U-3115

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources o
Division of Environmental Management'
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
?"
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 17, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Eric Galamb4_
Subject: EA/FONSI for US 29 Improvements
Cabarrus and Mecklenburg Counties
State Project DOT No. 9.8100476, TIP # U-3115
EHNR # 96-0012, DEM # 10997
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 wetlands.
The subject project will impact waters but not wetlands.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of a EA/FONSI by DEM would not preclude the
denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding
the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental
Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Monica Swihart
us29cab.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
US 29
From Blockbuster Boulevard To Rocky River
SR 1300
From US 29 to Mallard Creek
Cabarrus and Mecklenburg Counties
State Project No.: 9.8100476
TIP Project No.: U-3115
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
3
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
US 29
From Blockbuster Boulevard To Rocky River
&
SR 1300
From US 29 to Mallard Creek
Cabarrus and Mecklenburg Counties
State Project No.: 9.8100476
TIP Project No.: U-3115
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared By:
Concord Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
C?ARMay, 1995
o
w
V n -
r ?
0
r,,Vk '1A Ra n IIg P , RLS
i N
' RANK??.•?'?
jmw'?Vor the North Carolina Department of Transportation
ames A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Unit
Consulting Engineering Unit
Thomas R. Kendig, AICp
Project Manager
0
0
1. Type of Action
SUMMARY
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation Administrative Action,
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact.
2. Description of Action
The project proposes to widen US 29, and Morehead Road (SR 1300) in
northeast Mecklenburg County and southwest Cabarrus County between Concord and
Charlotte. (See Figure 1).
Specifically, the proposed project is to add two lanes to US 29 from Blockbuster
Boulevard in northern Mecklenburg County to the Rocky River Bridge in Cabarrus
County (approximately 3.2 miles) and adding two lanes on SR 1300 from US 29 south to
Hudspeth Road (SR 1302), then one lane from that point south to Mallard Creek (a
total of approximately 1.7 miles).
Widening along US 29 shall consist of adding a 12-foot wide lane, 10-foot outside
shoulder (8-foot paved and 2-foot grassed) and 4-foot paved inside shoulder to both the
northbound and southbound lanes of US 29 along with necessary culvert extensions and
intersection modifications and improvements. Widening along SR 1300 will consist of two
additional 12-foot lanes with 10-foot shoulders (8-foot paved and 2-foot grassed) from
US 29 south to Hudspeth Road (SR 1302). From that point south the widening will
consist of one additional 12-foot lane (6 feet of pavement on both sides of the existing
roadway) with 10-foot shoulders (4-foot paved and 6-foot grassed). Some adjustment to
horizontal alignment will be required on SR 1300.
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) number assigned to the project
is U-3115.
The total estimated cost of the project is $8,475,000. Right-of-way costs will be
shared between NCDOT and Charlotte Motor Speedway. The Charlotte Motor
Speedway (CMS) anticipates adding two pedestrian tunnels beneath US 29, prior to or in
conjunction with this project, at the Speedway's cost. CMS is paying the costs for
engineering surveys and design. NCDOT will be responsible for construction costs.
ri 3. Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered:
A. "Do Nothing" Alternate
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation
C. Postponement of Proposed Action
D. Alternate Types of Highway Improvements
0
0

11
1. New Location
2. Asymmetrical widening
3. Symmetrical widening
4. Environmental Impact
The project will require an additional 40 to 60 feet of right-of-way. Although no
businesses, residences, schools, or churches will be disrupted there are approximately 88
property owners adjacent to the proposed project. Depending on cut and fill in each
particular section, 63 of these properties will require acquisition of up to approximately
20 feet of additional right-of-way. There are no properties or structures in the project
area listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The project's impact on noise and
air quality will be insignificant. The proposed improvements will not adversely impact
prime farmland. Best Management Practices will be used to minimize impacts to
wetlands and water quality. The widening will impact one colony of Helianthus
Schweinitzii (Schweinitz sunflowers) consisting of about 15 individuals. The NCDOT will
coordinate with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service to minimize this impact. CMS
has said they will relocate these plants.
5. Actions Required by Other Agencies:
Based on estimated impacts due to the stream crossings, it is anticipated that
authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers under a Section 404 Nationwide
permit No. 14 will be required. However, notification does not appear to be necessary.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification may also be required from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Division of Environmental
Management.
The US Fish & Wildlife Service will be contacted regarding the offer to relocate
the colony of Helianthus Schweinitzii.
6. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the planning and environmental studies, it has been determined
that this project will not have significant detrimental effects upon the quality of the
human or natural environment.
7. Environmental Commitments
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will contact the US Fish and
Wildlife Service regarding the Speedway's offer to relocate the Helianthis Schweinitzii
(Schweinitz Sunflower).
The CMS has agreed to transplant the plants to other land owned by the
speedway where they would be maintained in perpetuity.
0
iii
S. Additional Infonnation
The following person can be contacted for additional information concerning this
action:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
[phone]
0
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY ...................................................... i
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ............................... 1
A. General Description ......................... 1
............
B. Historical Background and Project Status ...................... 1
C. Characteristics of the Existing Facility ........................ 3
1. Existing Roadway Inventory ............................ 3
a. Length of Roadway Section Studied ................. 3
b. Pavement Width and Shoulders .................... 3
C. Right-of-Way .......................... 3
......
d
De
ree of R
d
id
I
t
f
.
g
oa
s
e
n
er
erence .................. 3
e. Type of Roadside Development ................... i 3
f. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature ................. 4
g. Restricted Sight Distance ........................ 4
h. Structures .................................... 4
i. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control .............. 4
j. Speed Limits .................. 4
...............
k. School Bus Data .............................. 4
1. Geodetic Markers ............................. 5
D. Alternatives Considered .................................... 5
1. "Do-Nothing" Alternative .............................. 5
2. Alternate Modes of Transportation ...................... 5
3. Postponement of Proposed Action ....................... 5
4. Alternate Types of Highway Improvement ................. 6
E. Proposed Improvements for Recommended Alternative ............. 6
1. General Location .. 6
2. ................................
Length of the Proposed Project ........................ .
13
3. Proposed Design Speed and Anticipated Speed Limit ........ 13
4. Typical Section Description ................... 13
5. ........
Right-of-Way ................... 13
6. ..................
Bikeways 6
7 ........................................
Access Control 1
.
8. ....................................
Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ............... 16
16
9. Structural Work Required ................... 16
.........
a. Hydraulic Aspects .................
: 16
10. ..
...........
Special Permits Required of Division of Highways ........... 17
11. Changes in the State Highway System .................... 17
12. Estimate of Cost ................................... 17
0
0
0
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
PAGE
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ............. 19
A General Des
i
ti
. cr
p
on ..................................... 19
B. Transportation Plan .................. 19
C ...............
Traffic Volu
d C
i
. mes an
apac
ty ............................ 19
D. Accident Investigation .................................... 20
E. Benefits to State, Region, and Community ..................... 23
III. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........... 25
A. Social Impacts ....................... 25
..................
1. Land Use ....... 25
.................................
2. Relocation of Families and Businesses .................. 26
.
3. Public Facilities . 26
..................................
4. Cultural Resources .. 27
...............................
a. Historical - Architectural Resources ..... 27
...........
b. Arcbaeological Resources .............. 27
.........

B.
Economic Impacts ............................. i
27
C ..........
Environmental Im
t
. pac
s ................................... 27
1. Biotic Resources ........................... 27
........
a. Plant Communities . 27
...........................
b
W
.
ildlife ......... 29
...........................
2. Physical Resources .................. 30
...............
a. Water Quality ................................ 30
b. Soils
....................................... 30
C. Stream Modifications 30
..........................
d
. Floodplain Involvement ......................... 31
3. Wetlands ........................................ 31
a. Wetland Areas ............................... 31
b. Anticipated Permit Requirements .................. 31
4. Protected Species ............................... 32
5. Air & Noise Quality ................................ 35
6. Hazardous Waste ................................ 47
7. Construction Impacts ................................ 48
0
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
PAGE
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............................ 50
A. Agency Coordination .................................. 50
B. Public Involvement ...................................... 50
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Location Map ........................................... 2
FIGURE 2 Aerial Photos of Project ................................... 7
FIGURE 3 Typical Section for US 29 ................................. 14
FIGURE 4 Typical Sections for SR 1300 (Morehead Rd.) 1
FIGURE 5 1993 Traffic Volumes .................................... 21
FIGURE 6 2020 Traffic Projections ................................... 22
TABLE 1 Accident Rate Comparison ................................ 23
TABLE 2 Vegetative Community Impacts ............................. 28
TABLE 3 Hearing: Sounds bombarding us daily ......................... 39
TABLE 4 Noise abatement criteria .................................. 40
TABLE 5 Noise receptor information ................................ 42
TABLE 6 Ambient noise levels ..................................... 43
TABLE 7 FHWA Noise abatement criteria summary ..................... 45
APPENDIX- Project Comments .................................. 51
0
US 29 FROM BLOCKBUSTER BOULEVARD TO ROCKY RIVER BRIDGE
AND
SR 1300 FROM US 29 TO MALLARD CREEK BRIDGE
CABARRUS/MECKLENBURG COUNTIES
T.I.P. PROJECT NO. U-3115
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROTECT
A. General Description
The project proposes to widen US 29, and Morehead Road (SR 1300) in
northeast Mecklenburg County and southwest Cabarrus County between Concord and
Charlotte. (See Figure 1).
Specifically, the proposed project is to add two lanes to US 29 from Blockbuster
Boulevard in northern Mecklenburg County to the Rocky River Bridge in Cabarrus
County (approximately 3.2 miles) and adding two lanes on SR 1300 from US 29 south to
Hudspeth Road (SR 1302), then one lane from that point south to Mallard Creek (a
total of approximately 1.7 miles).
Widening along US 29 shall consist of adding a 12-foot wide lane, 10-foot outside
shoulder (8-foot paved and 2-foot grassed) and 4-foot paved inside shoulder to both the
northbound and southbound lanes of US 29 along with necessary culvert extensions and
intersection modifications and improvements. Widening along SR 1300 will consist of two
additional 12-foot lanes with 10-foot shoulders (8-foot paved and 2-foot grassed) from
US 29 south to Hudspeth Road (SR 1302). From that point south the widening will
consist of one additional 12-foot lane (6 feet of pavement on both sides of the existing
roadway) with 10-foot shoulders (4-foot paved and 6-foot grassed). Some adjustment to
horizontal alignment will be required on SR 1300.
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) number assigned to the project
is U-3115.
The total estimated cost of the project is $8,475,000. Right-of-way costs will be
shared between NCDOT and Charlotte Motor Speedway. The Charlotte Motor
Speedway (CMS) anticipates adding two pedestrian tunnels beneath US 29, prior to or in
conjunction with this project, at the Speedway's cost. CMS is paying the costs for
engineering surveys and design. NCDOT will be responsible for construction costs.
a B. Historical Background and Project Status
This project is a public-private partnership between the NCDOT and the CMS.
A portion of the project passes through CMS property. The Speedway will donate any
required right-of-way on their property. Construction is estimated to begin in 1996.
0
0
0

CONCORD Ir

G•
2 9
?l
0
tJ G ? '?
r?
J

CHA OTTE /^\ ' . ..\ ._.
MOT R?
K? • ,\ . \ SPEEbWAY
t dc?. t
70
a6//? I,.M1•OY ?. n O
U. S. 29
BLO.BUSTER BOULEVARD
TO ROCKY RIVER
MOREHEAD RD. (S.R 1300)
ROM U.S. 29 TO MALLARD CREEK
TIP NO. U-3115
1?1GUit1? 1
` i [-- SCALE IN u0.ES 1
/' 11J •?5 i M o
\ I F z
I ? I N?f ? i • t - 1'?? / ? I? ' f l?
.
1 '
0
o
Right-of-way acquisition should begin in mid 1995. 'Total project cost is estimated at
$8,475,000 with $2,525,000 of the total for right of way acquisition for this 4.9 mile
project.
C. Characteristics of Existing Facility
1. Existing Roadway Inventory
a. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The length of proposed project from Blockbuster Boulevard in the south to
the Rocky River bridge in the north is 3.2 miles. The length of proposed project
along SR 1300 from US 29 to Mallard Creek is 1.7 miles.
b. Pavement Width and Shoulders
Existing US 29 consists of a four-lane median section. Two 11-foot lanes in
each direction, grass shoulders on the outside, and a 22-foot grass median make
up the typical section. Existing SR 1300 consists of a two-lane, 25-foot pavement
with grass shoulders.
C. Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way is 120 feet along US 29 and approximately 40 feet
along SR 1300. The right-of-way along SR 1300 is based on maintained width.
Q Right-of-way through both of these sections is found to be symmetrical about the
centerline of the road.
d. Degree of Roadside Interference
Interference from roadside development is light. There are various
industrial and residential developments along the length of the project. The
number of driveways and small businesses is heaviest along US 29 between SR
1300 and Blockbuster Boulevard along with some development at the intersection
of SR 1300 and US 29.
e. Type of Roadside Development
Along US 29 from Blockbuster Boulevard to SR 1300, roadside
development is primarily made up of small businesses and light residential
development. There is also one church and the entrance to the.Charlotte-
Mecklenburg (Mallard Creek) Wastewater Treatment Plant along this particular
section of US 29.
Along US 29 from the SR 1300 intersection towards Rocky River, roadside';
O development is made up of parking (primarily grass fields) and other services for
0
0
a
CMS. There is also a small shopping center located at the intersection of US 29
and SR 1300.
There is also some light development along SR 1300 from US 29 towards
Mallard Creek. There are scattered homes along this section as well as some
facilities that are in direct association with CMS.
U f. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
a Existing curves on US 29 do not exceed 3 degrees of curvature and curves'.
along SR 1300 do not exceed 7 degrees of curvature. US 29 has maximum grades
of 6 percent, while the maximum grade along SR 1300 is 4 percent.
g• Restricted Sight Distance
Portions of the studied section of US 29 are above current standards for
horizontal & vertical sight distance. There are portions of SR 1300 that fall below
current standards for horizontal or vertical sight distance.
h. Structures
There are two major structures at the northern project termini along US 29
and one major structure at the eastem project termini along SR 1300. No
structure widening is proposed for any of these structures. Bridge No. 14
(northbound) and Bridge No. 19 (southbound) both carry US 29 over the Rocky
River, and Bridge No. 186 carries SR 1300 over Mallard Creek. Two box culverts
and numerous pipes along the length of the project will require lengthening to
accommodate the recommended typical sections.
Intersecting Roads'and Types of Control
The intersection of SR 1300 with US 29 is currently signal controlled and
a should remain signal controlled after the proposed project is completed. All other
intersections with state routes are currently and are proposed to remain stop sign
controlled.
j. Speed Limits
Existing US 29 is posted at 55 miles per hour (mph). SR 1300 is also
posted at 55 mph.
k. School Bus Data
a The studied section of US 29 in Cabarrus County is traveled by three buses
0
a
0
5
Q in the morning and three buses in the afternoon. SR 1300 is also located in
Cabarrus County and is also used by three buses in the morning and afternoon.
The studied section of US 29 in Mecklenburg County is traveled by 25 school
a buses in both the morning and afternoon. Construction should not impact these
buses since road closure will not be required for this project.
1. Geodetic Markers
One geodetic marker within the project area may be disturbed during
Q project construction. The marker "RACE" is located in the median of US 29
between SR 1300 and Rocky River. Unless significant changes are made to the
median drainage during the projects construction it is not anticipated that the
marker will be disturbed. The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted
prior to construction.
D. Alternatives Considered
1. "Do-Nothing" Alternative
The "Do-Nothing" alternative would avoid the impacts arising from the project.
However, it would exclude the benefits of the proposed transportation improvements in
the proposed corridor. Because of the benefits to regional transportation needs and user
safety, the advantages of widening US 29 and SR 1300 outweigh the disadvantages of not
constructing an improved highway.
The "Do-Nothing" alternative would deprive Cabarrus and Mecklenburg Counties'
of an improved link between two growing population centers. These improvements are
needed for a more efficient transportation system. This "Do-Nothing" alternative would
not serve the travel desires of the state or local area. Furthermore, the "Do-Nothing"
alternative could decrease the chances of expanded economic growth for this area of
both counties.
In summary, the "Do-Nothing" option is not considered to be feasible due to the
importance of these improvements to the future of this area.
2. Alternate Modes of Transportation
No alternative mode of transportation is considered to be a practical alternative.
Highway transportation is the dominant mode in this area and the project is an
improvement of the existing highway network.
3. Postponement of Proposed Action
Because the proposed improvements of the project will make US 29 and SR 1300
U
0
0
o
more efficient facilities connecting Cabarrus and Mecklenburg Counties as well as
increasing safety on US 29 and SR 1300, postponing the implementation of the subject
project is not considered a prudent course of action.
4. Alternate Types of Highway Improvements
a. New Location
The alternative to construct the facility on new location was deemed as
inappropriate. The cost and impacts of such a facility on new location far outweigh the
benefits. With existing pavement already in place the only feasible alternative is to widen
the existing facility.
b. Asymmetrical Widening
When widening an existing roadway from two lanes to four lanes it is often times
appropriate to widen the facility along one side of the other, as opposed to widening
around the centerline. Asymmetrical widening is very beneficial when development is
more dense on one side of the road than it is the other.
In this case, it is not feasible to consider this type of widening. One lane must be
added in either direction. With the existing median in place, asymmetrical widening is
not viewed as an option.
U c. Symmetrical Widening (Proposed Alternative)
From Blockbuster Boulevard in Mecklenburg County to Rocky River in Cabarrus
County, it is recommended that US 29 be widened to a six-lane divided median section.
This would include the addition of a 12-foot travel lane in each direction.
It is also that SR 13
proposed 00 be widened from the existing two-lane section to
a four-lane section south from the intersection of US 29 and then transition to a three-
lane section from Hudspeth Road (SR 1302) to the Mallard Creek bridge.
E. Proposed Improvements for Recommended Alternative
1. General Location
The project is located on US 29 from Blockbuster Boulevard in
Q Mecklenburg County to the Rocky River bridge in Cabarrus County, and on SR
1300 from US 29 to the Mallard Creek bridge, also in Cabarrus County (see
Figure 2). The primary purpose of this proposed widening is to accommodate
increased traffic flow at peak hours for residential and business traffic in the
rapidly urbanizing southwest section of Cabarrus County. As an added benefit the
widening will facilitate more efficient traffic flow for events held at the Charlotte
Q Motor Speedway, which is located at the intersection of US 29 and SR 1300.
0
iII I litlnlill
crn 'o wv°-i ° z
-4 --1 T ?<D
(f) u N ?O? 9Z Z--A
D zcNO°?U ?z z °vx
or or,
f' °oo?11
c" v°
_ c C z -Di O rlj III W N U0 D
LOO
m °c?zz
A
Fri
O A frtl D m
° W m 0V) D
(-) O ° z A
m0 m ;
m z m
O
m
1

= m r
2 133HS 01 H31VH
V?1
0
? o ao
Cm O co vo?z

N

n

m S
N p

Zc0

-4p o x
C

XNC

0mtn Z Z N Z A
A Z 5,
2
2ZZO
t7
GOAD
_

III C
C
_

14
N -A A
C
N

0
< z
'o
o 2 - r

F)
ZD
I m
O p z ;o
C7
m? m
z
? Z
D Z
r
O
m
i
'"3 lei
W ?
N
N
O
ilD

T
a
70
x
Gl

A
0
0o ?
r
C: moo z
bm?<Z?
V) D O m Z Z 0N?
() (0 ;7N SZZZ?2
m 0-{?OnmN 0o
0?;K;D D -,IDO
CD?_jmK) C)2 C
Ila ?? MY >
O U < < D m
?? ? OAN D
C) o 0 z ?J
;7 O M
M- z m
X D Z
r ?
0

I '1

?
0
KO 00
CrA*rn p Woo-+z
Zzv?z;
VI ?IQ0 W 2902
D z? A(nC 2990
m 0?? c?OAy
O . m • > 'i U
? Dp
i CK.-W(NO Diaz
II W>tn?0 m=ZD
p (/i?7 W?< AD mm
?f OVA
no o
A O
M- m
z
z
0
n
m m = m = m m = = = = = = = = = r = m

-TI
Oic
11)
p w
Om O co-v0;-U4 z
-?DOCD ZZ5ZA
to NO C n2-U
D Zco AU1? SZ zp(-)
m -4ApC) ppAD
wt O=O2
II wDVtX0 m= z>
AO mrr*7 p
O (-nA ?m A> M
OW D ON
n0 p K
Au m
m `-' z m
z
O
m
I
I

7
13
2. Length of the Proposed Project
The length of the proposed widening of US 29 from a four-lane divided
highway, to a six-lane divided highway is approximately 3.2 miles. On SR 1300,
two lanes will be added from US 29 to the entrance to Hudspeth Road (SR 1302),
a length of approximately 1.2 miles, then one lane from that point south to
Mallard Creek, a length approximately 0.5 miles.
3. Proposed Design Speed and Anticipated Speed Limit
Currently both SR 1300 and US 29 are posted at 55 miles per hour. The
design speed will be 60 miles per hour, so that a posted speed of 55 miles per
hour can remain along both sections of road.
4. Typical Section Description
From Blockbuster Boulevard to Rocky River bridge, the proposed typical
section is for three lanes northbound and three lanes southbound (Figure 3) each
being 36 feet of pavement with 10-foot outside shoulders (8-foot paved and 2-foot
grassed) and 4-foot paved inside shoulders. The 22-foot grass median will be
1 reduced to 14 feet due to these proposed shoulders. The slope for cut and fill will
be at a 2:1 maximum with ditch ratio for cuts at 6:1.

C
u
1

E
E

SR 1300 from US 29 to Hudspeth Road (SR 1302) is proposed to be a
four-lane section (Figure 4b) which is 48 feet pavement width. 8-foot paved
shoulders are proposed to allow stalled and overheated vehicles to pull on the
shoulder during race event peak traffic flow. Existing is a two-lane section,
approximately 24 feet in width, edge-of-pavement to edge-of-pavement. From
SR 1302 to the Mallard Creek Bridge is a proposed three-lane, 36 feet pavement
width road (Figure 4a), adding one lane to the existing two-lane section, and
continuing the 10-foot shoulders (4-foot paved and 6-foot grassed). The slope for
cut and fill will be at a 2:1 maximum, with ditch ratio for cuts at 6:1.
5. Right-of-Way
Recommended right-of-way varies depending on the proposed cross
section. Widening is to occur symmetrically with some limited asymmetrical
widening to minimize damages. The existing alignment of US 29 and SR 1300 is
to be utilized to the extent possible. Construction easements may be required for
cut and fill sections. Permanent and temporary drainage easements will also be
required.
A 180-foot right-of-way is recommended along US 29 although in many
locations a right-of-way of less width may be sufficient and desirable. Existing
right-of-way on SR 1300 is essentially a maintenance right-of-way (approximately
40 feet). Recommended right-of-way is 120-foot in width for the four-lane section
and 100-foot in width for the three-lane section. 63 property owners may be
effected along the total length of the entire proposed project.
J

. I
i

Oil
ci
W
C
C /I
N
Q0
lU
TO
V
,0
P-1
H
C-)
D
" 1
m
C)
1
H
0
z
I ? S
r
1
•• L n
A `
N
N p?
Q
Q
N
--1
N
.A
I
s
a
N
N
N
t ,
y
z
V
? N
N
co
O
0
(O
V J
m
a
l?1
V /
s
7)
I
MD M Q CSI 3 .. ... Q O .. Cam..}. . C M J., C
VTT1
?.J
_J
Uli
0
0
?J
0
u
r0
V
J
D
m
C7
0
Z
C/)
r-r
a
A
.Z7
a
co
r
m
N
r
0
m
N
v .ay'
n
co
r
m
N
r
0
-v ?
m .'4
N v ?
' N
0
om?
M o n ?
v
ma
z
a
r
m
X
cn
N
b
D
N
x
a
r
a
v
n
z?N
mo
z
r -
c
'D
O
-D
O
V)
m
0
CO
D
N
'D
D
r
N
0
O
u
rO
V ,
(T1
1-i
O
Tl
D

m
;u
a
N
N
.A,
v
A
m
ir,
z
a
v
A
<
m
a
` r
a _
m ::D
A
N N
r N
0
m
m
N /
I'll
rn
4-1
a
n
a
r
m
N
r
O
'u
m
N
a

N
S
O ?
C
r O
C)
m
m
m
-o x
N
O
O Z
N
m
? N
D
N D
"? Cn
D =
f D
N
S
O
C
0
0
0
0
r0
V ,
F^-i
l? J
S
0
C
1D

IJ
16
6. Bikeways
A
need for bikeways along the project was not identified in the planning
process. However, the proposed paved shoulders will be adequate to serve bicycle
traffic.
7. Access Control
Access control is not recommended for the entire length of the project.
8. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections along the project are to be stop sign controlled with the
exception of the US 29/ SR 1300 intersection which is currently signal controlled.
9. Structural work required
Bridge No. 14 (northbound) and Bridge No. 19 (southbound) both carry
us 29 over the Rocky River in Cabarrus County. The Bridges are located .9 mile
north of the intersection of US 29 and SR 1300
Th
b
.
ese
ridges serve as a
terminal point for this proposed widening project. Bridge No. 14 is a two-lane
bridge and has a length of 209 feet, a roadway width of 28 feet, and a sufficiency
rating of 73
0
Brid
e No
19 is
l
t
l
b
.
.
g
.
a
so a
wo-
ane
ridge and it has a length of 210
feet, a roadway width of 25.8 feet, and a sufficiency rating of 58.4. Since these
bridges serve as terminal points for the proposed widening it is not recommended
that these two structures be widened at this time. The necessary taper will bring
the proposed widening back to the existing section width and therefore no
additional horizontal clearance will be required for either bridge.
Bridge No. 186 in Cabarrus County, carries SR 1300 over Mallard Creek.
The bridge is located 1.7 miles to the south of the intersection of US 29 and SR
1300
d
, an
the bridge also serves as a terminal point for the proposed widening of
SR 1300. Bridge No. 186 is a two-lane bridge and has a length of 151 feet, a
roadway width of 34.1 feet, and a sufficiency rating of 81.9. The proposed three-
lane section will be tapered back to the existing two-lane section before the bridge
is impacted. Therefore, no structure widening will be required. Two existing box
culve
t
ill
d
b
r
s w
nee
to
e lengthened as part of this project.
HYDRAULIC ASPECTS
1) A single 8 foot x 6 foot RCBC exists along US 29 0.5 miles north of the
intersection of SR 2469 and US 29. As part of the roadway widening this
culvert will need to be extended from its existing length of 120 feet to
approximately 170 feet.
While this culvert supports a drainage area of approximately 400 acres, its
100-year and 500-year floodplains are not represented on the FEMA maps.
I

n
17
After careful analysis it was found that the extension of this existing culvert
will not have an adverse impact upon the floodplain and floodway.
2) A single 10 foot x 7 foot RCBC exists along US 29, 0.9 miles north of
the intersection with SR 2469. Widening of the roadway will require the

ft extension of this culvert from its 120 feet to approximately 170 feet.
9 Thi
s culvert also supports a drainage area of more than 400 acres
while at
,
the same time it does not show up as a FEMA site. The extension of this
culvert at its existing site will not have an adverse impact upon the
surrounding floodplain and floodway.
Since this project is proposed widening of an existing facility, it will not
have an adverse affect on existing groundwater and drainage patterns. The
project will not have a substantial change in the amount of stormwater
ff
runo
on nearby properties.
Moreover, no sensitive/high quality water areas will be affected by the
proposed project. Both of the culverts that have been identified in this
report have performed at satisfactory levels in the past, and after
preliminary studies it is known that these culverts, with extensions, will
continue to perform at satisfactory levels.
10. Special Permits Required of Division of Highways
Based on estimated impacts due to the stream crossings, it is anticipated
that authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers under a Section 404
Nationwide permit No. 14 will be required. However, notification does not appear
to be necessary. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification may also be required
from the North Carolina' Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources Division of Environmental Management.
11. Changes in the State Highway System
No changes to the existing primary highway system will result from the
proposed project.
12. Estimate of Cost
US 29 from Blockbuster Boulevard to Rocky River Bridge Construction $5,950,000
(including SR 1300 from US 29 to Mallard Creek) Right of Way $2,525,000
TOTAL $8,475,000
I

18
The original Tip cost for the project was for a total of $11,000,000. The decrease in
total cost can be attributed to two things. One, the project was originally planned to
extend to the US 29/I-85 connector. This would have added 0.3 miles of widening along
US 29 and possibly the extension of a large triple barrel reinforced concrete box culvert.
Secondly, the original right of way estimate was for $2,800,000 and that has now been
reduced to $2,525,000. This reduction can be attributed to the shorter project length,
along with the fact that no relocations will be required.

7
19
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
Existing US 29 is a four-lane divided highway, and SR 1300 is a two-lane road
that intersects US 29 at CMS. Both these sections of roadway are in need of
improvement. The number of lanes severely restrict capacity and maneuverability. The
proposed widening will accommodate increased traffic flow at peak hours for residential
and business traffic in the rapidly urbanizing southwestern section of Cabarrus County.
As an added benefit the widening will facilitate more efficient traffic flow for events held
at the Charlotte Motor Speedway.
B. Transportation Plan
The proposed improvements to US 29 in Cabarrus and Mecklenburg Counties,
along with SR 1300 in Cabarrus County, are listed in the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) for 1995-2001 under number U-3115. This project does not lie within the
Kanlacon Metropolitan Planning Organization planning boundaries. The project is not
currently represented on any adjoining thoroughfare plan.
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
1993 Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day)
US 29 north of SR 1300 18,000 vpd
US 29 south of SR 1300 15,600 vpd
SR 1300 east of US 29 7,000 vpd
2020 Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day)
US 29 north of SR 1300 37,500-48,400 vpd
US 29 south of SR 1300 36,500-37,000 vpd
SR 1300 east of US 29 15,100-19,100 vpd
Truck Data
Truck traffic estimates along the proposed project are 3 percent TTST (tractor
tailer and semi trailer) and 5 percent Duals (dual axle trucks) on US 29. The
truck estimates for SR 1300 are 6 percent (1 percent TTST, 5 percent Duals).
These large truck traffic percentages can be attributed to the location of the BFI
landfill and the Mallard Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant being located within
the project limits.
Ca aci
The existing (1993) average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume on US 29 ranges
between 15,600 vehicles per day (vpd) and 18,000 vpd. The 1993 AADT volume

u
I
20
on SR 1300 is 7000 vpd.
Preliminary traffic forecasts for the year 2020 project an AADT volume of
approximately 48,000 vpd along US 29 and approximately 19,000 vpd along SR
1300. These projections may be seen in Figures 5 and 6.
A detailed analysis was performed to determine level of service (LOS) for the
future traffic conditions. LOS is a qualitative measurement of traffic operations.
LOS A represents the best operating conditions with free flow and virtually no
delay. LOS F represents this worst o
eratin
conditio
d i
di
l
p
g
ns an
n
cates
ong queues
of traffic tend to form and intersection delay is excessive. The results of the traffic
analysis indicate a need for US 29 to have three lanes in each direction and two
lanes in each direction on SR 1300. These lane configurations will allow the
facility to operate at LOS B in the morning peak period and LOS C during the
evening peak period.
The existing US 29 facility is currently performing at LOS B. If the "Do-Nothing"
Alternate were chosen, and the facility was not improved, this existing LOS B
would decrease to a LOS D.
D. Accident Investigation
The following accident data was compiled from January 1, 1991 through May 31,
1994. For SR 1300 between US 29 and the Mallard Creek bridge, the most common
type of accident are rear-end collisions (36.7 percent). This type of accident along with
angle collisions (16.7 percent) is commonly caused by narrow lanes and the lack of a
turning lane within the existing cross section. The proposed three and four lane section
will decrease these accidents by providing a sheltered center left-tum lane for the three
lane section, a wider roadway for better maneuverability, and a wider recovery area. The
total accident rate for this section is 343.25 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles .
(MVM), which is much higher than the statewide average of 311.0 ACC/100MVM for
similar types of roads.
For the section of US 29 from the Blockbuster Boulevard to the Cabarrus County
Line, the most common accident is the rear-end collision (40.7 percent). This type of
accident along with running off the road (20.7 percent) is commonly caused by short
sight distance and inadequate recovery area. The proposed six-lane section would provide
a larger recovery area, while allowing cars to avoid others through the use of an
additional travel lane and wider shoulders.
For the section of US 29 from the Cabarrus County line to Rocky River, the most
common type of accident is the rear-end collision (29.8 percent). This type of accident
along with angle collisions (19.1 percent) is commonly caused by short-sight distance, and
frequent turn offs. The addition of a travel lane and paved shoulders will reduce the
number of collisions by increasing roadway width and increasing maneuverability.

e
e
s
e
0
e
e
0
a
o..
0
a
a
8
e
US 29
U-311 S
US 29 & MO.R.EJJE ,,-1D RD.
J VIDENING
1993 AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC
6900 MOREFLEA_D RD.
-I1 (SR 1300)
• I?c?
r ,

?i ?vl?l?._ DAY '+ D1:SIG.Y AOL?tl1' VOLf:,tfS (?:)
DDUC77ONAZ FZOJY
VV T r \ .LSYPM ,SM OR PM PrAK

DDZZC770Y OP D
(5,J) DUAL TRUCKS, 7T3r (%)
'
Dpy. 1 D
Nor r0 sc4u
NOrsst DAY o' D .7 Nor
LAOAN AU T= suss IoR
nra orros&o uct
FIGURE 5
US 29

US 29

0
0

KFVGS GRANT 36; 00
PARK 4141'

prn
p
50
.3 i
? J

O
O
`Na

9800

9 >-60 ?
? (
.
°° 000
b

0
0
b

U-3115
US 29 & MOREHEAD RID,
WIDENING
2020 A VERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC
19100 i? 15100 MOREIM4 D RD
60¢ o (SR 1300)
44 D,.?
\
LEGE?77
0000 _ cye
DRV _ DESIGN AOEMy VOLta(z (!
D _ DD(EMOX-(L FLOW (%)
A,li,FM _ L4 OR pm PF-4K
DIRZC770M OF D
(SMDUAL MUCI:S,77Sr(%)
DJ17- D
NOT 70 SCALE1
-VO77;S? DNV G D Dr vor
-WoFilV ARE 77$ SA$id FOR
TITS OPPOSIVO LEQ
FIGURE 6

23
TABLE 1
Accident Rate Comparison
(Accident rate per 100 million vehicle miles)
1991-1994
MOST TOTAL
COMMON ACCIDENT
FACILITY BETWEEN ACCIDENT (o) RATE
SR1300 US 29 & Mallard Creek Bridge Rear end collision 343.25
(36.7)
US 29 Blockbuster Boulevard to the Rear end collision 231.33
Mecklenburg Cabarrus County line (40.7)
US 29 Mecklenburg- Cabarrus County line Rear end collision 315.65
to Rocky River Bridge (29,8)
1991-1994 Statewide Average (4-lane divided section) 115.8
1991-1994 Statewide Average (2-lane section) 311.0
E. Benefits to State, Region and Community
Improvements to US 29 and SR 1300 will enhance the safe and efficient conduct
of passenger and commercial traffic in both Cabarrus and Mecklenburg counties. US 29
serves as a major arterial between I-85 in Mecklenburg County and the
Concord/Kannapolis urban area in Cabarrus County. SR 1300 currently serves as a
connector between NC 49 and US 29. With the construction of Kings Grant Parkway
underway, SR 1300 will also begin to act as a connector to I-85 from Harrisburg via
SR 1300, US 29, and Kings Grant Parkway. While SR 1300 and US 29 are currently
performing at acceptable levels of service, it is expected that their current capacity will be
surpassed due to rapid urbanization in the Mecklenburg/Cabarrus County area.
US 29 and SR 1300 both serve as travel routes for trucks traveling to and from
the BFI Landfill, which is located along SR, 1300 just to the east of the SR 1300 and US
29 intersection. The facility, which has only been in operation since 1988, currently
generates in excess of 350 truck trips per day. A wider typical section would improve the
truck operations along SR 1300 and allow for regular traffic movement to pass the
slower moving waste hauling vehicles.

C
J

0
24
A benefit of this project will be a decreased number of accidents. Additionally the
widening will allow greater capacity entering and exiting special events at the Charlotte
Motor Speedway (located at US 29 and SR 1300) and at the Blockbuster Pavilion
(located just south of US 29, 0.2 miles north of SR 2469). The wider shoulders will
provide areas for stalled or damaged vehicles to park without blocking traffic during
event traffic that fully utilizes the roadway capacity.
With the on-going construction of Kings Grant Parkway, (which intersects US 29
at CMS) and associated adjoining development, and construction of the northern portion
of the Charlotte Outer Loop slated to begin in August of 1995 (which will tie into
US 29 near the existing US 29 and I-85 connector), the demand on US 29 will begin to
increase. The traffic that will be generated by these two projects will put demands on
US 29 that would overextend the capacity of the existing facility.
Charlotte's continued growth to the north, and the proposed interchange of US 29
With the Charlotte Outer Loop reinforce the fact that US 29 is, and will continue to
serve as, a vital link between Concord, Kannapolis, Harrisburg and the Charlotte
® Metropolitan area.

?j`

25
III. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Impacts
1. Land Use
The area of proposed improvement is rapidly transitioning from rural to an urban
mix of commercial, industrial, entertainment and residential uses. Historically land use in
the area has been associated with agriculture. With the growth of the Charlotte economy
and the development of University Place, construction and operation of the Philip Morris
plant in Concord, and the rapidly growing residential community in western Cabarrus
County, development within the project corridor has rapidly accelerated. In addition to
the residential and business growth anchoring US 29 in Concord and at University
Place; the construction of the Kings Grant connector between US 29 and I-85, the
development of the Charlotte Motor Speedway Industrial Park, connection of the City of
Concord and Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD) waterlines providing
continuous service along the length of US 29, the construction of the City of Concord's
30-inch sanitary sewer interceptor up Rocky River to the new Concord Regional Airport,
and the development of the Concord Regional Airport have all served as contributing
factors in the rapid growth and urbanization of this vital economic area.
The portion of proposed project that lies in Cabarrus County, and the majority of
the land adjacent to it, has been annexed into the City of Concord. The sections in the
City of Concord and Cabarrus County are all zoned either commercial or industrial.
The section of the proposed project that is located in Mecklenburg County is
currently zoned primarily low-density single family residential, although some uses and
zoning are for commercial. In September of 1994 a US 29 corridor study began in
Mecklenburg County that will study changing to high density single family and
multifamily zonings. US 29 is viewed by Charlotte-Mecklenburg as an arterial transit
corridor suitable to support a significant residential population. However, plans are to
transition near the county line to uses that are compatible with the general business and
industrial zonings on the Cabarrus County side.
Development along US 29 south of SR 1300 is primarily commercial, with few
residences. Withrow Downs, a large residential community, is accessed off US 29,
approximately 0.8 miles north of SR 2469.
The remaining area of this segment of the project is primarily commercial. Gospel
Chapel is located 0.7 miles north of SR 2469. Other businesses include Love's Autoparts
which is located 0.5 miles north of SR 2469. There are scattered businesses at the
intersection of US 29 and SR 1300. The remaining area of the project is characterized by
mostly vacant farm fields, vacant commercial establishments, and forest.

26
The area north of the intersection of US 29 and SR 1300 is owned by CMS with
the exception of the commercial establishments previously identified. Beyond these
businesses, the west side of the project area is parking for Speedway events. The east
side of US 29 is the Speedway, additional parking, and other structures owned by CMS.
SR 1300 is characterized by similar development. Traveling east toward
Harrisburg from the intersection of US 29, the Speedway maintains a large tract for
parking on the south side of the roadway. On the north side is the Speedway, the
entrance to the BFI Landfill, and several commercial buildings that are a part of the
Speedway Industrial Park. Beyond this Industrial Park, a farm pond is located outside
the area that will be disturbed by this project. This pond is part of a farm, also accessed
from SR 1300, but outside the project limits.
On the south side of SR 1300 the project is similar in nature to US 29. This area
of the project is primarily wooded or open pasture. Few residences exist in this area, and
are all located well outside the area to be disturbed by the widening of SR 1300.
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion or interfere with the
accessibility of facilities and services. The displacement of residents will not be required.
2. Relocation of Families and Businesses
Based on preliminary right-of-way estimates, there are no residences that will
require relocation. The businesses at the intersection of US 29 and SR 1300 and the
Texaco Service Station located 0.1 mile south of this same intersection may have to
relocate parking and/or gas tanks to accommodate the widening of US 29. Elsewhere,
several farm fences may have to be set back from the right-of-way that will be acquired.
Although additional right of way will be required along the length of the project, the
impact to the landowners is expected to be minimal. Approximately one-fifth of the
entire required right of way will be donated by Charlotte Motor Speedway, although 63
property owners will be effected by the project.
3. Public Facilities
There are no public facilities located along the proposed project site.
4. Cultural Resources
a. Historical-Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with North Carolina General Statute
121-12(a).

a
7
27
In a letter dated July 11, 1994 the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources stated that they were aware of no National Register-listed properties
located within the project area. A copy of the letter is included in the Appendix.
b. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area.
The Department of Cultural Resources determined that it is unlikely that any
archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by this project. They recommended that no
archaeological investigations be conducted. A copy of the letter is included in the
Appendix.
B. Economic Impacts
The proposed improvement to US 29 and SR 1300 will not adversely impact the
economy in the area. On the contrary, the improvement is likely to increase the tax base
® and enhance job development.
C. Environmental Impacts
1. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include plant
communities and wildlife. These systems are interrelated and in many respects
interdependent, but are presented separately for the sake of simplicity. The
technical report, on which the following discussion is based, is on file with
NCDOT.
a. Plant Communities
Plant communities are subdivided' into two broad categories: uplands
and wetlands, based on jurisdictional differences. Wetlands are discussed in
section 3.
Three upland community types were identified during the field
studies: mixed hardwood forest, open field, and residential lawn.
Additionally, a narrow strip of a heavily disturbed plant community exists
within the shoulder of the existing roadway for the entire project length.
The mixed hardwood forest found within the area of study are very
similar in species composition, differing primarily in canopy dominance of
Virginia pine (Pinus vir iniana). Other common canopy species found here
include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), white oak (Quercus alba),
American beech (Fa us grandifolia), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia),
winged elm (Ulmus alata), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sugar
L

28
maple (Acer saccharum), red maple (Acer rubrum), and hickory (Ca rya,
?P_-)
The mid-story of these forests is composed of saplings of the canopy
species, and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), sassafras (Sassafras
albidum), and Chinese privet (Ligustrurn sinense). In some areas, vines
such as greenbrier (Smilax sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and
crossvine (Anisostichus capreolata), extend well into the mid-story.
The ground cover in these forests consists mainly of seedlings of the
canopy and mid-story species, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
clematis (Clematis sp.), chickweed (Stellaria sp.), wild onion (Allium sp.),
and vetch (Vicia sp.).
Open fields within the project area are fallow fields. These fields
support a wide variety of weedy invader species. Hedgerows bordering
these fields are dominated by winged elm (Ulmus alata), red cedar
(Juniperus vir iniana), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica).
Residential lawns are planted primarily with tall fescue (Festuca sp.)
and common Bermuda grass (gnodon dac , lon) occurs as a weedy
invader. These areas may also support a wide variety of ornamental trees
and shrubs.
TABLE 2
Distribution of Impacts to VeiZetative Communities
Community_Typee Acreage of Impact
Mixed hardwood forest 4 acres
Open field 3.6 acres
Residential lawns .4 acres
E
0
7
J
29
b. Wildlife
The various community types found within the study area have the potential to
support a number of species. Common mammals that may be found within the study
area include Virginia Opossum (Didelphis vir iniana), Eastern Mole (Scalopus
aquaticus), Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and numerous species of small rodents.
Bird species that were identified in the project area include Mourning Dove
genaida macroura), Northern Bobwhite (Colinus vir inianus), Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), and Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata). Other common species that might be
found include Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), American Crow (Corvus brachyrh nchos),
Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) and the Carolina Chickadee (Parus carolinensis).
Common reptiles and amphibians that may be found within the study area include
species of turtles, snakes, frogs and lizards. Complete listings of the mammals, birds
reptiles and amphibians that may be found in the project area are in the biological
report on file with NCDOT.
An attempt to identify fish species was made during the field studies. The nearby
portion of the Rocky River was studied. The following fishes were collected: a strange
mixture of hybrids of whitefin shiners and satinfish shiners (56); bluehead chub (2);
highback chub (1); mosquitofish (1); American eel (1); redbreast sunfish (32); green
sunfish (2); bluegill (10); tessellated darter (1); and Piedmont darter (1). Also taken was
one Procambarus crayfish; Asiatic clams were common. Small tadpoles were common in
shallow lateral pool areas. In summary, species diversity was unusually low in this stream,
probably a result of siltation and effects of the effluent from the Mooresville Waste
Water Treatment Plant located upstream. In addition a portion of Mallard Creek was
studied. The following fishes were collected: whitefin shiner (12); satinfish shiner (25);
bluehead chub (16); spottail shiner (6); redlip shiner (22); smallfin redhorse (1); flat
bullhead (3); margined madtom (4); eastern mosquitofish (1); redbreast sunfish (6);
bluegill (4); tessellated darter (1); and Piedmont darter (1). In summary, species diversity
was unusually low in this stream, probably a result of siltation and effects of the effluent
from the WWTP located upstream. The complete investigation is on file with NCDOT.

?s
30
2. Physical Resources
a. Water Quality
The study area falls within the confines of the Yadkin Pee-Dee River
Basin. US 29 crosses an unnamed tributary to Mallard Creek 1000 feet upstream
from its confluence with Mallard Creek, an unnamed tributary 3500 feet
upstream from its confluence with Mallard Creek, and Rocky River. SR 1300
crosses Mallard Creek.
The first tributary has a channel width of 8 to 10 feet and a bank height of
4 to 8 feet. The banks are covered with typical floodplain vegetation. The
substrate type consists mostly of coarse sand with some silty organic floc in stiller
® areas.
The second tributary has a channel width of 10 to 12 feet and a bank
height of 6 to 10 feet. The bank is about 90 percent vegetated. This substrate
type is a coarse sand with some stiller areas containing a fine layering of organic
silt.
The portions of the Rocky River and Mallard Creek that are in the project
vicinity are classified as "C" by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources. This classification reflects "best usage" of these
waters and is defined as suitable for "aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture." Water quality standards applicable
to this classification are set forth in 15 NCAV 2B .0200, Classifications and Water
Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina.
No Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) studies have
been conducted for streams in or around the project area.
b. Soils
Soils are an important feature in any area as their makeup often dictates
what types of vegetation may occur there. Draft soils maps for this area were
provided by the US Soil Conservation Service. Mapped soil units within project
area include the following soil series: Enon, Monancan, Iredell, Wilkes,
Poindexter, Cecil, Vance, Cullen, Chewacla. No prime or important farmland
soils will be impacted.
c. Stream Modifications
No channel changes or stream modifications are involved with this project.
d. Floodplain Involvement
Cabarrus & Mecklenburg Counties are participants in the National Flood
Insurance Program. The proposed widening will not have an impact on the

31
floodway or floodplain of the Rocky River or Mallard Creek. The terrain in the
project area is fairly rolling, with natural contours which promote good drainage
3. Wetlands
a. Wetland Areas
Wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3. From bank to bank, all of the creeks within the study
area can be considered "Waters of the United States" and as such fall under the
jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers.
The current roadway crosses two streams, neither of which contain
wetlands within the project area.
b. Anticipated permit requirements
Based on estimated impacts due to the stream crossings, it is anticipated
that authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers under a Section 404
Nationwide permit No. 14 will be required. However, notification does not appear
to be necessary. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification may also be required
from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources Division of Environmental Management.

1-1
C
r.
L'
r

G'
r
32
4. Protected Species
The methodology used to identify the suitable habitat for the Federal and State
listed species for Cabarrus and Mecklenburg Counties consisted of a literature review,
coordination with the USFWS and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, as well
as field surveys within the project area.
a. Federally Listed Species
Federally protected plant and animal species with endangered (E) or
threatened (T) status receive protection under the Federal Endangered Species
Act of 1973. Candidate species are those which may in the future be considered
for listing as endangered or threatened. Candidate 2 (C2) are those species for
which information substantial enough to support listing is unavailable. As of
August 1994, the USFWS lists the following species for Mecklenburg and
Cabarrus Counties.
MECKLENBURG
Taxa Common Name Scientific Name Category
Clams
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmif!ona decorata E
Plants
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E
Georgia aster Aster Qeor ianus C2
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri C2
Nestronia Nestronia umbellula C2
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum C2
Virginia quillwort Isoetes vir inica C2
CABARRUS
Taxa Common Names Scientific Name Category
Crustaceans
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Dac lothere peedeensis C2
Clams
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata E
Plants
Hellers trefoil Lotus helleri C2
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E
Nestronia Nestronia umbellula C2
0

U,
33
A field survey by biologists located a colony of the Scliweinitz Sunflower along a
portion of the project in Mecklenburg County. The population was found approximately
250 feet north of the Blockbuster Boulevard entrance along US 29. Since this is a state
funded project and the species is located outside any area that may require a permit,
there is no federal action and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act does not apply.
Also, the provisions of Section 9 of the Act do not apply to plants. The Charlotte Motor
Speedway has offered to relocate the plants, with the assistance of Dr. James Matthews,
® to a protected area on the speedway property and maintain them in perpetuity.
The species Lotus helleri also occurred frequently along the project in
Mecklenburg County. The exact locations of its occurrence are listed in the biological
report on file with NCDOT. Due to the high frequency of its occurrence it is believed
that its status may be under review.
0 The widening of this existing facility is the most viable alternative after evaluation
of the total impacts for each alternative. Avoidance of these species is not possible in
this case. No other federally listed species were observed in this project area.
b. State Listed Species
Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and plants with the North
Carolina Status of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), or
Candidate (C) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979.
On the following page is a list of the state protected species for Mecklenburg and
Cabarrus Counties.
The discovery of the populations of Schweinitz's Sunflower and Heller's Trefoil
are discussed in the previous section titled Federally Listed Species.
The Loggerhead Shrike is the only protected wildlife species that may occur in the
study area. It may nest in the proposed corridor and does quite well adjacent to roads.
Red Cedars seem to be its preferred nesting tree. Any negative impact to this species
could be prevented through coordination of land clearing activity at times other than the
species reproductive season. This species was not observed, but may exist within the
project area.
Minimization of impacts to other species that may occur in the project area
should be insured through the use of best management practices.
L?6i-

34
State Protected Species for Cabarrus & Mecklenburg Counties
Taxa Common Name Scientific Name
Birds
Black Vulture
Golden-Crowned Kinglet
Loggerhead Shrike
Re the
Spiny Softshell
Plants
Schweinitz's sunflower
Georgia aster
Piedmont aster
White Wild Indigo
Prairie Blue Wild Indigo
Carolina Thistle
Sessile Tick-Trefoil
Smooth Coneflower
Hellers Rabbit Tobacco
Crested Coralroot
Carolina Birdfoot Trefoil
Coragyps atratus
Regulus satran_a
Lanius ludovicianus
Trionyx spiniferus
Helianth is schweinitzii
Aster eor ianus
Aster mirabilis
Baptisia alba
Baptisia minor
Cirsium carolinianum
Desmondium sessilifolium
Echinacea laevi ata
Gnaphalium helleri
Hexalect is spicata
Lotus helleri
Category
SC
SC
SC
SC
E
C
C
SR
C
C
C
E-SC
SR
C

35
5. Air and Noise Quality
Air uali
Air Pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of common
outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting
from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb) (Listed in order of
decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in
the project area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned with
determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic
flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration of the receptor closest to
the highway project, two concentration components must be used: local and background.
The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from the cars operating on
highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location.
The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources and the Mecklenburg County Department
of Environmental Protection as "the concentration of a pollutant at the point that is the
result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge
of the local sources. "
In this study, the local concentration was determined by using line source
computer modeling and a background concentration obtained from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).' Once the
two concentration components were resolved, they were added together to determine the
ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and to compare to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere
where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide
automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the
continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence,
the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to
decrease as a result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
Li The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several
hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20

n
u
36
kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole
are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other
photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog which
forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than 7 percent of particulate
matter emissions and less that 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g.,
industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on
the project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be
exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor
® to the project as a result of free-flowing traffic.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of the level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes,
vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes
are based on hourly peak traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the CAL3QHC
model was the highest volume within the project limits. Carbon monoxide vehicle
emission factors were calculated for the design year of 2015 using the EPA publication
"Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE5A mobile source emissions
computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.9
parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.0 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be a receptor at a distance
of 52.5 feet from the proposed centerline of the roadway and 52.5 feet from the existing
centerline.
C

i
GI

37
The one-Dour Co concentration for the nearest sensitive receptor for the year
2015 are shown in the following table.
Nearest Sensitive
Receptor
One Hr CO Conc. (PPM) Build
Year 2015 (ppm)
Background (ppm)
Total (ppm)
R-28a 0.9 1.9 2.8
One Hr CO Conc. (PPM) - No Build
R-28a
0.7
1.9
2.6
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period - 9 ppm;)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard.
The project is located within the jurisdiction of the Mooresville Regional Office of
the N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, and the
Mecklenburg county Department of Environmental Protection. The ambient air quality
for Cabarrus County has been determined to be in compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The ambient air quality for Mecklenburg
County has exceeded the NAAQS for CO, however, this project is not anticipated to
create any adverse effect on the air quality of this nonattainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned
or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that burning
will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a-hazard to the public. Burning will only be utilized
under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce
the dust generated by construction, when the control of dust is necessary for the
protection and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the
NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
L

C
Noise Analysis
38
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening of
us 29 and SR 1300 in Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties on noise levels in the
immediate project area. This investigation includes an inventory of existing noise
sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area.
It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels
to determine if traffic noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic
noise impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts
are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise
and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of
alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must
be considered.
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources
including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles.
Highway noise, or traffic noise, drive train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range
of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). sound levels measured using a
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table 3.
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible
with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed
noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned
(Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land
uses is presented in Table 4. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, in the period, has the
same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of
traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy
content.

39
TABLE 3
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff
140 Motor test chamber PAIN
130 HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
110 Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
D Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
E Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
C
90 Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft away
I Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
80 Average factory, vacuum cleaner '
B Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft away MODERATELY LOUD
70 Quiet typewriter
E Singing birds, window air-conditioner
60 Quiet automobile
I' Normal conversation, average office QUIET
S 50 Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
30 Average home
Dripping faucet
20 Whisper 5 feet away
Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
10 AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
0 Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
ources: or Book, an c a y t as o t e Human Boil,,,, ncycope is
Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J.B. Olishifski
and E.R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
e
40
TABLE 4
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
ategory Le h Description of Activity Category
A 57(Exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
significance and serve an important public need and where
the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to
continue to serve its intended purpose.
B 67(Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports
areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
C 72(Exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
Categories A or B above.

D -- Underdeveloped lands
E 52(Interior) Residences, motes, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level -decibels (dBA)
Guidelines.
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
s50 > 15
>50 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement

41
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine
the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this noise level information was to
quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level along US 29 as measured at 49.2
feet from the roadway ranged from 65.0 to 72.5 dBA. The ambient measurement sites
and measured exterior Leq noise levels are presented in Table 5.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current traffic
noise prediction model in order to calculate existing noise levels for comparison with
noise levels within 1.3 to 2.9 dBA of the measured noise levels for the locations where
noise measurements were obtained. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to
"bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the
computer's "evenly spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables which
describe different speeds through a continual changing highway configuration and
surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and
simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the Noise
Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983).
The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model
uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road, (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and
height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top
elevation. These receptors are identified in Table 5.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was available for
use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen the existing two-lane highways
and four-lane highways to multi-lane. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers
were included in setting up the model. The roadway sections and proposed intersections
were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case"
topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related
noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
E
I
e
B '2
TABLE 5
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 29 and SR 1300
Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties
TI P# U-3115

REM'TOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY
ID# IA\•D LNE CAIF.GORY NAME DISTA
':CF
fl AbmITN'r NEAREST
NOISE PROPOSID ROADWAY PREDICTm

' NOISE

NOISE LLl'F:IIS

LUTE
.
. ( I.Rti
Fl, NAME DISTANCE (h) -L •Y• MA.\-Mi'hf L\CRFASB
Section 1 - North End US 29 to SR 1300 Intersection
53 Business C US 29 130 64 US 29 130

6 Business C " 660
7 Business C
48
" -
660 53.0 48.0 70

54
+6
+6
710
8 Business C " 290
9 Business C " 80 47
58
70 "
^ 710 52.0 47.1
" 20 - 53
63 +6
+5
so 75
0 62
9 *75
11 Business C 100 68 .
.
100 +5
73.2 623 •73 +5
Section 2 - SR 1300 Intersection to South End of US 29
25 Residence B US 29 93
68
US
28
B
i 29 93 •72

a
us
ness C 55
71
55
• +4
28b Business C " 90 68 76 +5
28e Business C ^ 50 72 " 90
•72
+4
29 Church E 100 67/42 150 030 - +4
30 Church E 130 65/45
130 711//
46 +4/+4
31 Business C " 60 71 "
IS 69/49 +4/+4
32 Residence B "
1&0 62 ISO
" '75
' +4
33 Residence B " 90 68 90
19 66 +4
34 Residence B ^ 190 62 "
190 '72
• +4

36 Residence B
140

65 66 +4
38 Business C " 60 71 " 140 •69 +4
39 Business C ^ 100 67 10 _ ,75 +4
40 Residence B
" 100
67 100 '71 +4

43 Business C
60

58 100 - - •71 +4

45 Residence B 80
69 60 ------------------

" ----
R/W -----
47 Business C ?
49 Business C 71 ? -
60 75.7 48
0 '73
•75 +4

80
69 . +4
so 73.8 47.0 '73
+4
Section 3 - SR 1300 Intersection to Hudspeth Rd
6 Residence B SR 1300 660
7 Residence II ^
7 41 SR 1300 660
48.9 48.0
51
+10
10
8 Business C 290 40
51 710 47.9 47.1 50 +10

9 Business C ^ 80
62 290
" -
58
+7
11 Business C ^
100
12 Business C
61 so 70.9 62.9
" 100 69.1 623 •71
69 +9

210
55
210 +8
13 Business C 110 60 " 62 +7
110 - - 67 +7
Section 4 - Hudspeth Rd. to Bridge
14 Business C S
R 1300 100
15 Business C 61 SR 1300 100
67
100
16 Business C
100 61

61
100 -
67 +6
+6

17 Residence B 140
18 Residence B
58 100
140
- 67

64 +6

+6
140 58 " 140
- - 64 ;+6
NOTE Distances are from center of the exi
ti
s
ng or proposed
All noise levels are hourly a-weighted noise levels.
Cate
E
i roadways. •U Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
-P- Noise levels from other contributin
roadwa
s

gory
no
se levels shown as exterior/interior g
• T
ff
i y
.
.
Receptors not in sequence or missin
were
t i
l
d
d d ra
ic no
se impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
g
no
nc
u e
ue to bei ng out of the 66 dBA contour ran
e or v
g
acant or unused buildings.

43
TABLE 6
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
US 29 and SR 1300
Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties
TIP# U-3115
Noise
Site Location
Description Level
(dBA)
Section 1 US 29 North end of US 29 roadway wooded 70.4
Section 2 US 29 Center of US 29 roadway grassy 72.5
Section 3 US 29 South end of US 29 roadway grassy 71.8
Section 4 SR 1300 West end of SR 1300 grassy 65.3
Section 5 SR 1300 East end of SR 1300 grassy 65.0
0
'I4
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the design year
2015. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching
or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a
substantial noise increase. The basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 25,
50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable
to both sides of the roadway). The locations of these receptors were determined by the
changes in projected traffic volumes and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed
project. The result of this procedures was a grid of receptor points along the project.
Using this grid, noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
Under Title 23 CFR Part 772, 11 businesses and 7 residential receptors were
determined to be impacted by highway traffic noise. Other information included in Table
6 is the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This information
should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with
the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent
highway.
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within
1 dBA of the Table 4 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table 4.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in
either category. There are 18 impacted receptors in the project area.
Highway Ali nment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the
proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of
alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between
noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise
abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of sighting the roadway at
a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a
viable alternative for noise abatement in this case.
Traffic Svstem Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time of
operations are often effective noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic
management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their
effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.

0
45
TABLE 7
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
US 29 and SR 1300
Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties
TIP# U-3115
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distance
dBA
Description 50 ft 100 ft 200 ft (Maximum)
72dBA 67dBA
1. North End US29 to Kings Grant Pkwy 78.4 72.2 66.2 101.8 178.9
2. Kings Grant Pkwy to SR1300 Intrsctn 79.5 73.7 67.4 116.4 201.2
3. SR1300 Intrsctn to South End of US29 78.3 72.5 66.2 99.7 176.3
4. SR1300 Intersection to Hudspeth Rd 74.4 69.1 62.9 63.9 124.4
5. Hudspeth Rd. To Bridge 73.4 68.1 61.9 52.8 109.9
NOTES- 50', 100' and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane

72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of .
proposed roadway.
d?-

46
Noise Barriers
n

d
L
e
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied with
a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures to
effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass,
attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain only limited control of access, meaning most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct access connections to the proposed
roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough
and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It
then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise
reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would normally require a barrier
400 feet long. An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise
reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTALS AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-737976-1, USDOT,
chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two
qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.

J
J
?k
Li

"Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative were also
considered. If the proposed widening did not occur, 12 residences and businesses would
experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also,
the receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the
range of + 1 to + 6 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level
changes of 2-3 dBA, 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the
project, can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving
g

47
equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term
nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these
impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics or
nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to
moderate the effects of intrusive constriction noise.
Summaty
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended
and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway
traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change
develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
6. Hazardous Waste
There are four sites adjacent to either US 29 or SR 1300 that have underground
storage tanks (USTs) that are in close proximity of the road. Two of these sites are
currently operating gas stations, and two appear to be abandoned gas stations. (Site 1)
First Turn Express is a currently-operating Texaco gas station located on the corner of
US 29 and Hudspeth Road (SR 1302) and has USTs for both gasoline and diesel. (Site
2) The other currently operating gas station is the Speedway Amoco located on the
northwest comer of the US 29/SR 1300 intersection. The station has USTs for gasoline
in addition to aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) for kerosene, diesel, and liquid propane
gas. The USTs at both of these sites appear to be within seventy-five feet of the existing
road. Two abandoned gas stations have had their dispensers removed, but appear to still
have USTs in place. (Site 3) This site is located on US 29 directly across from the
Blockbuster Boulevard intersection and appears to have been a former gas station and
small convenience store. (Site 4) This site is located on the west side of US 29
approximately .25 mile south of the US 29/SR 1300 intersection, and now serves as an
office for Trickle Trailers. UST fill ports are still present at both sites, indicating that the
USTs may still be present. Both of these sites were noted because the suspected tanks
are within fifty feet of the existing road, but they will not be impacted by the widening.
No open dumping, unusual odors, hazardous materials, or hazardous wastes were
observed on the subject property during the site reconnaissance. A number of electric
transformers were noted within the assessment area but no evidence of leakage from any
of these units was observed.
The public records review revealed four UST sites and three sites listed as RCRA,
small generators or transporters. None of these sites was found to have had any recorded
incidents or regulation violations. In addition, no record of incidents was found regarding
the solid waste landfill east of the Charlotte Motor Speedway. The complete report is on
file with NCDOT.
r_]
Hill-
i

48
7. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction, the following
measures will be enforced during the construction phase.
a. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right-of-way
and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or
Special Provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by
the Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public waste or disposal
areas will not be permitted without prior approval by the Engineer. Such
approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution.
b. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding area for
mosquitoes.
C. An extensive rodent control program will be established if structures are to
be removed or demolished.
d. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
e. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from
clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from
the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning
will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and Implementation
plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at
the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be
performed under constant surveillance.
f. Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by construction when
the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists
and area residents, and for the prevention of diminished value, utility, or
appearance or any public or private properties.
g. An erosion control schedule will be prepared by the contractor before work
is started. The schedule will show the time relationship between phases of
the work which must be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control measures which will be
used to minimize erosion. In conjunction with the erosion control schedule
the contractor will be required to follow those provisions of the plans and
specifications which pertain to erosion and siltation. These contract
provisions are in accordance with the strict erosion control measures as
9

0
49
outlined in the Department of Transportation's FAPG Part 650b.
Temporary erosion control measures such as the use of berms, dikes, dams,
silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.

h. The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious
disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving the area. Before
construction is started, a preconstruction conference involving the
contractor, pertinent local officials, and the Division of Highways will be
held to discuss various construction procedures, including a discussion of
precautionary steps to be taken during the time of construction that will
minimize interruption of water service.
i. Prior to construction, a determination will be made regarding the need to
relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project area. A determination
of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible for this
work will be made at that time.
j. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the contractor shall obtain a Certification from the State
Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material
from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site,
building, structure, or object that is included in the National Register of
Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be furnished to the
Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
k. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be subjected to brief
disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be made to
insure that the transportation needs of the public will be met both during
and after construction.

50
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Agency Coordination
During the planning study, contact was maintained with local, state, and federal
agencies. Memorandums and letters requesting environmental input were sent to the
following agencies:
* US Army Corp of Engineers - Wilmington District
US Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
* US Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
* State Clearinghouse
* NC Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Natural Heritage Program
* NC Division of Land Resources
* NC Division of Environmental Management
NC Division of Forest Resources
* NC Dept. of Cultural Resources
NC Dept. of Crime Control and Public Safety
NC Dept. of Human Resources
* NC Dept. of Public Instruction
* Mecklenburg County
* Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which written responses were received. Those
comments are included in the appendix of this report.
B. Public Involvement
A public meeting has not been held for this project at the time of this report.
Although it is anticipated that a public hearing will be held in early 1995.

L
F111
ILI
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
n WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
INREPLY REFER TO September 7, 1994
' L,
Planning Division
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
s-

Dear Mr. Vick:
S EP 0 8 1994
C DIVISICV pF
HIGHWAY?

it CK

This is in response to your letter of June 9, 1994, requesting
our input related to the preparation of the "State Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for a portion of US 29
from the I-85/US 29 Connector in northern Mecklenburg County to
the Rocky River Bridge in Cabarrus County, and on SR 1300 from
US 29 South to the Mallard Creek, TIP 7U-3115, State Project
79.8100476" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199403551).
From the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE) perspective, our
comments involve impacts to CE projects, flood plains, and other
environmental aspects, primarily waters and wetlands. The
proposed project would not involve any CE-constructed navigation
or flood control project.
The proposed project is sited in Mecklenburg and Cabarrus
Counties, both of which participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program. The February 1993 Mecklenburg County Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) shows that the roadway crosses Stony
Creek, a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations
determined and a floodway defined. On the August 1989 Cabarrus
County FIRM, Rocky River and Mallard Creek are both shown as
detailed study streams. The hydraulic effects of the project on
these streams should be determined and discussed in the
environmental document. We also suggest that you coordinate with
both counties for compliance with their flood plain ordinances and
any necessary changes to their flood insurance maps and reports.
Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed your letter and has the
following comments. 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, including construction debris, into waters of
8
u

-2-
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 should be wetland and soil mapping,
indicating wetland and soil types and data regarding endangered
species, cultural resources, and fish and wildlife habitats.
Adverse environmental impacts should be avoided and then minimized.
Mitigation must be provided to compensate for unavoidable 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 concerning
permits 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 c rely,
Lawrence W a nders
Chief, Plan i g Division

UtIItc( I Stat(_•ti I) c I),,1-t111('11L UI t11(2 I1,LC I,iOI
NISI I AND
\1'11.U1JFl, Sl.l:\'ICl?
L•:cological Services
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, north Carolina 27636.3726
July 18, 1994
tIr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Atienzicn: Tom hendig
TAKES ?i
PRIDE INS
AMERICA
?G E
'JUL' 2 0 1994
DIVISIGN OF
?lQ HIGHWAYS
`?/`'f?RO?
Subject: Scoping Comments US 29 from I-85/US 29 Connector,
Mecklenburg County to the Rocky River Bridge,
Cabarrus County and from SR 1300 from US 29 to
Mallard Creek (TIP No. U-3115)
Dear Mr. Vick:
Thank you for your letter of Juna 9, 1994, requesting comments
on the subject project. These comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et
seq.) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
L11
The Service's review of any environmental document would be
greatly facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources
within °Yisti ng and ?.eq'ui --A addit-iona•l r aht-of-..,av
and any areas, such as borrow areas, which may be
affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
improvements.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or
wetlands to be filled.
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated.
4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would
be eliminated.

F
u
5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and
constructing any relocated stream channels or for
creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with any of the proposed activity.
7) Assessments of the expected secondary and cumulative
impacts of the proposed project on fish and wildlife
resources.
8) An assessment of potential impacts to Federally-listed
species.
According to our records, the Schwienitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) is present within the proposed
project area. Section 7(a) (2) of the Act requires Federal
Agencies, in consultation with the Service, to insure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species or adversely impact their critical habitat. it
is the Federal Agency's responsibility to complete a biological
evaluation of the proposed action. If it is determined that
the project "may affect" listed species, formal consultation
with the Service should be initiated. If it is concluded that
"adverse effects" are not likely, the Service should review the
biological evaluation and provide written concurrence with the
determination. We refer you to the Act for Section 7
consultation requirements.
Because this project is in their operational area, the
Services Asheville, North Carolina Field Office will assume
the Section 7 responsibilities for this project. Please
contact Janice Nichols at for further information:
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Ecological Services
330 Ridgefield Center
Asheville, North Carolina.28806
We. appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and
encourage your consideration of them. Please continue to
advise us of the progress of this project.
Sincerely,
/ v l Tom Auga irger
Acting Supervisor
cc: FWS, Asheville FO

North Carolina
James B. Department of Administration
?-?unt, Jr., Governor
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
July 13, 1994
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Highway Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:

J
u
J
1
RE: SCH File 794-E-4220-0958; Scoping - Proposed Improvements
to a Portion of US 29 from the I-85/US 29 Connector in
North Mecklenburg County to the Rocky River Bridge in
Cabarrus County TIP 7U-3115
The above referenced environmental impact information has been
reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing
this document which identify issues to be addressed in the
environmental review document. For compliance with the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act the appropriate document
should be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse for environmental
review. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call me at 733-7232.
Attachments
cc: Region F
Sincerely,

Ms: Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51.01.00
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
7

iY
a
Slate of North Carolina '
gamer;-•: 1t of Enrironrnenl. Health, arid Natural Resources Reviewing Office.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. Due Date
!r-.
After rtriew of this project It has been determined that the EHNR permll(s) and/or approvals Indicated '? ' L
order for this project to comply with North Carolina law, m+Y need to be oDta reed in,
Ovestions regarding thus permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the nversa of the form.
All applications. Information and guidelines retatirt to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Normal Process'
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPUCATION PROCEDURES or REO UREMENTS (statutory lima
Irmll)
Pemut to construct L cptrale wuit,raler lnatrrvnt Appltcalion W daft Delon begin construction or aw" of
ears
facilities, wwrr sytlrm e.tenaions. t 64-.tr construction contracts O'-stit i 30
napeClrOn. Poti'aODriUtlon
systems rw1 di?cnarg;ng into state "Hace waters. tecnnitaJ conference usual
NPDES • ptrtnn to d scharge Into wrl?ce water brwor Appl,CM on Ito drys Delon bt9in activity. Or tits u+apect,on.
peiinlt Io opera It and construct waste-ster facilities Pre appFUlion COM(OW441 usual Additionally. obtain permit to
a,?thar.mg into State Wrlact waten. GOnslruCl walltwattr Irtatmenl facility-granted after NPDES Reply
time. X Cafe alley W010 of Prang Of LL" Of NPDES
ptrmil-which u Later.
71 Water U64 111.111 it
Pre-a.?pliCallpn WChruca( conference usually necessary
71 Wall COnslrvclron Permit
Dreapt and F1ti hrmit
_ Permit 10 Construct L optratt Air Pollution Abattmenl
latilit is a)oior Em,ss on Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H
Any open burning usociatta rlh tuorecl proposal
must be In compliance with 15A NCAC 20.04..29.

ED Dtmolillon or rtno-ations of structures Containing
uDeslot material must be in comphancs with 15LA
NCAC 2005.25 which rtquues nolitic.stion sine removal
prior to 0tmolibon. Contact Atbettoe Control Group

of Comprsa Source Permit nquirta unotr 15A NCAC 2D.G000
COmpttte aophCation mut
rrte;rtd and ptnnrt tsauta
prior to the Installation o( taw be a il.
Application copy must tK ""d on each sd}s:ent nWnan VOptrty
ow'ntr. On•1118 inspection. Pre application Conlarsr" us". Filling
m.sy require Easemtnl to Fill from N.C. Departmtnl of
AOministration and Federal Dnogt aild Fill Permit.
NIA
NIA
D The Se11mentafion PVlullon ConlrN Act of 1970 must be property a0drtssed any land ditturDing attirlty An erosion t tealmenui o
control plan will be rs;wreo it one or more acres to be disturotd Plan lllsd with proper Reg chat Ollice (Land ouslity &act ) at (east 30
ds•t !Store be-.nn n- an-ty A Its of t30 tpr 1ne lira sere and $2000 for escn accoicnai
?cre or an must ¦eeom am re dun
The Sedimentation Pylulron Control Act of 1973 must be &=*14t1 with reaped to IM nftrtenced Local Orairar+Cet
D On-allt Inspection usual Surety bond filed with EHNR. Mona amount
Minmg Psi, it varies with 1 mi
ypt M and numptr of stmt 01 allactsd land Any aria
mined greater than one sort mutt W permilo The aptxoprute bond
mvst tie recairtd bttore the ptrrnlt Can be Itsutd
North Carolina I umrng permit On-sits Inspection by N.C. Division Foust Rasources tf pemwt
exceeds a daryS
D special Ground Clearancs wrning Perrrsrt • 22 On ante Inspection Cy N.D. Division Forest Rtsourcas required -tf mom
Camilla M CASs sal N. C. wrl h organic emit than fire acres of ground cttanng activities are InvorrW. Inspettiona
Should be reputstta at lash ten days before sclual bum As planned."
90 12o dart
(NIA(
30 ears
(NIA)
7 days
(15 aays)
53 asrs
(90 days)
fio car:
t90 days)
60 cars
(9C aays)
20 days
t]0 dlrtl
00 days)
30 drys
fag as")
1 say
"A)
1 day
(NIA)
oil Rehninq Facf(rttis 90129 at"
wA (NIA)
A perinnt rsqutnd, application 00 Clays befors begin conalrvClrot>
D Dam Salaty Perm Applicant must hie N C. clualifita engineer to prepare plains. m Clays
Inspect construction, certify construction It according to EHNR acivirov. 1W
ed plans May S11.0 require permit under mosquito control program. And 4 1
a 4C4 permit from Corps of Engineers An Inspection of Wit Is wove,
ury to rtrtly Huard Cluslficalion. A minimum let of 92coDO roust aC•
Company the application. An Soallional p ocesting f" based on e
pticant or the total pro-1 nawlea upon coTplelicn
h Iq
Continvtd . ra"I"
I
u
f?l
11
r;
t=
C
PERMITS SPECIAL APPUCATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
DI Pwrmn to "I exp4orklory *a or 04" ,,It
I Goo;hrs" E.ap+oeatron fYrmit
:3I Rare I-AAas Conatruc,ion Psmyt
401 water oua+rly C4-MINC41,on
CA 14 A Perm I l I or y AJAR dr?e109*nan t
FUe wre/y bona 01 1(5,000 wnh EHNR rvnnang to two of N.C.
condillorw thal any "it opened by drill operator "I,ugon
aDanaonmenl, bt prugged according to EHNR rvks"reputatlOns,
Appl ices ton f t bd with EHNR at least 10 days prior to lo." of panes l
Appl,ul'On t>y teller. No standard appi"lion torte.
ApW cation tea bawd on structure silt is charged 14uat iwdude
ow"ript,ons a drawings of siructun A proof of owrxrahlp
Of npartan property.
WA
V-SO-00 tae must h ompsny application
I Norma, P,ocua
Ti;v .
161410,q ,,,
10 oars
(NIA)
10 days
(NIA)
1S 20 Cars
(NIA)
Go cart
(130 days)
56 days
(150 Cays)
U?+A Pormit for 1dINOR dtrtloprt+enl 9W.00 fee must ac- 22 City%
p+r+y1iOn 1.25 days)
St.tta! Qtodel,C monuments are kxatatl in or Mar the proteCI aria It any t7ipnurntnts nets to be mo,-ta or dtslr0
N. C. GeoatIic Surrey, doe 27687, t?e,gn, N.C 27611 p+use nosily.
A%+r+COnmtnt of any wells, rf rtQuir". must be In ac:.or"%e with Tttk 1SA, SubChapler 2C.0100.
Notilrcal on of IM t-roptr roSional oil,,;.a is r?awsled N ••Orphan•• unatrground stof+?t tankA
fUST51 are discover" tlunnp any uca.auon operation.
-1
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2,H 1000 (Coastsf Stormwattr Runs) is ncivirsa. Cys
45 a
• IN'A)
OiNt comments (attain aco,t,onat pages as Mcessary, bung Unain to Cite comment autnonly).
t.)61-
-7 ?
"A? 11%7
o
Questions rogardin these REGIONAL OFFICES
p permlts should be addressed to the Regional Office m
k

? Asheville Regional office
SD Woodfin Place ar
ed below.
? Faretl"lle Rnic,^al Office
Asheville. NC 20LO1 Suitt 714 W4Chovia Building
2514208 Fayetteville, INC 25301
7 (91 D) 48fi• 1541
Mooresvltle Regional office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box M
Moor
ill
? Raleigh Re Tonal Office
3800 B
t
esv
e, NC 25113
(704) 6&3.1649 arne
Drive, fiulte 101
Raleigh, NC 771509
CD 1 D) 733.2314
? Washington Regional Offi
ce
1424 Carolina Awn"
? Wilmington Raplonat Office
Washingpton, NC 27549
(919) 9.164451 127 Cardinal Dnve Exlcnsion
Wilmington, NC 26405

? Winstonsalem Re iOn&I Otike
0025 North Point Bl
d (9tD) 3DS•3D00
v
.
Suite 100
Winston Salem, NC 77106
(919) U67o07

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
MEMORANDUM Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Melba McGee, Policy Development
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo inator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 1, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for US 29 from the I-85/US 29
Connector in northern Mecklenburg County to the
Rocky River Bridge in Cabarrus County, and on SR
1300 from US 29 South to Mallard Creek, Cabarrus
and Mecklenburg Counties, North Carolina, TIP No.
U-3115, SCH Project No. 94-0958.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed project, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1
NCAC 25).
NCDOT proposes to add two additional lanes to US 29
from the I-85/US 29 Connector to the Rocky River Bridge,
approximately 3.5 miles, and also add two additional lanes
to SR 1300 from US 29 South to the south side of the
Charlotte Motor Speedway then one lane from that point south
to Mallard Creek. It is not clear if this will involve any
improvements to the existing structures over Mallard Creek
and the Rocky River. There is little remaining wildlife
habitat in the area due to heavy development, however there
are significant aquatic resources which could be adversely
affected by this project.
U
lelno
1';Ikie :' July 1, 199.1
Mallard Creek supports a variety of game and iiongame
fish species including largemouth bass, sunfish, catfish,
minnows and suckers. To protect fish spawning periods we
request no "in-water" work from April to June.
The Carolina creekshell (villosa vaughaniana), a state
listed mussel, occurs in Mallard Creek. Villosa vaughaniana
is state listed as special concern (SC) and a federal
candidate (C2) species. Found in the Rocky and Uwharrie
River sub-basins, few good populations remain. The
population in Mallard Creek is of poor quality and subject
to extirpation. Care should be taken to minimize impacts
this species. If it is necessary to improve any of the
stream crossing structures, special erosion/sedimentation
control measures should be designed to minimize
sedimentation in this area.
The only potential wetland areas that may be impacted
by this project are at the stream crossings. If wetlands
are impacted by the proposed construction appropriate
mitigation should be provided.
In addition to any specific comments or recommendations
above, our general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened,
endangered, or special concern species. When
practicable, potential borrow areas to be used for
project construction should be included in the
inventories. A listing of designated plant
species can be developed through consultation
with:
0
and,
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered
Species Program maintains databases for locations
of vertebrate wildlife species. While there is no
u
a
,eono
0
P'zge 3
July 1, 1».1
charge for the list, a service charge for computer
time is involved. Additional information may be
obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Section
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by
the project. The need for channelizing or
relocating portions of streams crossed and the
extent of such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat im
t
pac
ed by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.

p 5. The extent to which the project will result in
loss
degradatio
,
n, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habit
t
a
quality as well as quantitative losses

7. .
A cumulative impact assessment section which
analyzes the envi
ronmental effects of highway
construction and quantifies the contribution of
Its
this individual project to environmental
degradation.
Q 8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary
development facilitated b
th
i
y
e
mproved road
access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be
coordinated with other state, municipal, or
private development projects, a description of
these projects should be included in the
?I?r.
?* I
demo page .1
July 1, 199.1
environmental document, and all project sponsors
should be identified.
earl Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
y planning stages for this project. If I can further
assist your office, please contact me at (919) S28-9886.
cc: Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
John alderman, Piedmont NG/ES Project Leader
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mqr.
DIVISION 01-- l`AIZKS AND 1ZLCIZEATION
July 1, 1994
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall S t4
SUBJECT: EA/FONSI -- Widen US 29, Mecklenburg and Cabanas Counties
REFERENCE: 94-0958
A population of Schweinitz's sunflower (Heliatttlzus schtiveititzii), federally and state-listed as
Endangered, was discovered in 1994 growing along a roadside bank within the project
corridor approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the Charlotte Motor Speedway (for exact
details, contact Dr. James Matthews, Biology Department, UNC-Charlotte). Given the
endangered status of this species, a FONSI should not be issued at this time and the US Fish
and Wildlife Service should be consulted regarding possible ways to mitigate the impacts on
this species. We also recommend the NC Plant Conservation Program be contacted
concerning mitigation for impacts on a population of Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri), a
candidate for both state and federal listing, which was also discovered in 1994 growing along
US 29 near the Hillside Church (again, contact Dr. Matthews for a detailed description of
this population).
?•f`? ?i
Department OF EIIViState l"OnnTO Ilt Heath, n1d1
Nahlrt:
Division of Luid Resources
Junes G. Alartin, Governor "ROJEC]' REVIEW COMMENTS
WIllam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Project ?dumber. `???- u=r S (%
County:
Project ;dame:
N Geodetic Survey
RECEIVED
DEHNR
Besot rcesN 2 0 1994
LAND WAAT1 gTION
This project will impact geodetic surve markers. N.C .
H1 Survey should be contacted prior to construction at p,O_ Geodetic
Faleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. 8o.<27687,
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General destruction of a
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
110 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 Pct (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
Quity Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of EnvironmenttallManagement,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation unthis pro
der theject
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at (919 733-4574.
Re iie per G/Z0?9
Date
P.O. Box 27687 - M qgh, N.C. 27611-7687 - Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opponunlty AlTirmadve Action Employer ,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
fC ?q
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director !L- ?? -1J
MFMORANDUM July 8, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0958; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
US 29, TIP No. U-3115
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized?- DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
a 3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Rdolgh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Tolophono 919-733-7015 FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmatlvo Action Employor 5090 rocyclod/ 10% post-consumor popor
a
0 Melba McGee
July 8, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the followin
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banorder:
king.
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.
10648er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
0

I

Nw
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Fay McCain, Secretary
July 11, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department oYist sportation FROM: David Brook Deputy State rlc Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widen US 29 from 1-85/US 29 Connector to Rocky
River Bridge and SR 1300 from US 29 to south side
Charlotte Motor Speedway, Cabarrus and
Mecklenburg Counties, U-3115, 9.8100476, 94-E-
4220-0958
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no properties included
in the National Register of Historic Places or the state study list located within the
planning area.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill--
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw j'
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601.2807
V
Z?3 1T4? 4. ?- ? ? I?O I?rl H CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825 BOB ETHERIDGB
Slate Superintendent
July 15, 1994 lZ•? ??J
as
'•
MEi\iORANDUM DIVISION OF Q.t
HIGHWAYS
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
FROM: Charles H. WeWentendent
Assistant State Auxiliary Services
RE: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for a
Portion of US 29 from the I-85/US 29 Connector in northern
Mecklenburg County to the Rocky River Bridge in Cabarrus County,
and on SR 1300 from US 29 South to the Mallard Creek, TIP #U-
3115, State Project #9.8100476
Please find attached communication from W. Jeffrey Booker, Director of Program
Management for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Enclosure

0
F-1-.
1
?l I`?IL`L
?? ILL
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Engineering Department
July 15, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
VCjE I
O
t:?
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
Ravcvc??``?l
Subject: State Environmental Assessment for the Section of US29 from the 1-
85/US29 Connector to the Rocky River Bridge and SR 1300 from US29
to Mallard Creek, TIP Project Number U-3115.
Dear Mr. Vick:
I have been asked to respond for Mecklenburg County Government agencies
concerning your letter of June 9; 1994 on the subject Environmental Assessment.
Our Environmental Protection Department has advised me that the Mecklenburg
County Air Pollution Control Ordinance, Regulation 2.0803- Highway Projects" addresses
environmental assessments. They must be conducted with respect to the National
Environmental Policy Act and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. This was not
stated in your letter of June 9. Your staff or the consultant may want to contact Mr. Jimmy
Pascal or Ms. Chun-chi S. Lin at {704) 336-5500 if there are any questions concerning
environmental aspects of the study.
Our floodway sectio,-7 has advised me that the proposed project will cross Stoney
Creek just north of the 1-851US29 Connector. NCDOT must meet all local requirements
for performing work within the flood plain of Stoney Creek. The department should submit
plans and complete a floods development permit prior to construction of the project. Mr.
Bill Tingle, [phone], should be contacted concerning these requirements.
The County has a street lighting project at US29 and Blockbuster Boulevard. In
addition, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan shows a new alignment of a
proposed thoroughfare intersecting US29 at Blockbuster Boulevard. These should be
considered during the planning phase. If their are any questions, please contact Mr. Bill
Coxe at (704) -336-3745.
s
2
Thank you for allowing us to comment on this project. Please have the consultant
contact Bill or me to coordinate County activities and planning phase of this project.
?
Sincerely
Robert F. Binford
Associate Director
RFB/la
cc: Mrs. Wanda Towler
Mr. Bob--bie Shields
Mr. Jimmy Pascal
Mr. Bill Tingle
Mr. Bill Coxe
r
r
U,
l__1
Chartollc Mr•t ?Icnt?urn tictrpt,fs
?•1;rinli•n:r'u't' Uepdrlnrt•nl
3?U1 sl:rflUrtl [)m?g
Chao,111e. Nonni CdrUlinl :A.U©
TO(-pt,one (;04) 343 GO:o
July 8, 1994
Charles H. Weaver
Assist. State Supt. Auxiliary Services
301 North Wilmington Street
Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825

I! li_ 15 094 John A Murphy
supenniendent
RE: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Im
of US 29 from the I-85/US 29 Connector in nor-them pact for a
Rocky River Bridge in Cabarrus County, and on Mecklenburg portion
Mallard Creek, TIP 4U-3115, State Project g g SR 1300 from US 9 South to the
100476
Dear Mr. Weaver:
We have reviewed the proposal from the North Carolina Department o
and Highway Safety related to the above subject. It appear f Transportation
is in the vicinity of our University Meadows Elementary s from our review that the site
risk or conflict with the school's operation.
?' School, but should not
Pose any
proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to review this
If we may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contac
t me.
Sincerely,
1'? Jeffr y ooker
Director of Program Management
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
bmg
cc: John A. Murphy
Hilton L'Orange
/g
July 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart?, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0958; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
US 29, TIP No. U-3115
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
o?
Melba McGee
July 8, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
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.
10648er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources a o
Division of Environmental Management 7
James B. Hunt, Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
E-= 5-fl ? F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 11, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Tom Kemdig
NC DOT
From: Eric Galambe
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for EA/EIS Documents
US 29
Mecklenburg County
TIP #R-3115
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
the following topics be discussed in the EA/EIS documents:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The stream
classifications should be current.
B. 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.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests that these catch
basins be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible
party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating
jurisdictional wetlands.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmativ© Action Employor 5096 recycled/ 10% post-consumor papor

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 wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DEM.
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
1. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as possible? Why not
(if applicable)?
J. Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques alleviate the
traffic problems in the study area?
L. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the environmental review.
The mitigation plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation,
enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this project.
Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General Permit
31 (with wetland impact) 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.
checklis.sco
cc: Eric Galamb
1
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DfTE
TO : REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
7
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR PEOUE5T
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? ' TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
4 ?? ?7
_

JAMES B. HUNT, )R
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
June 9, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY

SUBJECT: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact for a portion of US 29 from the I-85/US 29
Connector in northern Mecklenburg County to the Rocky
River Bridge in Cabarrus County, and on SR 1300 from
US 29 South to the Mallard Creek, TIP #U-3115, State
Project #9.8100476
The firm of Concord Engineering and Surveying, Inc., Concord, North
Carolina has been retained to prepare a State Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (SEA/FONSI) for the proposed
construction adding two lanes to US 29 from the I-85/US 29 connector in
northern Mecklenburg County to the Rocky River Bridge in Cabarrus County
(approximately 18,400 linear feet of L-1 line), and adding two lanes on
SR 1300 from US 29 south to the south side of the Charlotte Motor Speedway,
then one lane from that point south to Mallard Creek (a total of
approximately 9,000 linear feet of L-2 line).
The purpose of this letter is to solicit input from agencies and
individuals concerning the potential impact of the proposed project upon any
structure or feature in proximity to the project and the impact of this
project upon social, economic, demographic, land use, or environmental
conditions. All right of way for the project will be provided by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), with partial areas dedicated
to the project, and other areas purchased by NCDOT. No control of access is
expected.
The proposed project includes adding two lanes to the existing four
lanes on US 29, and adding two lanes to the existing two lanes of SR 1300
then funnel to one additional lane south of the Charlotte Motor Speedway
Industrial Park. The intent is to facilitate effective traffic flow to
accommodate the events throughout the year, this road widening will assist in
the traffic flow demands at these events, and this improvement will also
reduce the need for further expansion in this area to meet increasing daily
traffic flow until the end of the traffic projection period. Construction of
the proposed project is scheduled to being in 1995.
X%e
ti
? June 9, 1994
Page 2
The SEA/FONSI will evaluate the social, economic, and environmental
impact of the proposed project. Specific issues to be addressed include
natural resources, archaeology, historic structures, wetlands, air and noise
impacts, water quality, floodplains, hazardous materials, and other relevant
impacts.
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
included in the planning and environmental report, please respond within 30
days.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact Tom
Kendig (919-733-3141).
HFV/plr
H
r-t
O
C
CD
CD
O
ci
C/)
a
O
CD
C'D
a
Q..

O
m r`

H
b
O
w
IItp
O ?31 11q'A k,nOA tv
O
Z § C(-) C N p
c?
0 C,
O b n E; O O
i a°o??(7c?tj 'a
a
Q. CD CD oC ;U?S, a'`b
n 0 ?
o
0
°a.? ??,•
a c? o o
OO
C
,
?a
o N ?
a'
CIL r
v?
-
a? ciao ova
?o

FJ '