side of NC 49, 0.3 mile east of the
junction with SR 1110.
McClintock Cemetery. Northeast side of SR 1120, 0.35 mile southeast of
the function with NC 160.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological sed
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.
concerning the above comment, If you have questions
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: -'S`tate Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
Charlotte/Mecklenburg HLC
?3
J

? G E /
,a ;15'
North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso esDIVISICN OF
HIGHWAYS <9
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Divi hiv s
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Willi , Dim
December 10, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for widening of
NC 49 from Buster Boyd Bridge to Tyvola Road,
Mecklenburg County, U-2512, 8.1673501, STP-
49(2), ER 94-7781
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of November 2, 1993, transmitting the historic
structures survey report by Mattson and Associates concerning the above project.
The following property was placed on our state study list on April 13, 1989:
McDowell House (MK 1374)
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
McDowell House (MK 1374). Criterion C--The house is considered to be one
of the finest examples of a Colonial Revival farm seat in Mecklenburg
County.
Frank Watt House (MK 1380). Criterion C--The house is a largely intact and
increasingly rare example of an early twentieth century middle-class
farmhouse in Mecklenburg County.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
James Brown Grier House (MK 1366). The house has been demolished.
Kendrick-Knox House (#10). The house has undergone numerous character-
altering changes.

1 109 East Jones Street •
Raleieh. North Carolina 27601-2807
FA
Nicholas L. Graf
December 10, 1993, Page 2
Pleasant Hill Prebyterian Church Cemetery (MK 1443). The cemetery does
not meet the exceptions specified in Criterion Consideration D of the
National Park Service's guidelines regarding the registration of cemeteries.
(former) Steele Creek School (#6). The school has undergone numerous
character-altering changes.
J. B. Watt House (MK 1379). The house has undergone numerous
character-altering changes.
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
U Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: vH. F. Vick
B. Church
Mattson and Associates, Charlotte
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic
Landmarks Commission
r

1

A
UVV

t
I
A

a
I

1
t

?7y !? SW[ q
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 17, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: NC 49 from Buster Boyd Bridge to Tyvola Road,
Mecklenburg County, U-2512, ER 94-8290
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of A
William S.
•0
NO 2 1 "N
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
Thank you for your letter of February 1, 1994, concerning the above project.
On January 19, 1994, members of the Historic Preservation Office met with
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) and North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) representatives to discuss the project's potential effects
on historic properties. Based upon the preliminary documentation provided to us
at the meeting, we concur with FHwA's determination that the project will have
no effect on the National Register-eligible McDowell House and the Frank Watt
House. We understand NCDOT will landscape the raised earth median in the
vicinity of these properties and include this commitment in the environmental
document.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
F o Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
f
109 East Jones Street • Ralebeh. North Carolina 27601-2807
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
?1? North Salisbury Street • Raleigh North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
NOV 1992
MEMORANDUM` r., i.,?. o
BOA
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 93-0207 - Proposed Widening of NC 49 from Tyvola Road
Extension to the South Carolina Line, Meckenburg County
DATE: October 28, 1992
The Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will be provided
during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional information
is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective
divisions.
attachments
A

I ' .• - 1, . \un -t I' I,. i' 101"m : r ;7(i

A

A
s?rr ?
r`
col AV
s
Lrl? 99
2 r,
1y `
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Nat'?ral ReSAv?es
Y,r
Division of Environmental Management ?
512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Caro lin a?2r??}_.. '
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary October 16, 1992
MEMORANDUM
To: Monica Swihart*?) 4tv/ ?
Through: John Dorney?
From: Eric Galamb
I Subject
t
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Acting Director

Water Quality Checklist for EA/EIS/Scoping Documents
Proposed NC 49 Widening From Tyvola Rd. to the SC Line
Mecklenburg County
State Project DOT No. 8.1673501, TIP #U-2512
EHNR # 93-0207, DEM WO # 7067

The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
th
f
ll
i
i
e ow
o
ng top
cs be discussed in the EA/EIS/Scoping documents:
A. NCDOT is requested to discuss thoroughly a mass-transit alternative to
widening the existing road.
B. Will borrow locations be in wetlands?
C. Lake Wylie is classified WS V-B in the project area and not WS III as in the
scoping letter.
D. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original
stream banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/re located
stream banks be revegetated.
E. Number of stream crossings.
F. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
G. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests that these catch
basins be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible
party for maintenance.

REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Moores., 111C Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251- 6205 919/486-1541 70</663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/596.7007
Pollution Prevention Pnys
11.0. Box 2953`, Raleirgh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
?. Ee,a] Opporti::wy Affirmative Action Employer

A

r
A

A

e
A

A
H. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
Efforts employed to minimize interrupting water lines and sanitary sewerage.
J. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating
jurisdictional wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
V) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of the wetland impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DEM.
K. Will DOT register the corridors according to the 1987 North Carolina Official
Roadway Corridor Map Act? If not, why not?
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.
nc49meck.sco
cc: Eric Galamb
ti? 2P?

?. v

1

A

1
1

1
1

1
--" Forestry
r ..
ANNIVERSARY
N. C. - Where it all began
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
X12 North Sah burl, Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin. Governor
William V'. Cobev. Jr., 11--je <n S' 31
n'D?
199"
r.
MEMORANDUM", u/&, ! ! 5
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Garner Road
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
October 6, 1992
Stanford M. Adams
Director

r'
TO: Melba McGee
Environmental Assessment Unit
P
L
c'
FROM: Don H. Robbins
Staff Forester
y?
SUBJECT: DOT EA Scoping for Proposed Widening of NC 49 Highway from Tyvola
Road Extension to the South Carolina State Line in Mecklenburg
County
PROJECT #93-0207
DUE DATE 10-21-92
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 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 this project.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil
series, that would be involved within the proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed
project.
PO kn\ - 'r. . _-i \ l andirm 2701 r•S Vdcphtm Ill-) 733 216:
t
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
Page 2
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.
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 widening would have the least impact to forest and
related resources in that area.
DHR:la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File
1\10\1 1992 0
r._
J\
r

1

A

?• Tt
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natur
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW CO?*MNTS
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Project Number:
Project Name:
Geodetic Survev 46
3
'Resoiuces
,CWe's+H. Gardner
Director
County:
This project will impact - geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer
Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
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 located within a High Quality Water
Zone (FQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? Th
i
e eros
on 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 Section s -
Quality at (9i_?) 733 4574.
"'J ?zlaj/ 1O108Z92_
Reviewer Date
PO. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Acdon Employer
\\?\ uIr- ., .- ??? i ,k L.. _ v•.`1 r?/ ....1•, i01. r 4 jroMO.
aLR i,) , • NC )09 1 A.l-il ror.l\y.\,a ?? 1f AR C•
?\ 1 lout-IIt ?ALAU\ tO$ 1•L2
-?J /J'? .)' I^\ I? /?? t_[l`.)rrT ? 1 1'•, 1A41 7-.- ` C: C(1.
At RV 7101 .r _ Or rtnaKa N[Ly \. 2?.: f` / ?owovt
[rnl \+
..5,I LC MDLT TLA /
> 1• .l , .?r?. 7. i
Afuk wwt G 7e = J -` ? ll /
ror owJ d?-wr,wo v? j7 1£ B \ J
..• ?o[u L/1/ _ ._ I _ _ Occ.u 3500
?• .fTp1 7 '?'"?? ? 3[IDL! 5 700 .A Cr ^ OKIf• vJ
?? '_\1,1C'•??F?.` \ f? RV 412
1.RV-.? X I[• lt tTGM 10 .t"•' ?L
.
Y[f[TA T P 70,. } 1 I \ _?_ ?- 1)01 II X Q.T.Q.. •.IlpyrA71 1 •I
\ \ I 3; 1 r•1 OTT[ --1 [ 7J '00• 1Cr ) -OIL'
C. ," v 1 EY.i A1001 av 311 ` - ??
n
r.5 LAI.w[L1N '\_.KUrv I - .\ P\7Jr -- 410
aL[..000?? RY 107 ® cc J Mr! MC I L - )f_ .[aL J ` - '? ®---\ % +)wnNf wS'
a
7 ` ),.S , Rrl 1 It 1•\ ll'1 \? r- \\,I / 3 _•. - ?pv?/7%.•
NOR\J I J
CIS an E A ME.
••7 ?TAV01 ).) c al ?3 1
ITAA rRYCTY Id i c;l ] /r . r[x
59 E08 'AKR.oIr )
ll T,XAVIC[ / •(.DOV[l1A )?
n -4''• ' '7'" ' I - - --=
tit ,X WE SS fab"orul N)
11!!
?r 11, 1 >. I INRIA `?? ?• YAY OTM # Y 4 ]_.1 //
acct#-ZA?/`/? u1WfOOM1[ I .
\\ •H _ ????A? T?s? 1p ,
V UN&E"A, • (.r X 4E S6 ?OIc110IT?' C AL[kA ?e??L` II
ttMr s/ ;? ..I 1 wY[ 1 !00VT.0061 [ T6K [KAXTT1OL _. TSJN?? / ` J
OOf
y N[[n IDROUITT o. c..ALOTYC7 CHARLOTTE ?? fANOCMf,o7
F, „ s)
,0?; sbo 0 \ I \ ADi YMbof.56• 'AAA 'VMGL[? V[R IDI / 11 )
IDOU6y1/1 Ij "PB[A...r- E?00 ,.ANON \ `0UA`D..1T 3.r1`/ ??Q 7C LTC/N. 1.71
Al ?:30/' ?r DORO f-\-• ? Ir D)•1•
_[ )flq I? Y S u \- kY[R[Llu J?1. i1 600y ?. ) 1I-
IT fL
vCR ` \ )eV .. -, ]u1 A
Do.r 301 L. Ac so. - O V
Cy^ J SCHOOL IDI X__ Q 175• ?+' `• MA RwH
Airfield i ' TvtrGU.G 111• ? tlr?
' r7 ,7 ),
:Is
uq 1 RORW[ \/)
AIT H.L MCSLEA
TA Lq.T-/ A MC TMEA
Lp? -\ J O,K41.
[ X l A.OM \ PO-M-A -?1
.. 1-/`TMA Il, n I' rSNRC ,(/ \ N \ ?
- \ OTOI ??pv 7.L[L!Y \ 1101 y? •. r' p 1' .IMO 01K '
)r5 ? o 1 rr uR11[LA \ J
DAIWA
X ?ACIWM \a. _ 1?'? 1 `, }wog) F/ 1 It[M) `/ .0
AD- 1
MATIOMf Q ,fer01/[/f CIK, ,
0?. \ AyRIGN X u f\'I / 1. f) LAASAr
?^ [.[ X - .AILI \ `l AL?i / )•11 / OAT[ ]•7! 7
11_117 i D IIA. RADIO STATION \ AfU1glARp i )7
Q uo 61 AZ Yk ? R?1 iJf \? n Oar t\ 1•v / 1•/7
1? O ,•0 62r 1 ,: ? T01?N '1 \ QMTQ TD.[A f01JT)I Actwf 107 )•)0 4
\ ?CROSf, ARwp. 1T 1!111• [[MOALL AT b
pOT 1_T?'wL A I1H '?' I u)•
Tp,•p.??i( ?'Nr - r \ ?! 4A 504 N t ®2131C1rr or CKAA.)b ' R G
Sr T ) \ !Lit `/,r . A L J,.11
m v.VE - )•.I ].sJ NIL D" AZ W
/ ?Wk[R \? \, u ' rr, it f• \ Y[,5 A ® 1E?j/ P.01 10[1.c!
.OTT -X"•/ IQL )•,) \ I
A 0.l l` \ • •TOeM
K
roll IASSO. \`K AT- ?11s 1••r 31
•:y., ?!R[LC L ARM
1•] 1 i, ? 'LW.f? say. /U(!OI of,,
7 vll/
4C ?••[[,, ? C ?Wf1 f[D37? I 11MYDIAMTA 'MMEL /a-tf?. 1 P"SICHHi I I)
ru" \ AJACR =wA1000 /. Rw 10e II , TGOVC s)Ir[VILL[ IOIK
\ •F,' C[C>L? : KR TAl1a`•A.. 111. L ? > 7Ia T•p• \i
orn S,?,I 1 nx[ PI NEv(LLE sTOr ]..1 1
1 ?.. AAI1nol.am AARrAf n>.••'1 i n x -STt
_ ^"^nr I000fM7tdTR72s
sus
APA -Slow 3W
M[?` AC~? 1117 1.1 rte'
?C: 7a LL[MA' . / C! ?_ .? I e J rC ALh
-.? •r L? \`'1•/) )•)7\ ` R
K\AA( tlT I R C I Olt
tI` ))YC LAM D•? 7f 46[137) \ (\\ )•)• ) ?ppQ ~ LO.["
_ \
.. , !v •1.t7T Ll• 5 ?_r" Hu„iwn •T L+hrll. ] 1f 7 J•"-
?. ?u[tl /
/ \ w `. 3T Ch I `A
AMILj .4
- 1_' A
'/I •S ?j \ ?`' 2A]• R[RA )•]]
'•'••y:• ?ML[Y 1110•
- I CR \ I D 1 1 R0.[L
/ i - A,LCOQ C .,TL '
( \ [TAIL
] \`
InILON.1c 361.
1. 1177 - ' r 05
?? ..- IAS - ALLR[ ?•-? / 7S ,?-?\ t A N C 371' ?5.
!? T[A KCT)OM 1
\ •va O 1w1. + a o' r Z `\ S T E R O ', ,
vN:I 7a
i_
5.078 Ai MK Q?
r? ? 117 r _? .?
p p rwRr[[LOOO^ 0.
s
01 - 5 04
".. / V Ly s A i Gro O.C ADAM '
da? 111 ) l A C1v 1.,T,. '47 CN./ SOU It Q \' NOTE: MAP INCLUDES ONLY STATI
/,O r v 1110 Ott [=oAR ? [ .S rt BA OR IMIORIANT NON SYST
MILEAGE NOT SHOWN Ot
111 _Q) J AI.ENS
1 ?' AMYCR PI ROADS L+OIVN AS OF !A
0.
O 11•) 1101 AAT A Ao..WR
DODD
?T O ~
" \ v V
`J
DIVISION 0-7 PARKS AND RECREATION
October 26, 1992,
A
Memorandum ?.., ? co
=D
TO: Melba McGee
ti4
THROUGH: Stephen Hall
FROM: Harry LeGrand, Natural Heritage Program
SUBJECT: Scoping -- NC 49 widening from Charlotte to the SC
state line
REFERENCE: 93-0207
The Natural Heritage Program has reviewed its maps and database
for locations of rare species and significant natural areas in
the vicinity of the NC 49 project. There are several historic
locations of Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona deco rata) from
streams in the vicinity of the project. However, this species,
considered Proposed Endangered status by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, has been reported to exist at the present time
in North Carolina only in Waxhaw Creek (Catawba River system) and
in Goose Creek (Pee Dee River system). A moderately detailed
survey was conducted by Keferl (1991) recently in Mecklenburg
County for the heelsplitter. Another survey for the species
along the NC 49 corridor, thus, does not seem warranted. The
Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis), a State Special Concern
species, is potentially present in streams in the
though the Program has no locations for the species rinethearea,
project area.
The scoping document indicates that the corridor will be reviewed
in the field for the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii). We support this action; however, the document
indicates that the species flowers in August/early September.
This sunflower is a late-blooming species, and it generally
flowers from mid-September to early October. Thus, a survey for
the species should be delayed by several weeks to coincide with
the flowering period of the species. There are several other
plants that are C2 candidates for Federal listing which are
present elsewhere in Mecklenburg Count -
These are Y (as is the sunflower).
Georgia aster r (Aster georgianus) and Carolina birdfoot
trefoil (Lotus helleri). The aster blooms primarily in
but is visible in a vegetative state in September, whereastthheer,
birdfoot-trefoil blooms in late summer. All three of these
plants grow in similar habitats -- woodland edges and road banks

' -- and thus can be surveyed together, perhaps in September or
early October. In summary, we recommend a survey for rare plants
along the corridor, primarily in September or early October.
I

092
J

E

1
Ir-

5tA -I
State of North Carolina
Department of Ervironment, Health, and Natural Resow;;es ,
D•. pion of Soil and Water Conservation
X12 North Sa'-bury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. 'Aamn Governor David W. Sides
`William W Cobev. Jr., Secretary October 8, 1992 Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison
SUBJECT: Proposed Widening of NC 49 from Tyvola Road Extension
to the South Carolina State Line. Project No. 93-0207.
The proposal is to widened NC 49 along a 10.3 mile section ending
at the South Carolina State Line (Catawba River). The
Environmental Assessment should identify any unique, prime, or
important farmlands that would be impacted by the project. A
wetlands evaluation should be included. Actions that minimize
impacts are desired.

x0- %i 11-t :1 7e,, ItI.) 1H

r
SEP 30 19
9 92

L?GSlON OF
AY?
PP
?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ?
??
SEARC
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH 27611
JAMES G. MARTIN BICYCLE PROGRAM
GOVERNOR 919/733-2804
THOMAS J. HARRELSON September 28, 1992
SECRETARY
r
MEMORANDUM TO: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
g and Environmental Branch
Pla ?i`n
FROM: -
Curtis B. Yates, Director
Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Trans
ortation
p
SUBJECT: F.E.A. for Proposed NC 49 Widening from Tyvola Road Ext.
to the South Carolina State Line, Mecklenburg County,
TIP No. U-2512
In your memorandum of September 18, 1992, you requested our comments regarding the
proposed improvements to the above mentioned project.
There does not appear to be any need for special accommodations for bicycles on this project.
This section of NC 49 in Mecklenburg County does not
correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is it part of our Bicycling Highway system. We have no
indication that there are unusual levels of bicycling on this roadway.
As with any of our roads and highways (except, of course, for those which have limited
access where bicycles are prohibited), bicycle travel will occur as part of the overall traffic mix.
Even though this project has no special bicycle element, reasonable efforts should be made to
accommodate existing bicycle traffic within the overall project design.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above named project. Please feel free to
contact us again regarding this or any other bicycle related matter.
CBY/jc

1

1

t

P
X92
K 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: fi?rll' D ennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: October 23, 1992
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for proposed widening of NC 49 from Tyvola
Road Extension to the South Carolina State Line,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2512, SCH
Project No. 93-0207.
This correspondence 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 proposed road improvements.
The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the
proposed project, and our comments are provided in accordance
with provisions of the N. C. 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 project involves improvement of existing
facilities, and the NCWRC supports such improvements over other
construction alternatives. The environmental study described in
Mr. Ward's letter should facilitate our review of project
impacts.
If we can further assist your office, please call David Yow,
Highway Project Coordinator, at [phone]. Thank you for
the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project.
DLS/DLY
cc Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator

F1
I

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
October 21, 1992
M Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
¦
TAKES
PRIDE IN
AMERICA??
E?•
OCT 26 1992
Is 11 C N, r) -
n ,
I
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Scoping for the proposed NC 49 widening from Tyvola Road
Extension to the South Carolina state line, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina, T.I.P. No. U-2512, State Project No. 8.1673501
This responds to your letter of September 18, 1992 (received
September 28, 1992), requesting our comments on the subject project.
These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned
about: (1) the potential impacts the proposed action may have on the
federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and
(2) the potential impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems within the
project area.
' As you are aware, it is the Federal Highway
responsibility under Section 7 of the Act to Administration's
provide the Service with
information on any federally listed species that may be affected by the
proposed action. Your letter states that a survey will be conducted for
Schweinitz's sunflower during its flowering season in August and
September. After we receive a copy of the s urvey results (including
documentation about the methodology used for the survey work and the
expertise of those conducting the survey), w e will be able to make a
determination as to whether your obligations under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act have been satisfied.

The Service's review of the subject environmental assessment 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 existing and required additional rights-of-way
and any areas, such as borrow areas, that may be
affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
improvements.
(3) Acreage and description of the creeks, streams, or
wetlands that will be impacted because of the
proposed highway improvements.
(4) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will
be eliminated because of the proposed highway
improvements.
(5) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with any of the proposed
improvements.
(6) Types of bridge and/or culvert construction and/or
expansions or extensions that will be needed for river or
stream crossings.
' We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you continue to keep us informed on the progress of this
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-93-004.
Sin Arely,-?
/ I
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Randall C. Wilson, Nongame Section Manager, Division of Wildlife
Management, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Box 26806,
Raleigh, NC 27611

1
LL
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GovERNOIt P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 9, 1994
STATE PROJECT: 8.1673501 (U-2512)
COUNTY: Mecklenburg
DESCRIPTION: Improvements to NC 49, from Tyvola Rd. to S.C. State Line
SUBJECT: Hazardous Materials Evaluation
Purpose
'FIlls report presents the results of a hazardous materials evaluation conducted for the above referenced
project. The primary purpose of this report is to identify potential environmental hazards such as:
underground storage tanks, hazardous waste sites, landfills, dumps and similar sites that could cause
delays in construction schedules or result in environmental liabilities.
I Methodology
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted along the NC 49 corridor from Tyvola Road to the South
Carolina State Line. A file search of all appropriate federal and state agencies was conducted to
determine if any environmental hazards were present in the proposed project corridor.
Under=und torage Tank (UST) Facilities
' Based on our reconnaissance survey, we identified five facilities with underground storage tanks (USTs)
which may have an impact along the NC 49 corridor.
I . Shell/Handy Pantry #62 UST Owner: Wesyork Group
9424 York Road 6238 Heritage Place
Charlotte, NC Charlotte, NC
Facility I.D.: 0-014286
Located in the northwest quadrant of the NC 49 and SR 1410 intersection, this site is
currently registered with the DEM. On-site are located five (5) USTs approximately
48 feet from the edge of pavement of NC 49. The USTs are of steel construction, are
IQ
7
U-2112
Hazardous Material Evah:ation
Page 2
described as 1-10,000 gal diesel, 1-10,000 gal kerosene, and 3-10,000 gal gasoline
and are about 9 years old.
2. Arrowood Amoco UST Owner: Mark Oil Co.
9700 York Road P.O. Box 32064
Charlotte, NC 1115 N. Church St.
Facility I.D.: 0-013926
"this facility is located in the southwest quadrant of the NC 49 and SR 9700
intersection and is currently registered with the DEM. '['here are five (5) USTs on-
site, described as 2-8,000 gal gasoline, 1-10,000 gal gasoline, 1-10,000 diesel, and
1-3000 gal kerosene. All of the USTs are of steel construction and are about 4 years.
The UST pit and the main pump island are located approximately 103 feet from the
edge of pavement of NC 49. There is also a diesel pump and an UST located
approximately 59 feet from the edge of pavement.
3. Crown/Fast Fare UST Owner: Crown Central Petroleum
10809 York Road P.O. Box 1168
' Charlotte, NC Baltimore, MD
Facility I.U.: 0-009511
Located in the northeast quadrant of the NC 49 and SR 1344 intersection, this active
site has three (3) 8,000 gal gasoline USTs on-site. These USTs are about 4 years old
' and are of steel construction. The UST pit is located approximately 33 feet from the
edge of pavement on NC 49.
4. Abandoned gas station UST Owner: unknown
Adjacent to 13525 York Road
Charlotte, NC
Facility I.D.: unknown
Little is known about this site at this time. There is evidence that a gas station may
have been located here before. Currently this site is still undergoing further
investigation by the Geo-Environmental Section. Upon completion of this
investigation a report of its findings will be forwarded.
5. Ray's Quick Shop/Chevron UST Owner: info not available
Hwy. 49 South
Charlotte, NC
Facility I.D.: 0-014252
Located in the northwest quadrant of the NC 49 and SR 11 16 intersection, this site
contains seven (7) {5--1,000 gal gasoline, 1--3,500 gal gasoline, 1--6,500 gal
diesel)USTs. They are of steel construction, and are 11 years old. The UST pit is

F
LJ
11-2512
' Hazardous Material Evaluation
Page 3
located approximately 50 feet from the edge of pavement of NC 49. The pump
island and service lines are located approximately 69 feet from the edge of pavement
of NC 49.
' The proposed alignment with right-of-way through this intersection is approximately
100 feet, which will encompass the entire UST system. We recommend that the
alignment of this curve be adjusted so that the UST system will not be impacted.
It is strongly recommended that all UST sites within this project corridor be avoided by additional right-
of-way acquisition. Purchasing property with USTs allows for the possibility that UST leakage will be
present and require groundwater as well as soil remediation. Such corrective actions could obligate DOT
to years of continual clean-up and untold dollars in expenses.
Landfills
The files of the Solid Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste Management were consulted to locate any
landfills in this section of Mecklenburg County that would affect the project. The York Road Landfill,
NCD980557771, is located near the northern terminus of the project corridor.
Other Potentially Contaminated Properties

t
1

Groundwater Incidents
A data search of the Geographical Information System (GIS) was undertaken to locate
areas affected by groundwater incidents. The following groundwater incident #6483, is
located within the project corridor.
+`aciLit l?T sn »> > < : ; ? ' A :
' ?C?4 ?nfi # v!urce Croundw,4. er ;
. XXX,
Co[ttentt i3 'on
n h
Fast Fare/Circle K 9045 York Road #6483 Leaking yes
UST
Hazardous Waste Generators
A records search of the Hazardous Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste Management
revealed three Hazardous Waste Generators within the project corridor.
>::::<'ilty !fame ddress;::<> :::>:<`: £P:ia ? .:. C?t?gt i? Listing
Fast Fare/Crown 7741 York Road NCD986173003 Small quantity
generator
Exxon 9501 York Road NCD986186757 Conditionally
Exempt Small
quantity generator
Crown Carowinds Blvd. & NCD986172955 Small quantity
NC 49 generator

U-2512
Hazardous Material Evaluation
Page 4
Further research is underway to determine if any of the above mentioned facilities will have an adverse
affect within the project limits. An addendum to this section will be sent if a conflict is discovered.

1

l
If we can provide any other assistance, please do not hesitate to call Eddie Hales at [phone].
Sincerely,
?' ?zo-' /'4a" ---zr-
C. Edward Hales, III
Geotechnieal Unit
Geo-Environmental Section
1

1

1

1

i

1I9LZ eULLOaeO 44JON `g6LaLe8
IOZSZ Xo8 '0 'd
sf'eMg6LH 10 UOLSLALa 'O 'N
gOUPJ q [e4uawuoJLAU3 pup 6ULUUeId
aa6eueW "3 'd `VIOLA ULLIuea3 'H 'aW
:04 papaeMaOj
aq pLnogs 4uawssassV LeIUawuoaLAU3 a44 6ULUJ@OUOO aneq no.? 4uawwoo RuV
'jaodaa agq uL passnOSLp se paaLnbaa aq LLLM
s4Lwaad Leaapa3 paledLOL4Ue SL jL ajou pLnogs saLOUa6e MOLAaa 4Lwaad
'paALonuL SOL4Lo
pue 'SUM04 'saLlunoa aq4 pue `SaLoua6e 6ULuueLd apLMeaae `asnog6ULaea10
a4e4S ago 04 pa44Lwgns 6ULaq aae 4uawssaSSV SLg4 10 saLdoO
'ssaooad buLdoos ano jo 4aed se pagoequoo aq LLLM nok 4uawalelS 4oedwl
LeIUawuoaLAU3 JJeaa P 6ULaedaad aol paau e alea4suowap 6uLaeaq OLLgnd ago le
ao JuawssassV LelUawuoaLAU3 aq4 uo paALaOaa s4uawwo3 p pogs 'aanaMoq !,, 3edwl
JUeoLj!u6LS ON jo 6ULpuL3„ e q4LM passaooad aq LLLM joaCoad SLgj pajedL3LjUe
SL 41 '4U9wanoadwL kpmg6Lq pasodoad 43aCgns aqj aol jaodaa swa4sks
LeanjeN aq4 pue 4uawssassV Le4uawuoaLAU3 aq4 jo kdoo e SL p94OP14V
ZTSZ-A '0N dIl `I05£L91'9 '0N
409Coad a4e4S `(Z)6V-d1S 'ON 4340,ld pLV-LeaapaA `eULLoaeO 44JON
`R4 uno0 6anquaLloaW `UOLsua4X3 pP08 eLOAkj 04 a6pLa8 pkog aagsng
a44 woa3 `6uLUapLM 6b ON JOI 4uawssassV Le4UawuoaLAU3 Lea9p03 :103 ms
:gweLeg 'aW aeaa
BVII-b09LZ eULLOaeO g4JON 'g6LaLe8
gaa,A4S kangsLLeS 41JON ZI5
juawa6eueW Le4uawuoaLAU3 10 'ALa - bNH3a
gweLeg OLa3 'aW
V66T `6Z ?Lnp
Alivi _nr),is 10KS419LZ "--)'N 'l F)191\121 'LOZSZ XM 'O'd )IONiiIIAOr)
I I I -1.NnH HAVVVS -21 S)xVM(I;)[H .10 N01SIAM N( '.LNf1H 'q S7WV(
N011..d.L2i0dSNVU JO IN]WI-idd]Q
VN1102IVD HDION AO 31VIS
?1V15'°

,ALd/n3H
40UPJ B [p4UawuoaLnU] pup 6ULUUp[d
aa6pupW 1.3 'd `VIOLA uLLJUpaJ •H
WT r-?^ ? * it
,,'[aaaaULS
•ajpaLpUL os aspa[d „14apdwj ;Up:)Lj[u 6LS ON 10 6ULpUL3„ aq4 Jo
kdoa p asLsap nod' II •auoU anpq nod' awnssp [[Lm am a4pp 4p4; Sq panLaaaa @JP
s;UawwoO oU 11 'V661 `Zi aagwa4daS /'q panLaaaJ aq p[nogs sluawwoa AnoA
Z a6pd
V661 `6Z ?Lnp

NATURAL SYSTEMS REPORT
NC 49 IMPROVEMENTS
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
for
CRS Sirrine Engineers, Inc.
and
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
by
Environmental Services, Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina
May, 1993

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Page
LIST OF TABLES .............................................. ii
' LIST OF FIGURES ............................................. iii
1. INTRODUCTION
.........................................
Project Description 1

1
Methodology .............................................. 1
II. PHYSICAL RESOURCES ................................... 4
Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ....................... 4
Soils .............. 5
...... .. ...... ...................
Water Resources . . . . .
5

'
III. Physical Resource Impacts ..................................
BIOTIC RESOURCES ...................................... 11
16
Plant Community Patterns ..................................
Plant Community Impacts .................................. 16
19
Wildlife ............................................... 22

' Terrestrial .............................................
Aquatic ............................................. 22
23
Wildlife Impacts ......................................... 23

IV. Rare/Unique Natural Areas .................................
SPECIAL, TOPICS ...................... .. 24
25
Wetlands .....
...........................................
Wetland Impacts 25

26
Permitting ............................................... 26
' Mitigation ...
............................................
Protected Species 28

28
Federal Species .......................................... 28
1 State Species ........
.............:......................
Protected Species Impacts 30

31
V. REFERENCES CITED ..................................... 33
VI. APPENDIX .............................................. 36
i

LIST OF TABLES
page
TABLE 1 - Soils Summary ................................... 6
TABLE 2 - Best Use and Ecological Stream Classifications ............ 12
TABLE 3 - Plant Community Impacts ........................... 20
TABLE 4 - Cumulative Wetland/Water Impacts .................... 27
TABLE 1A - Wetland/Water Crossings .................... Appendix
ii
i
t
t
LIST OF FIGURES
page
FIGURE 1 - Site Location Map ............................... 2
FIGURE 2.1 - Soil Map ..................................... 8
FIGURE 2.2 - Soil Map ..................................... 9
FIGURE 2.3 - Soil Map ..................................... 10
FIGURE 3 - BMAN and Discharger Locations Map ................. 14
FIGURE 1A - Wetland/Water Location Map ................ Appendix
iii

I

1. INTRODUCTION
NC 49 IMPROVEMENTS
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NO. U-2512
Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve
approximately 10.3 miles of NC 49 from the Tyvola Road intersection in Charlotte to the
South Carolina state line, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Figure 1). This project
will involve widening the existing two-lane roadway to a multi-lane thoroughfare. Two
major alternatives with minor variations are being considered including: 1) a 4-lane divided
highway with widening primarily to the west or east; and 2) a 5-lane undivided thoroughfare
(opposing turn lane) which primarily entails a symmetrical widening. Minor variations are
proposed for both alternatives.
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) has been retained to assist with planning efforts.
Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: 1) an assessment of biological
features along NC 49 including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species,
wetlands, and water quality issues; 2) mapping of specific resources including plant
community patterns and wetlands; 3) an evaluation of probable impacts resulting from
construction; and 4) a preliminary determination of permit needs and conceptual mitigation
options.
Methodology

Field investigations along the NC 49 corridor were undertaken on September 1-3,
1992. The study area was revisited for further evaluation on September 7, and October 11,
1992. Plant communities adjacent to the highway corridor were walked and visually
surveyed. Primary components of the landscape and characteristic species were identified
within each plant community. Corridor widths were assumed to be 400 feet (200 feet each
side of the roadway) for field study purposes. However, corridor widths were adjusted
according to final widening plans provided by the contractor to more accurately estimate
potential impacts from road construction.
1

i
r.'
,.u ,?
G Z}nf y
',EII - OOf
Jl ICU ^ .- / J I <U eies ?_ - r<sh • t ?.
f J 1 V
_
.U 12:0 1.] 19)
e 1 ? L j?
l 5J5=:
{nJ ? JC r<V Jam, .a
?
OTTE
CHARL
.CY ?._ ?? 1 ?. Cif L\E.f) \f jeor_.
leer
C)wrbnfJDwA
n)errwfnnd MrpwE.,I
l -f lY? __ \ \ \ k
Begin Proj
ect
< "' e \ 1
S
Dm.
5, t i,.s` • ice/ 4\ ,\ Jeer / ?,r' t >s'? ?J?
74
$hoPlPn ale 1..` 7 leel? 111 F0? /
C T.: /J vffff L' N ea o/
n' k?/'?. A Q ?fM /
BoI.M.CE OF
PINEVILtE 6, retsroEN* /
:1-E5[ rOEK
J - rVr 1,515 :. _%... lex6
J 1613.
?Ufss- Fr\ /a'S ??1? _?\!, 1 ..? ?.• ?# fAI 71 Iell 1^l1
i
??/ Iiio A e :i>1 _ i
s
sn
J is?s * / u , 1
J?-mow uJ , 1° _ - ? a'e o
o s :xr
??? /? a)AS?p? YI<P.Pn1 HAI .,
/.? Ch. 5 • Oo4
v f i?pc J r.'. Grw./ Ieo? V
a \ iiol ii,) CR
_ i IO O
i i p r. ?Ct,
rEnd Proje0t] R
101
G
s/ ob
r).) I10)
G \\ ,? J Ilfl ) 1
?t1
.?. a ll?I I N ? J _
ti
.),I4 Lw
?y
i
SITE LOCATION Figure 1
NC 49 Widening TIP No. U-2512
Mecklenburg County
North Carolina Scale: 1' - 10,660'

n
?J

Plant community descriptions were based on a classification scheme recommended
and utilized by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified slightly to better reflect field
observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968).
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from
a number of sources. Topographic mapping was consulted to determine physiographic relief
and to assess landscape characteristics; USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles included Charlotte
West, Fort Mill, and Lake Wylie series. Additional information on soils, topography, and
physiography was obtained through the Soil Conservation Service report for Mecklenburg
County (USDA 1980). Blue line aerial mosaic photography provided an overview of
baseline features in the project area. These photographs served as the basis for
identification and mapping of plant community patterns and wetlands.
Water quality information for streams and tributaries in or near the study area was
derived from available sources (DEM 1988, 1989, 1993). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data. Fish (1968) was utilized to determine ecological
classifications based on recreational fishing potential.
Wildlife and aquatic life distribution and habitat use was determined through field
observations, evaluation of habitat type distributions, and available supportive
documentation (Martof et al. 1980; Potter et al. 1980; Hamel et al. 1982; Webster et al.
1985).
Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three parameter approach
(hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
delineation guidelines (DOA 1987).
Listings of federally protected species with ranges which extend into Mecklenburg
County were requested and received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
prior to initiation of field studies. In addition, ESI personnel consulted records maintained
by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), the Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) for documented presence of federal and state listed
species before commencing this investigation. A general literature review provided
information on the distribution and ecological requirements of various taxa (Radford et al.
1968; Cooper et al. 1977; Kral 1983; Weakley 1990; LeGrand 1990).
3

II. PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Physiography, Topography and Land Use
Mecklenburg County is located within the Charlotte Belt in the midland plateau
region of the Piedmont physiographic province. The Charlotte Belt, which consists of a
diverse mosaic of metamorphic and igneous rock, supports a wide variety of parent
materials, soils, and soil types. The Charlotte Belt contains notably hilly terrain with
numerous, narrow interstream divides exhibiting dense, dendritic drainage patterns (Myers
et al. 1986). The project area is considered susceptible to heavy erosion when disturbed due
to the diverse geomorphology, frequent dissection, and rugged topography characteristic of
this portion of the Charlotte Belt. Elevations within the project vicinity range from 165-215
meters (550-710 feet) above mean sea level (USGS quadrangles). The project corridor
generally follows an infrequently dissected upland ridge as indicated by the relatively few
streams and bottomland areas crossed by the alignment.
Mecklenburg County supports a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural development. As such, the landscape is variable, dictated by past and present
land use practices. Land use in the project vicinity varies with distance from the Charlotte
metropolitan area. Industrial and large commercial development occupies a large majority
of the land area along the northern half of the highway corridor. A small, residual farming
community along a broad upland flat between SR 1441 and NC 160 represents the only
remaining agricultural land use in the study area. A majority of productive, agricultural
lands along this upland flat has previously been converted for residential and commercial
development. Land use at the southern end of the study area is primarily residential and
small commercial development concentrated near the South Fork Catawba River. Limited
forest management, including prescribed burns and selective harvesting, is evident in a
portion of pine mixed hardwood forests near the Catawba River.
Soils
I Soil patterns are the result of a number of biotic and abiotic influences including past

geologic activities, parent material, environmental and human influences, age of sediments,
and topographic position. The study corridor extends through three major soil associations
4
11

identified by the Soil Conservation Service (USDA 1980). These soil associations include
the Iredell-Mecklenburg, Cecil, and Pacolet-Cecil complexes. Seven soil series from the
' major associations were identified along the proposed alignment. Soil series include the
Davidson, Cecil, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Pacolet, and Wilkes series which are commonly
associated with well drained uplands supporting clayey subsoils in Mecklenburg County
(Table 1; Figure 2.1 - 2.3).
t Hydric soils are uncommon in the vicinity of the project. Hydric soils are defined
as "soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to
develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (USDA 1987). There are no soil series in
Mecklenburg County which are all hydric or have hydric characteristics as a major
' component. Soils with hydric inclusions belonging to the Monacan series are predominately
isolated within stream channels along the project corridor where inundation and saturation
' are prevalent. Soil characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Water Resources
Watercourses in the vicinity of proposed highway improvements are part of the
Catawba River Drainage Basin. The project alignment is located in the Sugar Creek sub-
basin which comprises part of the Lower Catawba River Drainage area.
The Sugar Creek sub-basin drains one of the most heavily industrialized areas in
' North Carolina. Water quality data from Sugar Creek indicate poor water quality
throughout it§ course including headwater sections from Charlotte to the South Carolina
' state line (DEM 1989). Point source and nonpoint source pollution appear to contribute
equally to water quality degradation in the segment of Sugar Creek which crosses the
project corridor. Erosion and sedimentation from urban runoff, a former sanitary landfill,
and a large municipal waste water discharge upstream comprise primary sources of nonpoint
' and point source pollution in the project area. Sugar Creek is considered non-supporting
for intended uses (DEM 1988).
' Six major stream crossings and nine unnamed tributaries/drainageways are
encountered along the project alignment, of which two flow north into the South Fork
' Catawba via Porter Branch. The remaining drainageways/stream crossings flow from north
to south, eventually entering Sugar Creek.
' 5

Table 1
SOILS SUMMARY
for
?!

NC 49 Widening (Mecklenburg, N.C.)
Map
Code Soil Series %Slope General Characteristics
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
Non-hydric
' CeB2 Cecil sandy clay
CeD2 loam

2-8% Well drained, upland ridges
8-15% moderate side slopes; moderate
permeability and medium
surface runoff; Moderate to
severe erosion hazard if
ground cover is removed;
primarily urban areas and
forest on steeper slopes.
IrA Iredell fine sandy 0-1%
' IrB loam 1-8%

1

1

Moderately well drained,
broad upland flats, smooth
ridges, and gentle side
slopes; slow permeability and
medium surface runoff;
seasonally perched water
tables in flatter areas (IrA);
moderate erosion hazard on
steeper slopes (IrB);
primarily crops, pasture and
fallow pasture.
MeB Mecklenburg fine 2-8% Well drained, narrow bands
MeD sandy loam 8-15% along broad ridges and side
slopes; slow permeability and
and rapid surface runoff;
severe erosion hazard on
steeper slopes (MeD);
primarily urban areas (MeB)
and forest on steeper slopes
(MeD).
PaE Pacolet sandy loam 15-25% Well drained, narrow bands
PaF 25-45% along steep side slopes
adjacent to drainageways;
moderate permeability and
rapid surface runoff; low
potential for urban/
agricultural uses which may
accelerate erosion; severe
erosion hazard and formation
of gullies when exposed;
primarily forest.
1

L

Table 1 Continued
SOILS SUMMARY
for
NC 49 Widening (Mecklenburg, N.C.)
Map
Code Soil Series %Slope General Characteristics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------

WkB Wilkes loam 4-8%
WkD 8-15%
Well drained, oval areas on
narrow ridges and side slopes
usually near drainageways;
moderately slow permeability
and moderate surface runoff;
Depth to bedrock frequently
less than 40 inches; severe
erosion hazard when disturbed;
primarily forest and
incidental inclusions within
urban areas.

Hydric Inclusions
Mo Monacan sandy clay 0-2%
loam
Somewhat poorly drained, long
narrow areas on flood plains
along stream beds and
drainageways; moderate
permeability and slow surface
runoff; water table ranges
from 0.5 foot to 2 feet in
winter and early spring; brief
periods of flooding during
winter and early spring;
primarily stream beds and one
small palustrine emergent
pocket.

F
u

n

I
?•. Ms8 Wk9 ,? MeB b ? ? `_ , „
Me/ Ir8 1. Y f ]z (srj1.'1,'? t 4 M eB . i
X ?`:..l 41G ,?, r?l* ?,j;i-.. I Wk8 p •at _ IU8
' ?;! y' e8 ` Irk t, ;+'' . I Wkq M Iry
`e Wks Iraq \
Ir8 k
Ir8
\ Mee Q MeO 'w«' MeB
YT McBkB
' En8 IrB \ IrB II /
IrB \ i' I IrA
?1 11 I `? '?
1 MeD
MO I
/ e
1 r II I? \ ? 1f8:
/ MeB ' rA I MeB
D kB MeB
Me8 MO MeB W ki
C MeD \ '
l I rB
IrB Me8 II En8/ \ M?j. MeD
MeB ( /
M ev
1(A 7. ?J ;,?? Me8 1U8 MkB
A Ir6_ ? ?? ;. \ eB Ir8 ?? `V = .
Ire
MeB ^ IrA
u
f °
IrB? _ -._yr ? O WkD? MC
e ..,.,..• ?9 MP Wk8 Me
MeB --
MO • . MeB G Ir8
+a t..' ?? p, rp ? ?
1
m Me8 ! 1 2
McHi MO -
WkE
CeD2 a kD`
' POPE - x• IrB
`? IrB Eno
Ce02 B Ce82 w / Wk • M?... w
v Me8 1 ii CeB2
Mfl- ??.
/
? QhB- ' ?' MeB N
O?? :.
G
I ? +• CeU2 qi ,?
0?9 rt ceo2
2 Y r -?
\r`b Ce CeD2 CeB2
ApB :?` Ol ?? t 1
Ce82
' SOIL MAP Figure 2.2
{{ NC 49 Widening TIP No. U-2512
Mecklenburg County
North Carolina Scale: 1w - 2000'
1
kd' a?
Me@ I ?)
y M*E' 1 I
F• B Me8 \?\.
?. ..a - r eP. M \
v'rf1, O V'130 CND !"n
. 2 , n
" (11??A. J.. .K ? dr 4? " ?bPB._? ? n? ? :« ?? rL. ,i? t'? Me
p ". n e8 = f b..
??/ r . ; Oe ; e' 4 e
• . • Sk'e?PaE 2 'j Irs r5
r
' t?.f lyn:i .? i4 .' ? `? r ? rB
?° ? -?. Me
? PeE - ?' 4 ? -c Me8 ?` .
' C z , Mep
,,. y
ry a
,, t `??S ?v ? e
PaE Y, e67
ti - PaEt CepP ? '4 ? -r CeD2 ? Ce02
v PaF - -' Leo . P?F -h. f r. Pa -
U V? CPe? PaE- y JMi T - ?`J:
o rc \ FeB2
ADB c,°' PaP .? ?. ? i
..,? ) QL i /?DB
Qo Ce82 '', y ' r.. ' CeB2 GR2 r _
J. -?=Cep2- .M -,?2, - a? CeD2, ? - 6?. ?• ? Pad. ? ' `_
? _ ? ti AoD
?? He8 p Pe
PaC \ eB eD
PaF n ° W
SOIL MAP Figure 2.3
' NC 49 Widening TIP No. U-2512
1 ?? Mecklenburg County
?, ENVIRONMENTAL North Carolina Scale: 1" - 2000'
?__- _-J SERVICES, INC.
I

Stream crossings, by location, are depicted in Appendix A. Table 2 depicts best usage,
ecological classifications, and flow characteristics for the six major streams crossed by the
alignment and the South Fork Catawba River.
Four Benthic Macroinvertebrate Network (BMAN) sampling stations are located in
the project vicinity (DEM 1989; Figure 3). Sampling stations several miles north of NC 49
on Irwin Creek (Stations #1,2) were established to assess landfill impacts on water quality
within headwater tributaries to Sugar Creek. Data from these locations indicate poor water
quality and the presence of aquatic organisms which tend to be very tolerant of organic
loading and low dissolved oxygen. Sampling stations northwest of NC 49 (Stations #3,4)
on Irwin Creek and Sugar Creek were established to characterize waste water treatment
impacts on water quality in Sugar Creek. Data from these locations also indicate poor
water quality in Sugar Creek headwaters as a result of point source pollution associated with
waste water discharge. Poor water quality is considered characteristic of most streams
crossed by the project corridor. Minor improvements in sediment loading within streams
crossed by the corridor are apparent with increasing distance from the Charlotte
metropolitan area. However, expected water quality improvements in more suburban areas
are apparently negated by increasing susceptibility of the landscape to erosion near the
South Fork Catawba River.
One point source discharger over 0.5 mgd exists in the project area (DEM 1989;

7

u

Figure 3). The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) (Station #10),
located approximately one mile north of the project alignment, carries a permitted discharge
of 15.0 mgd into Irwin Creek. Point source dischargers will not be affected by proposed
improvements.
Physical Resource Impacts
Project impacts on topography and area soils are expected to be restricted to
localized changes in micro-relief. Notable landscape features are relegated to rolling
topography with minor potential for changes as a result of highway construction.
11

N ?
H
C7
z
z?
C/)Q
Q?
z
O
UU
Ow
O¢
WU
E- W
wd
Cop)
U
z0
wwu
W
QW ^
W
Q Q
rW
V ?
Q
¢3
W
a
H

a

D L? L? U

.r O
.?
?
U fd
N
? y C,3
1 b p a
co c
C
'b q h ti
.
O Q' ;?z ct o m o" ;?z ro
a A. i s '° i p .n a n O
O o
a .
a i
° ro
"o E V) .
3 h 3 b •
3v
, 0,

.b l
Cl a ul
O U y a?
O~ +.y t
N v
)
p? v (
N a
cC .
ca v ?° a° ? ° a4 ° a° V) ° U b
U U U U U
a U a G U U
U U
b i. ; U
O w w O w
a? a ?,
a
°
' ?
60
M o
.?
. n

' 3v
O O V) O
b p V) O
U U U U U

> b b
M m
tb C G U
` \
b b b ?
?

v? (n V)
U U N
C13 C13

O C.) O b O O
O "a
O O E15
E
M M N V ?
O V O O \D
00
rn

,x
U
?
V) x
y
U
w
Uo
.x
U

cif

Y

°
a
?

3

Q

Li,
t
M
a?
a
a
0
N

C7
z_
x
z?
Q
z
O
Q
U U
O Q
W U
H ?
U_
z O
W
3
O
W?
Q
rW ^
V w
W
Q
W ^
C7
Q
1-0
Q' a
Cd
3 a i
y U
4.
O N ?
U
U
a
v
a w
'V)
E U)
a
o
o V)
H w
U
U
O
b
a?
N
w.
U
b
O
V
,It
U
Cl)
°
a
0
ro ? i
3 a?i a•
O .b ,U
Q) o
U
V) a
? ,
U
V)
0
S ?
bQ
W 3
4d
3
3
3 ?
m 03
U
a
v
? F7 U
U ?
i cad cC
a. 'o
a a?
.D
cc0"
i a
> M
N
r o
b U
o
A ? q
i U •°?
ro
3
'a 3
b o
4 ? b
7 O" °
? w O
~ V
Q C,3 aU+
h O
a
h
I ti.
b w
N
a?
4 >
4 yhiu
C,3 U
3 a
C13
4
b
a4 U

? ? r.eJ . -" • u i
? •olJ / Mulluf? ` rwJ LI ? T C7 ? ?? I/
j rut reu rJ.,...u
I ? e I .
_?Y? ? ?? •Jt ]•e? JI a +u :e_,
1121 _7
LiTj
1 /A
]^ _ - t
?- J r... 71
,s - _ - I tone r J v
)roc "2oQe' 77 It 2, Lj4-
1 < CC
FAU
1 rrf> 1-?J / I © l ® ale
7
RA
FA %
lase 7.t fI. /? CE, 1
\ ] 7 r•
27
? Ve; J o -
'e]f sp t t,/ ?? dill CHARLOTTE ,cr' / .•?e;._
r e
,
1
_ _-_____-__-___ -... -___ ?J•,r li?' ^, !1 511.
,
ei
LEGEND
1: BMAN station, Irwin Creek and NC 21 •,a+`
2: BMAN station, Irwin Creek and NC 21.
3: BMAN station, Irwin Creek and NC521.
4: BMAN station, Sugar Creek and SR 1156.
10: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Department, Irwin Creek. r
BMAN AND DISCHARGER Figure 3
LOCATIONS
1 t NC 49 Widening TIP No. U-2512
Mecklenburg County
! North Carolina Scale: 1" - 42,000'

FJ
D

1

1

1
1
The primary sources of long term water quality degradation in the project area are
urban runoff and waste water discharge. Continuing degradations from sedimentation and
organic loading in Sugar Creek, Coffey Creek, and Steele Creek may jeopardize the
existence of most intolerant aquatic organisms. Expansion of the existing roadway will
encourage and support additional development around these streams which may contribute
to continuing declines in water quality. However, long term impacts on water quality as a
direct result of road construction are expected to be minimal.
A number of streams which are crossed by the highway corridor will be temporarily
and locally affected by road widening. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and
sedimentation can be minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion control
schedule and use of best management practices. The contractor will be required to follow
contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in the Department
of Transportation's FHPM 6-7-3-1 and Article 107-313 entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation,
and Pollution." Dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures can be used as
needed to control runoff. Rapid re-seeding of disturbed sites will also help alleviate
sediment loading within area stream channels. Increased runoff from new highway surfaces
will be partially mitigated by providing for grassed road shoulders and limited use of
ditching whenever possible.
At this stage of the planning process, the need for stream relocation has not been
addressed. Should such actions be required, The NCDOT must coordinate with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission in accordance with
mandates expressed in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (72 Stat. 563, as amended;
16 USC 661 et seq. (1976)).
15

1

III. BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Community Patterns
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project area
reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past or present land
use practices. Natural community patterns have been heavily modified by previous
disturbances. However, at least eight communities were identified within the study area as
shown in Table 3. The following community profile descriptions have been adopted and
modified from the NCNHP classification scheme (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) to reflect
local variations within the study alignment.
Pine Woodlands (P)
Pine woodlands typically occur on xeric, upland sites characterized by a dominant
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) canopy with inclusions of shortleaf (Pinus echinata) and Virginia
pine (Pinus vir ing iana). Many of these systems formed from old-field natural regeneration
with limited management for pulpwood or timber production. Variations in species
composition within the pine woodland community are closely associated with stand age.
In young stands, canopy closure is complete, limiting the understory to an

impenetrable net of greenbrier (Smilax lg auca), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), yellow
jasmine (Gelsemium sempervirens), and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans). In older,
unmanaged stands, a variety of tree species appear in the midstory and understory, including
sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), hickory species (Carya
spp.), scarlet oak ( uercus coccinea), southern red oak ( uercus falcata), willow oak
( uercus hp ellos), and white oak ( uercus albs). Dogwood (Cornus florida), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), winged elm (Ulmus alata), and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) appear
in the understory as these stands grade into the pine mixed hardwood community type.
Pine woodlands along the alignment represent a seral precursor of NCNHP's Dry Oak-
Hickory Forest classification type.
16

1

1

1

F

Pine Mixed Hardwood Forest (PHW)
Pine mixed hardwood forest cover represents a variant of the pine woodlands
described above. These communities are reflective of stand age and the degree of
maintenance. The primary identification is the mix of co-dominant pines and hardwoods
in the canopy. Loblolly, Virginia, and shortleaf pine share canopy dominance with willow
oak, water oak, southern red oak, sweet gum, and hickory. Pine/hardwood ratios may vary
considerably from site to site; older stands or those tracts subjected to selective logging
practices demonstrate a prevalence of hardwoods in the overstory. Midstory and shrub
species include dogwood, red maple, American holly (Ilex opaca), and black cherry. In pine
mixed hardwood stands, the herbaceous component exhibits slightly higher diversity and
greater abundance than in older pine woodlands due to variable crown shapes in the
canopy, increased solar radiation, and the heterogeneity of mixed pine hardwood litter.
Herbaceous species include those described for pine woodlands along with pipsissewa
(Chimaphila maculata), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), false solomon's seal
(Smilacina racemosa), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). This vegetation profile
represents a sera] precursor of NCNHP's Dry Oak-Hickory Forest classification type.
Upland Hardwood Forest (UHW)
Upland hardwood forest is the dominant forest cover throughout the project area.
Most tracts supporting upland hardwood forests appear to be low productivity sites or sites
characterized by steep slopes which have not been farmed or developed this century. The
intolerant pine component is no longer present within the late-successional structure
exhibited in these stands. Dominant trees include willow oak, white oak, southern red oak,
scarlet oak, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and hickory. Understory vegetation is generally
lacking on xeric sites, relegated to saplings of those species found in the overstory and
occasional patches of low bush blueberry (Vaccinium vacillans). Mesic upland hardwood
sites, which are concentrated on steeper slopes near the South Fork Catawba River, contain
considerable understory vegetation, including those species found in pine mixed hardwood
communities along with rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera pubescens), arrow wood (Viburnum
17
t
1

1

I

rafinesquianum), and ebony spleenwort (Esplenium pla , neuron). Upland hardwood forests
correspond to NCNHP's Dry Oak-Hickory Forest type.
Mesic Forest (MF)
Mesic forest communities are prevalent along stream channels and mesic slopes
bordering intermittent tributaries. This cover type is dominated by sweet gum, red maple,
and cottonwood (Populus deltoides). Other important species include yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American beech
(Fagus grandifolia), and occasional green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The understory is
generally sparse, with dogwood and sassafras (Sassafras albidum) commonly occupying
canopy gaps. Ground cover is generally restricted to liverleaf (Hepatica americana), wild
ginger (Hexas , lis arifolia), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrosticoides). This vegetation
profile corresponds to NCNHP's Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype).
Agricultural (Ag)
Agricultural land along NC 49 is restricted to a broad upland flat supporting Iredell
soils between SR 1122 and NC 160. This area consists primarily of pasture land utilized for
hay (fescue/clover) production. Limited production of feed corn is evident on a few
agricultural fields near the project corridor. Present pastures within the study corridor are
most likely included in fallow pasture/feed corn rotations. Thus, feed corn has been included
as a viable product on agricultural lands in the study area.
Successional (Suc)
Successional fields are typically fallow pasture land or previously forested areas
cleared for residential/commercial development. Natural red cedar and loblolly pine
regeneration is extensive in these successional areas. Loblolly pine seedlings and red cedar
saplings are commonly interspersed with a number of ephemeral species including trumpet
creeper, honeysuckle, aster (Aster spp.), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), butterfly
weed (Asclepias tuberosa), thistle (Carduus spp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota),
18

1

J

smooth sumac (Rhus lg_abra), winged sumac (Rhus copallina), blackberry (Rubus argutus),
ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), and poke berry (Phytolacca americana).
Urban/Disturbed (U/D)
Urban/disturbed areas occupy a large percentage of land along the NC 49 corridor.
These systems are places where industries, businesses, residences and other related human
activities dominate the landscape. As a result, vegetation in non-paved areas is limited to
landscape plantings and successional species interspersed with indigenous specimens.
Plant Community Impacts
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system
present in the study area. Table 3 summarizes potential plant community losses by segment
which could result from roadway development. Plant community impacts have been
segregated into two segments for design purposes. These segments include: 1) metropolitan
impacts occurring in areas between Carowinds Boulevard (SR1344) and the Tyvola Road
extension in Charlotte (northern segment); and 2) suburban impacts extending from the
South Fork Catawba River to Carowinds Boulevard (southern segment). Three alternative
alignments have been proposed for the northern segment including a 4-lane divided highway
(symmetrical widening) (N4S), a 4-lane divided highway (widening to one side) (MC), and
a 5-lane thoroughfare (symmetrical widening) with an opposing turn lane (N5). All
northern alternatives involve curb and gutter improvements. Two roadway options have
been proposed for the southern segment including a 4-lane divided highway (widening to
one side) (S4), and a 5-lane alternative (symmetrical widening) with an opposing turn lane.
Potential plant community impacts exhibit negligible variation between alternates.
Along the northern segment between Carowinds Boulevard and the Tyvola Road extension
in Charlotte, approximately 78% (28 acres) of total losses from road widening will occur in
urban/disturbed and highly modified successional areas which have been cleared for
development.
19

M
H
z
w
W
a
U
a
0
d ?
E?
O?
??11
FBI
a

Q'
A
r7
H
z?
a?
W
mod'
w
o v? t- -- 00
M M M ? in
ON r--1 00 O\ 00
M 4 M M M
"rl: N `!I: M 00
CIA MCIA ?r-i
110 It ?O , N
666 ' -.4
d:N,I: t- 00
C) C)
00 kn
NC? l? ?0?
C;0C? 06 CO
V 00
ON r- 00 00 00

(Z
If;
o a
a+ ?
a
?+ O b
N
y W o
v? b P?
? y
av)U
oozzz
u
m
M
O ..,may
y w
a cn cn
co U v°?
w
y
wo
-? u
b V N
U p
0 ?° b
00
?vb
a
33?x
a
G w
V U ?
`? p •p 0
L
a
T
Jul
cli
cli
o
o
? o
b o b
U) CIS
•? .b o
0 w
w ? b
O
b
p ,b w
U ,? O
cU0 w4 O ti.
.b o
c
-0 a
0 0 .? CO p
LT ~ G
Cp O O a
U
0 Col. 8+
b o°. bA 0,
00 C
t
U
10 .
CIS
U U y 6
CIJ
°
aroma ?
`d U a °
3 a?
^
N T ' N td
-o a a on
? 0 C>: ?
0
3 CIS o
o
U
'.n' .b b ? b cd
(?b-8
CIS
¢? a a a a a
q
.2 66 (?5
?zzzCA
u
u
Q

Impacts upon urban\disturbed and successional areas decrease along the southern
segment from Carowinds Boulevard to the South Fork Catawba River. Community impacts
within urban areas represent 36% (19 acres) of total impacts while successional areas
average an additional 19% (9.5 acres) of total losses estimated for the southern segment.
Agricultural losses in the southern segment are isolated along a broad upland flat
which supports Iredell soils. Iredell represents the only soil series of agricultural
significance along the project alignment. A large majority of productive, agricultural lands
within the project corridors have previously been converted for residential and commercial
development. Presently, only 14% (7.2 acres) of the total land area along the southern
segment corridors consists of agricultural land utilized for hay/feed corn production.
Impacts on upland dry forests (pine, pine mixed hardwood, upland hardwood)
average 25% (22 acres) of total losses for NC 49 widening with minimal variation per
alternate. Dry forests losses are greatest within contiguous upland hardwood and pine-
mixed hardwood tracts near the South Fork Catawba River.
Impacts on mesic forests are concentrated within narrow riparian corridors along
drainageways, streams, and rivers crossed by the alignment. Mesic forest losses are greatest
along Sugar Creek which contains 56% (2.18 acres) of total mesic forests for the northern
segment alternatives. Mesic forest losses along the southern half of the alignment primarily
occur in cove forests associated with drainage into the South Fork Catawba River. These
systems tend to be limited in width and heavily disturbed; often isolated within residential
neighborhoods. Ecosystem functions associated with riparian mesic forests have largely
been negated due to extensive fragmentation.
Impacts to natural plant communities by road widening are considered minimal due

to the highly disturbed and fragmented conditions adjacent to the highway corridor. The
impact corridor contains few contiguous, natural plant communities. Impacts tend to be
concentrated in urban/residential areas or successional tracts scheduled for development.
Negligible variation in plant community impacts is evident between the various proposed
alternatives.
21

' Wildlife

i

Terrestrial
Most of the project area consists of metropolitan and suburban areas. Clearing and
conversion of large tracts of land for industrial, commercial, and residential uses has
eliminated cover and protection for many traditional forms of wildlife. Even so, limited
plant community mosaics provide suitable habitat for cosmopolitan forms of wildlife.
Forested systems offer all the necessary components (food, water, cover) to support a
number of small mammals and birds. Woodland strips bordering small tributaries
complement existing ecotypes, often serving as travel corridors between habitat areas for
transient species. Common mammals noted or expected include the grey squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), opossum (Didelphis vir ing iana), Eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus
floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Eastern mole
(Scalopus aguaticus), Southeastern shrew (Sorex lon irg ostris), Eastern chipmunk (Tamias
striatus), white-footed mouse (Perom, sy cus leucopus), and fox (Vulpes vulpes, Urocyon
cineareoar eg nteus).
Larger mammals, such as white tailed deer (Ocdocoileus vir inianus), are considered
common in rural areas of Mecklenburg County. Harvest records indicate that 175 deer
harvests were reported in 1990-91 for Mecklenburg County (NCWRC 1992). All of these
deer were reported on non-game lands which may include upland hardwood tracts within
project limits near the South Fork Catawba River.
Avifaunal abundance is typical of urban areas in the Piedmont region of North

Carolina where a patchwork of habitat types is available. The highway corridor provides
few resources for avifaunal inhabitants. Resident populations are anticipated in areas away
from the highway alignment where better cover and protection is provided. Bird sightings
within the study corridor are considered transient fly-overs to disjunct habitat areas.
Common passerine species, which were sighted or can be expected, include grackle
( uiscalus uiQ 'scula), American robin (Turdus migratorius), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), mockingbird (Mimus poly lg ottus), Carolinawren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee (Parus carilonensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), wood
thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), killdeer (Charadrius
22

vociferus), solitary vireo (Vireo solitarius), and white-throated sparrows (Zonotrichia
albicollis).

7
L
I
1

Aquatic
Many of the streams crossed by the project alignment provide adequate habitat for
the propagation of aquatic organisms which are tolerant to organic loading. Large streams
and rivers with adequate water quality, such as the South Fork Catawba River, are expected
to support a more diverse fishery than smaller tributaries. Largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), white bass, bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), crappie, and catfish (Ictalurus spp.)
are common gamefish typically found in Piedmont rivers and large streams.
Remaining creeks and streams in the project area are generally too small or too
polluted to be of fishing significance. These tributaries most likely do not support a viable
recreational fishery. However, a number of small fish are likely to exist in these headwater
systems including mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus),
and golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas). Streams along the alignment may provide
marginal riparian and benthic habitat in less degraded areas for a variety of amphibians and
aquatic reptiles such as the Eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), Northern dusky
salamander (Desmognanthusfuscus), green frog (Rana clamitans), snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentine), painted turtle (ChUsemys picta), and Northern water snake (Nerodia fasciata).
Limited populations of blue gill, catfish, and mosquitofish are expected in one small
pond situated in the study area. Snapping turtle, crayfish, and Southern leopard frog (Rana
sphenocephala), are also expected.
Wildlife Impacts
Fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat is an unavoidable consequence of
development. However, highway widening which utilizes existing roadways are not expected
to result in adverse impacts to local wildlife; most construction will be concentrated within
disturbed right-of-way limits. Variations in wildlife impacts by alternative are negligible.
Although some loss of urban habitat would result, many of these communities are currently
of limited value to wildlife. Infringement on contiguous natural systems will not result in
23

1

IL 11

1

significant loss or displacement of known plant or animal populations. Resident species,
such as passerine birds and squirrels, are cosmopolitan in nature, easily adapting to
urbanization. However, movement from one side of the road to the other will become more
dangerous for many transient species, including racoons and opossums.
The magnitude of potential habitat loss for larger mammals, such as deer, increases
with increasing distance from the Charlotte metropolitan area. Areas between Carowinds
Boulevard and Charlotte, which are predominately urban, provide virtually no habitat for
white-tailed deer. However, upland hardwood tracts near the South Fork Catawba River
may provide marginal habitat and serve as riparian travel corridors to disjunct habitat areas.
Road widening will likely make travel for large mammals along the river basin area more
precarious.
Rare/Unique Natural Areas
There are no rare or unique natural areas identified in the project vicinity by the
NCNHP. There are no water bodies deserving of special attention as denoted under the
federal Wildlife and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Pub. L. No. 90-542, 82 Stat. 906; codified
and amended at 16 U.S.C. 1217-1287 (1982)) or under the N.C. Natural and Scenic Rivers
Act of 1971 (G.S. 113A-30). Because rare or unique resources were not identified within
the study area, no adverse impacts are expected.
24

IV. SPECIAL TOPICS
Wetlands
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into
"waters of the United States". Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA
is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the COE has major responsibility for
implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the Act. The COE regulatory
program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes and streams are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also
' considered "waters of the United States". Wetlands have been described as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater 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 (33 CFR 328.3(b) (1986)).

r
The COE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils
and evidence of hydrology) in support of a jurisdictional determination.
For the purposes of this assessment, it has been assumed that all lands which appear
to be actively cultivated or utilized for the production of farm commodities do not constitute
jurisdictional wetlands. Regulatory guidance from the COE (RGL 90-7, 9/26/90) indicates
that "prior converted" crop lands which have been modified to the extent that these systems
no longer provide wetland functions, are not subject to Section 404 permit requirements.
With the exception of fallow pasture lands and successional tracts, all agricultural fields in
the project area appear to meet conditions of the "prior converted" exemption.
Jurisdictional wetlands in the study area are limited to one small palustrine emergent
(PEM) system of approximately 0.25 acres, which is located adjacent to an unnamed
tributary to Sugar Creek. This PEM pocket appears to have formed as a result of long-term
impeded drainage downstream from the project corridor. Dominant species include
Microstegium (Eulalia viminea), mock-orange (Philadelphus inodorus), smartweeds
25

J

7
L,

7-1
1
F7

t
1

F

(Poky onum spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.) and black willow (Salix nigra).
Functional characteristics such as sediment stabilization, sediment/toxicant retention,
nutrient removal/transformation and flood flow alteration are minimal due to the disturbed
nature and small size of the community. Although this palustrine emergent system may
provide occasional food and cover and for a few passerine birds, wildlife habitat value is
considered minimal. The small size of the community and the disturbed nature of the site
suggest minimal ecological importance.
Locations of wetlands and open water crossings likely to be affected by the various
summarized in Table 1A (Appendix).
project alternatives are depicted in Figure 1A-3A. Impacts at individual crossings are
Wetland Impacts
Table 4 summarizes the relative impacts of project alternatives on waters and
wetlands subject to jurisdictional consideration under the Clean Water Act.
As discussed above, wetland losses will be minimal with negligible variation between
alternatives. Along the northern segment, wetland impacts are restricted to a portion of one
small PEM pocket ranging from 0.02 acres of infringement for alternate N4C to 0.06 acres
of infringement for alternates N4S and N5. There are no jurisdictional wetlands within
alternative alignments along the southern segment.
However, a number of small above headwater tributaries subject to jurisdictional
consideration will be crossed by the alignment. Impacts at individual crossings will be
limited in scope, with cumulative impacts along any one crossing generally totalling less than
0.05 acres. Individual streams, impoundments, and the palustrine emergent system crossed
by the alternative corridors are mapped and quantified in Appendix A.
Permits
A variety of permit options are available to allow for encroachment into jurisdictional
waters/wetlands. Because infringement will generally be limited to perpendicular crossings
of small headwater tributaries and encroachment on a single isolated PEM pocket less than
1 acre in size, Nationwide Permits (33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) and (26)) are expected to apply.
26
?I

W1
I?1
Q
H
LA
l^
a
A
z
?zo
HzU
A a
U W
z?
W
U

U
6J
p v
o ?
EI I
.d
W
y
U
4t

^a
U
a

000

110,10110
000
666
-.1 -- -.4
V) 00 l/1
000
000
?i y y
? O
0.1
V] ? q
o??zzz
0 0

r-- 00
\10 ?c
00
66
C) C)

ca
w .G
7 W
dU
? pa° o
? w
a
0u
ro
3
n
cz r
0 3
w ?
o ?
V; W
O
4a+ is TJ
? o O
O p w
U "O
U E ?
o U H
m
E oO
?p0. ,.oo. ° a
c Co .,
o b0'? O
b [
'3 o c d
v v 3 co,
on
EoGNv
3 E o 8,
o -'
GL bA C• ? ?i'
G 'C o
'b 'Ty ^ b0 cd
0 3
4, G cd
67
3 o
? co,
o?
y U
q? 'b b ? b id
4 b b ? 'b b
y dd cV
o
o 1A
?zzz
A
a
N
a
W
h
c?
a
w
a

C7
J
t

Incidental fill associated with bridge extensions over waterways including Sugar
Creek, and the South Fork Catawba River may be permitted under a General Permit
(Permit #198200031). Receipt of 401 Water Quality Certification issued by the DEM and
DEHNR may also be required.
Miti ag tion
Mitigation is recommended in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the
CWA (40 CFR 230), FHWA stepdown procedures (23 CFR 777.1 et seq.), and mandates
expressed in Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961 (1977)).
Avoidance is not a logical solution to eliminating impacts associated with this project.
However, avoidance can be best employed by widening existing roadways and avoiding
roadway construction on new location; highway construction on new location invariably
results in significantly greater impacts to natural communities - both wetland and upland.
Thus, widening of the existing NC 49 corridor is considered the preferred solution.
Minimization can be effectively employed along the route. Reduction of fill slopes
and median widths at stream/wetland crossings will reduce unnecessary wetland takings.
Conservative use of culverts and sensitive placement of drainage structures will minimize
further degradation of water quality and reduce adverse impacts on aquatic habitat viability
in streams and tributaries.
Due to the limited nature of the impacts, use of best management practices is
recommended as appropriate mitigation for unavoidable losses. Elimination of staging areas
in lowland sites, careful containment of oil, gasoline, and other hazardous materials near
creeks and tributaries, reduced canopy removal in or near floodplain systems, and
employment of strict erosion and sediment control procedures are a few of the practices
which should be employed.
Protected Species
Federal Species
Federally listed plant and animal species with Endangered (E) or Threatened (T)
status receive protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.).
28

1

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified two species listed as endangered or proposed
endangered, and three candidate species that are currently under status review, which may
occur in Mecklenburg County. These species include:
Endangered or Proposed Endangered (E or PE)
Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) (E)
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) (PE)
Status Review
Georgia Aster (Aster geor gianus) (C2)*
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) (C2)**
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) (C2)
* C2 designation indicates candidate species under status review; adequate information on biological vulnerability
and threat(s) on biological vulnerability is insufficient to support listing.
** Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
i
Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) (E)
' Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect herb, with one to several pubescent stems
originating from a crown and supporting lanceolate leaves. The plant, which produces typical
"sunflowers", is discernible in the field from other members of its genus by the presence of
a tuberous root system, tomentose to pilose leaf undersides, and harsh upper stems which
arch upward in a candelabra-like manner (Kral 1983). Flowering occurs from September
to frost. The species thrives in full sun characteristic of relic Piedmont prairies, successional
fields, forest ecotonal margins, and forest openings. Decline in the sunflower is attributed
to the disappearance of fire maintained prairies and pine savannahs in the Piedmont
r physiographic province. Schweinitz' sunflower is known to exist on 15 sites, all within 90
miles of Charlotte (Venters 1992). However, no sites are recorded in or near the NC 49
' corridor.

29

G
t
1

1
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) (PE)
The Carolina heelsplitter is a freshwater mussel that reaches an average length of 78
mm, an average height of 43 mm, and an average width of 27 mm (SCFTM 1990).
Distinguishing characteristics include an ovate trapezoid shaped shell, flattened umbo, and
a yellowish, greenish, or brownish periostracum with greenish or blackish rays (SCFTM
1990). This rare species is only found in a restricted area of the Carolinas. Its current
distribution is limited to two streams and a small river all originating out of Union County,
North Carolina. Historically, the Carolina heelsplitter has been found in creeks, streams,
rivers, and ponds (most likely millponds). Apparently, Lasmigona decorata prefers shaded
areas, either in a ponded portion of a small stream, or in runs along steep banks with a
moderate current (SCFTM 1990). The mussel has only been found in waters less than three
feet deep with a soft mud, muddy-sand, or sandy-gravel substrate. Rapid expansion of the
metropolitan area of Charlotte may have resulted in extirpation of the Carolina heelsplitter
in Mecklenburg County. No existing populations of the mussel have been documented in
recent years in Mecklenburg county or within stream segments crossed by the project
(NCNHP 8/5/92; pers. comm. John Alderman, NCWRC, 8/12/92; pers. comm. Eugene
Keferl, Brunswick College, 8/14/92).
State Species

1
J

Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants with the North Carolina
status of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) receive limited
protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the
North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.).
A review of N.C. Natural Heritage Program records on 8/5/92 indicated no
documented occurrences of state listed species in the project vicinity. However, one
federally listed species, smooth coneflower (Echinaceae laevigata) (E), is documented by
NCNHP as occurring in Mecklenburg County. Although the USFWS does not recognize
the occurrence of this endangered species in Mecklenburg County, presence/absence of the
coneflower within the project corridor was evaluated.
30

t
1

J

1

Smooth coneflower (Echinaceae laevigata) is an stiffly erect, rarely branched
perennial up to 1.5 meters tall. Basal and stem leaves are large, glabrous, lanceolate to
narrowly ovate blades reaching 15 centimeters in length. The plant flowers from late May
to July, producing distinct purple flowers of tubular or "cone-like" shape (Kral 1983).
Smooth coneflower prefers calcareous soils often associated with limestone, gabbro, diabase,
and marble. The species is found on roadsides, clearcuts, power line right-of-ways, old
roadbeds, and limestone bluffs which provide abundant sunlight and little competition within
the herbaceous layer (Gaddy 1991).
Historical occurrences of smooth coneflower near Charlotte in Mecklenburg County
have been documented through undated herbarium specimens located at N.C. State
University (Gaddy 1991). However, no existing populations of the plant are documented
at NCNHP as occurring Mecklenburg County. The range of existing populations of
Echinaceae lavi ag tae is not recognized by the USFWS as extending into Mecklenburg
County.
Protected Species Impacts
The presence/absence of Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz' sunflower) was
evaluated within the study alignment from information concerning habitat requirements
(Radford et al. 1968, Schafale and Weakley 1990, Kral 1983), and field investigations.
NCNHP personnel (pers. comm. Dr. Harry Legrand, 8/15/92) indicated that
Schweinitz's sunflower could potentially occur along the project corridor. On September
1, 1992, ESI personnel canvassed existing populations of the endangered sunflower near
Waxhaw in Union County to verify initiation of flowering and to evaluate habitat
requirements. Comprehensive field surveys along the NC 49 project corridor were
conducted within suitable habitat areas on September 2-3 1992. Transects were walked at
intervals necessary for complete visual coverage within pasture margins, rights-of-way,
successional areas, xeric scrub oak stands, and forest gaps crossed by the project. All
flowering members of the genus were inspected. No sighting of Helianthus schweinitzii
were noted during field surveys within suitable habitat areas along the highway corridor.
31

t

Contact with resource agency personnel and review of NCNHP files indicated no
documented sightings of Lasmigona decorata (Carolina heelsplitter) in the project vicinity
(NCNHP 8/5/92; John Alderman, NCWRC, 8/12/92; Eugene Keferl, Brunswick College,
8/14/92). The closest historical populations of the mussel occurred approximately one mile
north and one mile south of NC 49 on Sugar Creek (NCNHP files). Range surveys were
performed along Sugar Creek in 1989 which indicated no remaining populations of the
heelsplitter (pers. comm. Eugene Keferl, Brunswick College, 8/14/92). No mussels of any
species were sighted at stream crossings within project study limits during recent field
surveys.
' Based on contact with resource agency personnel, review of available records, and
field investigations, this project is not expected to affect federally protected species with
ranges that extend into Mecklenburg County.
1

32

t

1

t

V. REFERENCES CITED
Cooper, J. E., Robinson, S. S. and Funderburg, J. B. (1977) Endangered and Threatened
Plants and Animals of North Carolina., Report to the North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh N.C.
Department of the Army (DOA) (1987) Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg Mississippi
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1988. Water Quality Progress in North
Carolina, Report no. 88-02 (305B). Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) (1989) Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Ambient Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1987. Rpt. 89-08, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) (1993) Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Catawba River Basin, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
Fish, F. F. (1968) A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh, N.C.
Gaddy, L.L. (1991) The Status of Echinacea laevig_ata. Cooperative agreement no.
14-16-0004-89-952 between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program.
Hamel, P. B., LeGrand Jr., M. R., Lannartz, M. R. and Gauthreaux Jr., S. A. (1982) Bird
Habitat Relationships on Southeastern Forest Lands, USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech.
Rep. SE-22.
Kral, R. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular
Plants of the South. Technical Publication R8-TP 2, USDA Forest Service.
33

I

LeGrand, H. E. Jr. (1990) Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh N.C.
Martof, B. S., Palmer, W. M., Bailey, J. R. and Harrison III, J.R. (1980) Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, UNC Press, Chapel Hill N.C.
Myers, R. K., Zahner, R. and Jones, S. M. (1986) Forest Habitat Regions of South
Carolina: Series No. 42, Clemson University Department of Forest Resources, Clemson
S.C.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) (July 1992) Wildlife in North
Carolina 56:7, pp.16-17.
Potter, E. F., Parnell, J. F. and Teulings, R. P. (1980) Birds of the Carolinas, The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E. and Bell, C. R. (1968) Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill N.C.
Schafale, M. P. and Weakley, A. S. (1990) Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation, N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh N.C. 27611
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (SCFTM) (1990) A report
on the conservation status of North Carolina's freshwater and terrestrial molluscan
fauna.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1987) Hydric Soils of the United States. In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, USDA Soil
Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1980) Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina, USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Venters, V. (September 1992) Wildlife in North Carolina 56:9, pp.29.
34

Weakley, A. S. (1990) Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh N.C.
I Webster, W. D., Parnell, J. F. and Biggs, W. C. Jr. (1985) Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland, UNC Press, Chapel Hill N.C.

r

35

I

I APPENDIX A
INDIVIDUAL WATER/WETLAND CROSSINGS

TABLE 1A
WETLANDS/WATER CROS SINGS
NC 49
Mecklenburg County

Map Wetland Width of Acres
Number Type Wetland/Water N4S N4C N5 Comments
' Crossings(feet)
1 B-B Trib' 50 -- -- -- Sugar Creek (Bridged)
2 B-B Trib 3 0.004 0.004 0.004 Trib. to Sugar Creek
3 PEM2 80 0.055 0.018 0.055 adjacent to trib. #2, east side only
4 B-B Trib 15 0.021 0.021 0.021 Coffey Creek
5 B-B Trib 3 0.004 0.004 0.004 Trib. to Coffey Creek
6 B-B Trib 6 0.008 0.008 0.008 Trib. to Coffey Creek
7 B-B Trib 10 0.015 0.015 0.015 Steele Creek

North ern Segment Total 0.107 0.070 0.107

S4 S5
8 B-B Trib 3 -- 0.006 Trib. to Steele Creek, east side only
9 B-B Trib 1 0.002 0.002 Trib. to Steele Creek
10 B-B Trib 10 0.017 0.018 Polk Ditch
11 Pond West side of road, 100 feet from
existing right of way (100' X 50')
12 B-B Trib 1 0.002 0.002 Trib. to Polk Ditch
13 B-B Trib 6 0.010 0.011 Walker Branch
14 B-B Trib 2 0.003 0.004 Trib. to Walker Branch
15 B-B Trib 4 0.007 0.007 Porter Branch
' 16 B-B Trib 3 0.005 0.006 Trib. to South Fork Catawba River
17 B-B Trib -- --- --- South Fork Catawba River

Southern Segment Total 0.046 0.056

1
"B-B Tri b" denotes a bank to bank tributary.
2PEM: Pal ustrine Emergent Wetland.
Afthh1h,
mm m m m =No mm m m" M m m m m mm

(33 b
O
C0
I
m
? ova ?
A
'"% I O J R.
S '
0 0 0 V) z
0 60 =? z
(D X I a:
3 D D 'A\\
O O I I ?9
cn _0 D I D \\> sR
6 \
0 CD
CD
07 O , • •
CQ ? ? \?; ? zZ L l M \?
101+1+ M$t S R. yJa!?od-- , i+?\a? ?.
N O ? See 2 \ ''/
Cal ? ?''aw,ng ',?
N r °f 2
v
w w co
c
co
z N
D
u
w
O
N
O
O q '
N
N '
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
ON IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 49 FROM THE BUSTER BROWN BRIDGE TO TYVOLA
ROAD AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUSTER BROWN BRIDGE
Project 8.1673501 U-2512 and B-3004 Mecklenburg County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above
citizens informational workshop on February 24, 1994 between the
hours of 5:00 pm and 8:00 pm at the Olympic High School cafeteria,
4301 Sandy Porter Road, Charlotte. Interested individuals may
attend this informal drop in workshop at their convenience between
the above stated hours. Division of Highways personnel will be
available to provide information, answer questions, and take
comments regarding this project.
Under these projects, it is proposed to widen NC 49 to five lane
roadway and improve the Buster Brown Bridge at the South Carolina
State Line.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Ms. Leigh Cobb
at P. 0. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 or phone [phone].
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids and
services for any qualified disabled person interested in attending
this workshop. To request the above you may call Ms. Cobb at the
above number no later than seven days prior to the date of the
workshop.
?7y .- SrNZ a
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Caroluna 27604
James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary October 16, 1992 Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Monica Swihart
Through: John Dorneye6
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for EA/EIS/Scoping Documents
Proposed NC 49 Widening From Tyvola Rd. to the SC Line
Mecklenburg County
State Project DOT No. 8.1673501, TIP #U-2512
EHNR # 93-0207, DEM WQ # 7067
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
the following topics be discussed in the EA/EIS/Scoping documents:
A. NCDOT is requested to discuss thoroughly a mass-transit alternative to
widening the existing road.
B. Will borrow locations be in wetlands?
C. Lake Wylie is classified WS V-B in the project area and not WS III as in the
scoping letter.
D. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original
stream banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated
stream banks be revegetated.
E. Number of stream crossings.
F. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
G. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests that these catch
basins be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible
party for maintenance.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 9 19/395 -3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

H. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
Efforts employed to minimize interrupting water lines and sanitary sewerage.
J. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating
jurisdictional wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of the wetland impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DEM.
K. Will DOT register the corridors according to the 1987 North Carolina Official
Roadway Corridor Map Act? If not, why not?
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.
nc49meck.sco
cc: Eric Galamb
partment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
owellillow
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
/ 'Vv/
U Project located in 7th floor library
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ?Air ?Coastal Management Water Planning
El Mooresville ? Water ? Water Resources ITEnvironinental Health
?Groundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster
Wilmington
? ?Coastal Management Consuftant Parks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
? Others Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem S-L- -
CCT 2
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 E'3 must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
, Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
Ps-10?
STA7Z
•!y° aHM1?}•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201 j
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON September 18, 1992 WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for the Proposed NC 49
Widening From Tyvola Road Extension to the South
Carolina State Line, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina, T.I.P. No. U-2512, State Project No.
8.1673501
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, has retained the firm of CRS Sirrine Engineers, Inc., Raleigh,
North Carolina, to conduct environmental and design studies and prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the proposed widening of NC 49 from its
intersection with W. Tyvola Road to the South Carolina State Line in
Mecklenburg County (see attached map). As an integral part of this study,
we are soliciting input from agencies and individuals concerning the
potential impact of the proposed project on any structure or feature within
the project limits and the impacts this project may have upon social,
economic, cultural, physical or biological conditions in the area.
The proposed improvement is included in the 1993-1999 Transportation
Improvement Program (T.I.P.). State T.I.P. Project No. U-2512 provides for
additional lanes and safety improvements along this section of roadway.
The length of the project is approximately 10.3 miles. Right-of-way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1996 with construction
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1998.
The scope of the proposed project consists generally of upgrading the
existing two-lane NC 49 to a multi-lane facility from Tyvola Road Extension
to the South Carolina State Line. Two major alternatives have been
identified: the Do-Nothing Alternative and the Improve Existing Facilities
An Equal Opporiunity/Affirmative Action Employer
A •
September 18, 1992
Page 2
Alternative. The project will be located on existing alignment (except
where modifications are necessary to satisfy current design standards) to
utilize available right-of-way along the roadway. Typical sections to be
evaluated include:
1) Tyvola Road Extension to Carowinds Boulevard:
A 64-foot five lane curb and gutter section with continuous center
turn lane.
2) Carowinds Boulevard to South Carolina State Line:
A four-lane rural section with a 46-foot median evaluated with regard
to symmetrical, east-side, and/or west-side widening about the
existing centerline. Also, a five lane section may be considered
through this area.
Due to the abandoned landfill located west of NC 49 at Tyvola Road, one
alignment alternative will be considered between Beam Road and Tyvola Road
Extension, a distance of approximately 1.25 miles. Widening to the east
will be evaluated utilizing the typical sections listed in 1) above.
No access control is expected for the proposed project. There are
currently five traffic signals at major intersections within the limits of
the project. Other intersections along the project are stop sign
controlled and will remain so unless future traffic warrants installation
of a signal.
It is anticipated that the project will have minimal effects on the natural
and human environment. In the northern sector of the project from Tyvola
Road Extension to Carowinds Boulevard, the adjacent roadside lane uses
consist of a suburban mixture of subdivision development (both single
family and multi-family), industrial/service developments, retail
commercial strip centers, several churches, and some rural residential uses
and scattered farm fields. The southern section, from Carowinds Boulevard
to the South Carolina State Line, is more rural in character with scattered
farmland, small stands of woodlands, a major county park, and scattered
rural residential development. Recreational/lake-oriented development
exists at the southern limit of the project. No neighborhoods will be
split or disrupted by the project. Residential and business relocations
are anticipated to be minimal.
Three major drainage crossings and other intermittent drainage crossings
will be maintained through the proposed project. The key drainage areas
are tributaries of Steele Creek, Coffey Creek and Sugar Creek. Impacts are
anticipated to be minimal.
The North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) includes a
project, T.I.P. No. B-3004, to replace the Buster Boyd Bridge (Bridge No.
23) over the Catawba River at the southern terminus of the NC 49 Widening
project. This project, located at the South Carolina State line, will be
coordinated with the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public
Transportation (SCDHPT). Alternatives to be evaluated at the bridge
include constructing a separate parallel structure to accommodate a four
September 18, 1992
Page 3
lane divided highway section on the bridge approach and widening, the
existing structure to accommodate a five lane approach section. These
alternatives will be studied for east side and/or west side widening.
The best ?usage classification system for the Catawba River in this area is
Class WS -0 & B which designates the River as a water supply source with no
categorical restriction on watershed development. It also indicates that
the River is used primarily for recreational purposes.
Exposure index warrants will be evaluated for the Southern Railway crossing
of NC 49 just north of Carowinds Boulevard to determine if an overpass is
required.
Field investigation and evaluations will be conducted to identify aquatic
and biotic communities in the project area and to assess the impact of the
proposed project on these communities. Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), a federally-listed and state-listed endangered species of
plant, will need to be investigated for presence in the project area. The
corridor will be reviewed in the field for the presence of this species
during its flowering season in August/early September. No federally-listed
or state-listed animals are known at this time to be in the study area.
Historic/architectural resource studies will be conducted to determine the
presence of all significant or potentially significant historic resources
as defined by the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places.
The historic resource surveys will be conducted in compliance with state
and federal regulations.
A decision regarding the level of archaeological work to be conducted for
this project will be based upon the State Historic Preservation Office
staff's comments on archaeological resources.
A survey will be conducted of the project area to identify abandoned
service stations and other major potential sources of hazardous waste
contamination. Initial field investigations showed no evidence of such
sites within the project limits.
Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for
this project. This letter, therefore, constitutes solicitation for scoping
comments related to this project.
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 our consultants to stay on schedule and for your input to be
includes in their draft report, please respond by November 2, 1992.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact Ms. Leigh
Cobb, Project Engineer, Consultant Coordination Unit, NCDOT Planning and
Environmental Branch at [phone].
LC/plr

Legend Project Location Map
O j10RT1? ,?
NC49 Widening
Project Limits From Tyvola Road Extension to the
South Carolina State Line °c-
y f Q<
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina ?11 "r °F 1P"?SQ?
Scale: 1 inch= approx 6.5 miles
7
0 1 2
ryV °?A R°no EXT.
pmj Wee
°c V ^A\NO
h 9? P??o'N° I I
I I
Proposed
m
N 'pd jopod /pueg W P glad
a ostin house
Cd
Wvc.
Se
J
0
V4esoo9? o
?y N
? jlmjj
P ? N
N
c oafs Gl
?.o N
D
QJ ? G?J ?
e c>Y
?? F ti v
C CTS
l ?
Np E
C ` fd x0
o ?? U
CIO Q
O
U)
\v
NOtl
ps

z

O i
cr
r
LL
K
rYf?_ O O
EP?P?
W

O .I
U

a) (
W
Z
M
cz C)OO

U c? U ?
Z -0 ? ?

CD
E
O
L
U-
0
4-
E

4--.
Q)
"Ol
C L
J a-

S-wri:OF NoRTI I CAIZOHNA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES Ii. HUNT, )R
G MANOR P.O. WX 25201, MITIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 23, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Sam Hunt
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SGCREFARY
FROM: W. A. Garrett, Jr., P.E. - Manager LI)
Citizens Participation Unit
RE: Notice of A Public Hearing on the proposed widening of
NC 49 from the Buster Boyd Bridge to Tyvola Road Extension
The following Public Hearing Notice is furnished for
your information:
U-2512: The proposed design is a four-lane divided roadway with
a 46' median from north of Buster Boyd Bridge to
Carowinds Boulevard; four-lane curb and gutter with a
30' raised median from Carowinds Boulevard to Sugar
Creek (Waterway); a four-lane divided roadway with a
30' raised median and shoulders from Sugar Creek to
Tyvola Road Extension. The right of way will be
variable.
WAG:llg
cc: Mr. Frank E. Emory, Jr., Member of Board of Transportation
Mr. Peter A. Pappas, Member of Board of Transportation
Mr. Frederick Aikens, Deputy Secretary of Administration
Mr. Garland Garrett, Jr., Deputy Secretary of Highways
Mr. Larry R. Goode, P.E., Ph.D.
Mr. J. D. Goins, P.E.
Mr. B. G. Jenkins, Jr., P.E.
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Mr. D. R. Morton, P.E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. L. K. Barger, P.E.
Mr. D. E. Burwell, Jr., P.E.
Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E.
Mr. G. T. Shearin, P.E.
Mr. W. R. Brown, P.E.
Mr. J. M. Lynch, P.E.
Mr. Robert Mathes
Mr. David Robinson
Ms. Pauline Wright
Mr. Everett-Ward
Mr. John L. Shoemaker, Right of Way Agent
FHWA
0
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF
NC 49 FROM THE BUSTER BOYD BRIDGE
TO TYVOLA ROAD EXTENSION
Project 8.1673501 U-2512 Mecklenburg County
The N. C. Department of Transportation will hold the above
public hearing on October 20, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in the Olympic
High School Cafeteria, Sandy Porter Road.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the proposed
design, right of way requirements and procedures, relocation
advisory assistance, and State-Federal relationship. The hearing
will be open to those present for statements, questions, comments
and/or submittal of materials pertaining to the proposed design.
Additional material may be submitted for a period of ten days from
the date of the hearing to:
W. A. Garrett, Jr., P.E. - Manager
NCDOT Citizens Participation Unit
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
The proposed design is a four-lane divided roadway with a 46'
median from north of Buster Boyd Bridge to Carowinds Boulevard;
four-lane curb and gutter with a 30' raised median from Carowinds
Boulevard to Sugar Creek (Waterway); a four-lane divided roadway
with a 30' raised median and shoulders from Sugar Creek to Tyvola
Road Extension. The right of way will be variable.
A map setting forth the location, design, and copies of the
Environmental Assessment are available for public review at the
North Carolina Department of Transportation District Office,
Newell-Hickory Grove Road. Anyone desiring additional information
regarding the public hearing may contact Mr. Garrett at the above
address or by telephone at [phone].
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled
persons who wish to participate in the hearing to comply with ADA.
To receive special services, please contact Mr. Goode at the above
address or number or fax [phone] to give adequate notice
prior to the date of the hearing.