U-2910

RECEIVED
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
AUi7G 2 2 1 S ? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form ENVIRON&ENTALSCt NCES
Project Number: County:? Date: Date Response Due firm deadline):
7r
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: (oav?? /) iL hQ?
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville -- ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ill
? F
tt ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ev
e
aye ? Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville ? Groundwater Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources Radiation Protection
hi
? W ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
ngton
as El Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation 4 ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington

?
? Others
Environmental Management ,.
Monica Swihart
Winston-Salem PWS

w
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/A?ency:
?--? ' ?? v?•?t
'
tu
v'
ij
, ;
;,
t
lv
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager. In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? No objection to project as proposed ? Not recommended far further development for reasons

17vcc.???' iKU A0 stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
No Comment
• v ,. wU?tGys - -- ?Applicant has been contacted
? Insufficient information to complete review ? Applicant has not been contacted
A l v1 1 r" U Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Approve ? Consistency StatEment needed (comments attached)
^
Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked) Consistency Statment not needed
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for ? Full EIS must be wired under the provisions of
strengthening (comments attached) NEPA and SEPA
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive ? Other (specify andlattach comments)
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
I
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Office of Legislative andittergovernmental Affairs
:qr95 - 0430
Matthews, SR 1009 (Monroe Road)
From John Street
To Charlotte City Limits
lviecklenburg County
State Project No. 8.2673101
U-2910
ADMIr?ISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSIviENT/
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT.DvVAC
N. C. Departrierit of T raitapui anon
Division of Highways
in Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
APPROVED:
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch NCDOT
Matthews, SR 1009 (Monroe Road)
From John Street
To Charlotte City Limits
Mecklenburg County
State Project No. 8.2673101
U-2910
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
FINDING. OF NO SIGNIFICANT C
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Angela H. Smith
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Richard B. Davis, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUMEAi U\R'Y
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), Division of Highways, proposes improvements to a 1.4 kilometer (0.9
mile) section of SR 1009 (Monroe Road) in Matthews, from John Street to the
existing 5 lane section at the Charlotte city limits. The project will improve the
traffic capacity along this section of SR 1009 (Monroe Road). Project U-2910 is
listed in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (T. I. P.) as a state
funded improvement. Estimated cost is $3,655,000 including $1,450,000 for
construction and $2,205,000 for right of way acquisition.
2. Environmental and Social Impacts - The proposed project will have a positive
impact by improving the safety on SR 1009. There are no residences or
businesses that will be relocated as a result of this project. There may be some
erosion and siltation during construction, but standard erosion control measures will
minimize these impacts. No significant adverse impacts to plant or animal life are
expected. No permits are anticipated to be required to construct the proposed
improvements. There are no architectural, historical, or archaeological resources
listed in the National Register of Historic Places in the project area. Traffic noise
and air quality impacts will not be significant.
3. Alternatives - Due to the nature of the project, the widening of an existing segment
of roadway, no alternative corridors were studied.
4. Coordination - State, regional, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact. In addition to agency responses, local residents offered verbal and written
comments at a citizens informational workshop, and provided additional written
comments after the workshop.
5. Additional Information - Additional information concerning the proposal and
assessment can be obtained by contacting the following:
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and En-virownental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation -- -
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone] ""
TABLE OF CON 1 t1N 1 S
PAGE
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................. I
A. General Description ................................................................... 1
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements ......................................... 1
1. Project Length ...............................................................
2. Cross Section .................................................................
3. Right of Way Width .......................................................
..............................................................
4. Access Control-
5. Bridges ..................................:.......................................
6. Design Speed and Speed Zones ......................................
7. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ....................
S. Parking .........................................................................
9. Sidewalks ......................................................................
10. Utilities ..........................................................................
11. Bicycle Provisions ..........................................................
12. Greenways ....................................................................
13. Cost Estimate .................................................................
1
1
2_
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
H. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................. 4
A. Existing Roadway Inventory ....................................................... 4
1. Cross Section ................................................................. 4
2. Right of Way ................................................................. 4
3. Type of Roadside Development ...................................... 4
4. Access Control ............................................................... 4
5. Structures ...................................................................... 4
6. Speed Zones .................................................................. 4
7. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control ......................... 4
9. Sidewalks ...................................................................... 5
9. Utilities ......................................................................... 5
10. Greenways .................................................................... 5
11. Geodetic Markers ......................................................... 5
12. School Buses ................................................................ 5
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan ........................ 5
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity ................................................... 5
1. Signalized Intersections .................................................. 6
2. Unsignalized Intersections .............................................. 7
D. Accident History ........................................................................ 7
III. RECONIlVIENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE
PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................................................... 7
A. Recommended Improvements .................................................... 7
B. Other Alternatives Considered. ................................................... 8
IV. EN1,7tO?NTIENTAL AIPACTS .......................................................... 8
A. Social Environment .................................................................... 8
1. Neighborhood Characteristics. ........................................ 8
2. Public and Private Facilities ............................................. 8
3. Cultural Resources .......................................................... 8
a. Architectural Resources ....................................... 8
b. Archaeological Resources .................................... 9
4. Relocation Impacts ........................................................ 9
B. Economic Environment .............................................................. 9
C. Land Use ................................................................................... 9
1. Scope and Status of Planning .......................................... 9
2. Existing Zoning .............................................................. 10
3. Existing Land Use .......................................................... 10
4. Future Land Use ............................................................ 11
5. Farmland ....................................................................... 11
6. Project Compatibility with Local Plans ............................ 11
D. Natural Environment ................................................................. 11
1. Ecological Resources ...................................................... 11
a. Plant Communities .............................................. 12
b. Wildlife Communities .........................................1, 14
2. Protected Species .............................:.............................. 14
a. Federally Protected Species .................................. 14
b. State Protected Species ......................................... 16
3. Physical Resources .......................................................... 17
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Geology and Topography ..................................... 17
Soils .................................................................... 17
Contaminated Properties ....................................... 18
Water Resources .................................................. 18
Floodplain Involvement ........................................ 19
Wetlands ............................................................. 19
4. Air Quality and Traffic Noise ........................................... 19
a. Air Quality ........................................................... 19
b. Traffic Noise ............... ............................... 22
E. Construction Impacts ................................................................... 28
F. Permits ....................................................................................... 30
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................................. 30
A. Government Response ................................................................ 30
B. Public Response ......................................................................... 30
VI. FINDD4G Or NO SIGNIFICANT TivTACT (F-cUNSI) ........................... 30
FIGURES
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6A:
Figure 6B:
Figure 6C:
Figure 6D:
Figure 6E:
Vicinity Map
Aerial Mosaic
Thoroughfare Plan
Traffic Volumes
Intersection Geometrics for NC 51 Bypas&'SR 1009
Noise Pressure Levels
noise :4ba+ernerd Cnt ria
Ambient Noise Levels
Leq Traffic Noise Exposures
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary
Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary _
APPENDIX
Matthews, SR 1009 (Monroe Road)
From John Street
To Charlotte City Limits
Mecklenburg County
State Project No. 8.2673101
U-2910
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Division o
Highways, proposes improvements to a 1.4 kilometer ( 0.9 mile) section of SR 1009
(Monroe Road) in Matthews, from John Street to the existing 5-lane section at the
Charlotte city limits (see Figure 1 for project location). The proposed cross section is a 4-
lane, 15.6 meter (52 feet) curb and gutter section from John Street to the ILTC 51 Bypass,
and a 5-lane, 19.2 meter (64 feet), curb and gutter section from NC 51 Bypass to the
existing 19.2 meter (64-foot) 5-lane urban section.
The proposed widening will be accomplished symmetrically about the centerline
where practicable and asymmetrically at other locations to minimize right of way damages.
The proposed right of way width is 24 meters (80 feet) from John Street to NC 51 Bypass
and 30 meters (100 feet) from NC 51 Bypass to the 5=lane section. Temporary
construction easements may be necessary at some locations in addition to the proposed
right of way.
The subject project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with the total cost estimated at $3,250,000 including $1,800,000 for right
of way and $1,450,000 for construction. The current estimated cost for the recommended
improvement is $3,655,000 which includes $1,450,000 for construction and $2,205,000
for right of way acquisition. The project is scheduled in the TIP for right of way
acquisition in federal fiscal year (FFY) 1996 and construction in FFY 1997.
B. Summary of Proposed Improvements
1. Project Length
The project's proposed improvements total 1.4 kilometers (0.9 mite).
2. Cross Section
It is recommended to widen the existing 2-lane section of SR 1009 from
John Street to NC 51 Bypass to a 4-lane, 15.6 meter (52 feet), curb and gutter
section to minimize damages to homes and match the existing 4-lane section on
2
John Street. A 5-lane, 19.2 meter (64 feet), curb and gutter section is proposed
from NC 51 Bypass to the Charlotte city limits to match the existing 5-lane section
north of the project.
3. Right of Way Width
A 24 meter (80 foot) right of way width will be required for the 0.4
kilometer (0.3 mile) section from John Street to NC 51 Bypass to contain the 4-
lane section and a 30 meter (100 foot) right of way width is anticipated to be
needed for the 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) section from NC 51 Bypass to the city limits
to contain the proposed 5-lane section.
4. Access Control
No control of access is present on the proposed project and none is
recommended.
5. Bri es
No bridge work is required on this project.
6. Desim Speed and Speed Zones
The proposed project' will have a design speed of 80 km/h (50 mph) and a
posted speed of 70 km/h (45 mph) on the north end, and a design speed of 60
km/h (40 mph) and a posted speed of 50 km/h (35 mph) south of NC 51 Bypass.
7, Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
Industrial Drive intersects SR 1009 on the east side to form a T-
intersection. This intersection is currently stop sign controlled. The existing left
and right turn lane onto SR 1009 will be retained. A signal is not recommended for
this intersection because of the close proximity to the NC 51 Bypass intersection.
'I%,- carnal at XTO S1 T?mawaee drill h,- a
ratainPr? "A 2:r" -A&- 1 to r?tri?la fi r
aav .stFjaaau at t?v ? JrN •riaa vv avwaaav N1Ly ?iuvv?? v pr vavv i a
the additional travel and turn lanes.
A signal currently exists at the Covenant Church Road/John Street
intersection. The Town of Matthews has requested this signal be removed. The
need to retain this signal will be evaluated in the project design stage by the area
traffic engineer.
8. Parr
Parking is presently not permitted and will not be provided for or permitted
along the project.
3
9. Sidewalks
Sidewalks have been requested by the Town of Matthews to be located on
both sides of SR 1009 between the Charlotte city limits and NC 51, and on the east
side only between NC 51 and John Street. The current cost estimate to construct
standard sidewalks in the requested locations is $102,000. Under the current
NCDOT Sidewalk Policy, the town will be responsible for 30% of the total
sidewalk cost, or $30,600. A municipal agreement between the town and NCDOT
will include the details of this provision.
10. Utilities
Utility involvement along the project is heavy. Aerial utilities include
power, telephone, and cable. Underground utilities include telephone, water, gas,
and sanitary sewer.
11. Bicycle Provisions
No bicycle accommodations will be included as a part of this project.
According to the NCDOT Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, this
section of SR 1009 does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request and it is not a
designated bicycle route. There has been no indication that an unusual number of
bicyclists use this roadway.
12. Greenways
No greenway corridors are located or planned within the project area
and no plans for greenways have been incorporated into this project.
13. Cost Estimate
The proposed project is expected to cost as follows:
Construction $1,450,000
Right of Way $2,205,000
Total Cost $3,655,000
The construction cost estimate includes 15% for engineering and
contingencies. The right of way cost estimate includes the costs of acquisition,
utilities, and relocations. The cost of constructing sidewalks along the east side of
SR 1009 between John Street and NC 51 Bypass and on both sides of SR 1009
between NC 51 Bypass and the Charlotte city limits will cost an additional
$102,000 (not included in the above estimate).
4
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Existing Roadway Inventory
1. Cross Section
The existing roadway consists of a 2-lane, 6.6 meter (22 feet) shoulder
section.
2. Right of Way
Existing right of way throughout the project is approximately 18 meters (60
feet).
3. Type of Roadside Development
Roadside development consists mainly of commercial and industrial (with
some residential) to the north of the NC 51 Bypass, and predominantly residential
with some commercial between NC 51 Bypass and John Street.
4. Access Control
Currently no control of access exists along SR 1009.
5. Structures
No structures are located in the project area.
6. Speed Zones
The posted speed limit is 70 km/h (45 mph) on the north end of SR 1009,
and 50 km/h (35 mph) south of NC 51 Bypass.
7. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control
Industrial Drive intersects SR 1009 to form a T-intersection on the east side
of SR 1009. The intersection is currently stop signed controlled. An exclusive left
and right turn lane currently exist along Industrial Drive.
The intersections with NC 51 Bypass and Covenant Church Lane'7dohn
Street are both currently signalized.
5
8. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are currently located along the east side of SR 1009 for
approximately 50 meters (160 feet) from the northern end of the project to the
central business district of Matthews on existing John Street south of NC 51.
9. Utilities
Existing utilities located along the project include aerial power, telephone,
and cable TV. Underground utilities include telephone, water, gas and sanitary
sewer.
10. Greenways
No greenway corridors-are located or planned within the project area.
11. Geodetic Markers
This project will impact one geodetic survey marker. The N. C. Geodetic
Survey will be contacted prior to construction.
12. School Buses
The proposed widening is expected to have a positive effect on the
Mecklenburg County school system by improving traffic flow through this section
to area schools. Approximately 10 buses use this section of SR 1009 daily (20 trips
per day).
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan
SR 1009 (Monroe Road) is a north-south route from southern Charlotte to the
newly constructed NC 51 Bypass and the Matthews central business district. The route is
classified as an urban minor arterial in the Functional Classification System and is
designated as a major thoroughfare on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan
adopted in 1994 (see Figure 3 for a copy of the Thoroughfare Plan).
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
The estimated 1995 and 2020 volumes and major turning movements are shown in
Figure 4. The 1995 traffic on SR 1009 ranges from 15,700 vehicles per day (vpd) south
of NC 51 Bypass to 24,100 vpd north of NC 51 Bypass. The 2020 traffic is 26,500 vpd
south of the NC 51 Bypass and 42,800 north of the Bypass. The 2020 volumes assume
the Outer Loop will be constructed resulting in lower volumes, particularly along the NC
51 Bypass corridor.
The traffic carrying ability of a roadway is described by levels of service (LOS)
which range from A through F. Level of service A, the highest level of service, is
characterized by very low delay in which most vehicles do not stop at all. Typically,
drivers are unr?trictcd and turns arc freely made. In level of service B, traffic operation is
stable but more vehicles are stopping and causing higher levels of delay. Level of service C.
is characterized by stable operation with drivers occasionally having to wait through more
than one red indication. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted in these circumstances. At
level of service D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Delay to
approaching vehicles may be substantial during short periods of the peak hour. Level of
service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay and represents the theoretical
capacity of the facility. Level of service F represents over saturated or jammed conditions
which are considered unacceptable to most drivers.
Although it is preferable that all projects be designed so that they operate at a
minimum level of service (LOS) D in the design year,, this level of service is not always
attainable. For the proposed project, it is not feasible to build the cross section necessary
to accommodate future traffic volumes at LOS D because of the extensive property
damage and the resulting right of way cost. Additionally, this project widens a 1.4
kilometer (0.9 mile) segment of SR 1009 from two lanes to four and five lanes to match
the existing cross sections on either end of the project to remove a "bottleneck" and reduce
the congestion that currently exists. To further improve the route's level of service, SR
1009 and NC 51 Bypass would require improvements north and south of the studied
segment which is beyond the scope of this project.
The project has one unsignalized intersection (Industrial Drive) and two signalized
intersections (NC 51 Bypass and John Street/Covenant Church Lane). These intersections
were analyzed using current year, 1995, and design year, 2020, traffic projections.
1. Signalized Intersections
The NC 51 Bypass intersection with SR 1009 is expected to operate at a
LOS D in 1995. The proposed intersection geometrics are shown in Figure 5.
Adequate pavement width was included with the NC 51 Bypass construction to
accommodate most of the turn lanes for this intersection. Based on the projected
traffic volumes, this intersection is expected to reach LOS E by 1996. The
proposed geometrics include dual left turns on all approaches and one exclusive
right turn lane on all approaches. This geometry will provide a LOS E in the am
peak in 2020 (with the Outer Loop in place), and a LOS F in the pm peak.
Additional through lanes in all directions would be required to raise the level of
service to LOS D or better, which is beyond the scope of this project
Covenant Church Lane is a 2-lane facility that intersects both NC 51
Bypass and SR 1009 with both intersections having restricted turns. The NC 51
Bypass intersection (outside project limits) is only accessible from or to eastbound
NC 51 Bypass (right in, right out, only) while the Covenant Church Lane/John
Street intersection is restricted to right turns from Covenant Chin ch Lane south
7
onto John Street. Due to these restricted turns, Covenant Church Lane primarily
serves the eastbound NC 51 Bypass traffic headed into the Matthews central
business district or surrounding area. The Town of Matthews has requested this
signal be removed. The need to retain the signal at Covenant Church Lane./John
Street/SR 1009 will be evaluated in the design stage by the area traffic engineer.
2. Unsignalized Intersections
Industrial Drive (SR 3542) intersects SR 1009 on the east side just north of
NC 51 Bypass to form a T-intersection. This intersection currently has an
exclusive right and left turn lane onto SR 1009 and is now functioning at a LOS E.
The heavy volumes on SR 1009 will make turning movements from Industrial
Drive difficult. Signalization was considered and determined to be undesirable
because of the close proximity of Industrial Drive to the NC 51 Bypass/SR 1009
intersection.
D. Accident History
A total of 160 accidents were reported along the studied section of SR 1009 during
the period from April 1, 1992 to March 30, 1995. The primary types of accidents were
rear-end collisions (47%), accidents involving turning movements (32%), and angle
collisions (12%). These three types of accidents account for 91% of all accidents.
Accidents occurred most frequently at the intersections.
The total accident rate for the studied section of SR 1009 is 893.36 accidents per
100 million vehicle miles of travel (acc/100 rnvm) compared to the state average for similar
routes of 342.17 acc/100 mvm. This rate is significantly higher than the statewide average
for similar routes and will likely continue to increase unless provisions are made to better
accommodate the projected traffic volumes. The proposed widening improvements will
reduce the potential for the types of accidents occurring along the project. The proposed
project will improve the overall safety and convenience of motorists.
III. RECOMAENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Recommended Improvements
It is recommended to widen SR 1009 (Monroe Road) to a 5-lane curb and gutter
section from the existing 5-lane section at the Charlotte city limits to NC 51 Bypass, and to
construct a 4-lane curb and gutter section from NC 51 Bypass to John Street. ne 4-lane
section will tie into the existing 4-lane section on John Street.
B. Other Alternatives Considered
Due to the nature of the project, the widening of an existing segment of roadway,
no alternative corridors were studied, The recommended symmetric widening best uses the
existing right of way and minimizes impacts to the project area.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Environment
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Various commercial and industrial developments are located along Monroe
- Road north of the NC 51 Bypass. -Within the project area are approximately 40 - -
individually-owned and operated businesses. See Figure 2 for business locations
and refer to Section IV. C. for more details can land use. '
The section of the project between NC 51 Bypass and John Street is mainly
residential with some commercial development. SR 1009 south of the NC 51
Bypass leads directly to the central business district of Matthews.
2. Public and Private Facilities
All development located along SR 1009 appears to be private. One church
and one cemetery are located off Covenant Church Lane (the cemetery property
backs up to SR 1009).
3. Cultural Resources
a. Architectural Resources
The proposed project was reviewed in accordance with North
Carolina General Statute 121-12(a) which requires compliance with the
provisions of that statute when there are properties listed in the National
Register of Historic Places located within the area of potential effect of the
undertaking.
In their January 31, 1995 letter (located in Appendix), the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) found one structure of historical
significance, the Hudson Silk Hosiery Mill. This site was determined to be
outside the project boundaries. The SHPO concurred that there are no
National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential
effect (the signed concurrence form is included in the Appendix). This
coordination and finding completes compliance with GS 121-12(a).
b. Archaeological Resources
The project vicinity has been previously modified and developed to
an extensive degree. A review of the files at the Office of State
Archaeology indicates that there are no archaeological sites recorded in the
project area. The likelihood of the project encountering any significant
archaeological sites is low, given the limited scope of the project and the
extensive development in the project area. There are no sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places within the project vicinity. Therefore,
no further archaeological investigations are recommended. The State
Historic Preservation Office has re-viewed the project scope and 1
recommended that no archaeological investigation be conducted (see
January 31, 1995 letter from SHPO in Appendix). Since this. project - - -
involves using state funds it is subject to GS 121-12(a).
4. Relocation Impacts
Based on preliminary designs, the recommended improvement is not
anticipated to require the displacement of any businesses or residence (a copy of
the relocation report is located in the Appendix).
B. Economic Environment
The widening of SR 1009 will enhance the economic growth of the surrounding
area by alleviating traffic congestion in the immediate area. The current congestion in this
"bottleneck" section of SR 1009 makes access to businesses in the project area difficult.
The area south of NC 51 is expected to continue the transition from residential to office
and institutional as many of the existing homes are converted to small business offices. In
addition, the newly constructed NC 51 Bypass has opened new development opportunities
east and west of the proposed project and is expected to increase the need for this project.

C. Land Use
1. Scope and Status of Planning
- - All planning and zoning activities are controlled by the Mecklenburg
County Joint Planning Commission, which includes Mecklenburg County, the City
of Charlotte, and some of the county's smaller municipalities. The Commission
adopted its Generalized Land Plan: 2005 in 1985. Subsequently, a nuniber of
small area plans with more specific policy guidance were prepared. The proposed
improvement is located in the Town of Matthew's planning and zoning jurisdiction.
The Town adopted the Matthews Land Use Plan in 1992 and enforces zoning and
sub-division regulations.
to
2. Existing Zoning
The project area is best described as a mix of land uses. There are many
industrial and commercial businesses mixed in with residential and institutional
uses. Two distribution centers (Family Dollar and Pic'n Pay) are located at the
north end of the project corridor on the east side of the road. A large amount of
truck traffic is generated by these complexes. There is an apartment complex and
sub-division on the west side of the project corridor, across from the distribution
centers. A shopping center, a day care center, an animal clinic, a garden center, a
small plaza and many more commercial activities are located along the west side of
the project corridor (see Figure 2 for business locations).
Large industrial and small commercial uses are located along the east side of
the project corridor. The Home Fashions Outlet is a large industrial complex south
of the Family Dollar Distribution Center. McAteers Marketplace is a large complex
of commercial establisiuments located on the corner of Monroe Road and Industrial
Drive (SR 3542). The QPI Factory Outlet, Stronghaven Inc. and Backyard
Creations are all industrial/commercial land uses and located between SR 3542 and
NC 51 Bypass.
The land uses south of the NC 51 Bypass are transitional from residential to
office/institutional. The Covenant Church is located west of the southern terminus
of the project corridor. The Church cemetery is located on the southwest comer of
NC 51 and Monroe Road. On the east side of the project corridor are residential
houses being converted to commercial uses. A gas station, several retail shops and
other small businesses are located in this section. A large building supply company
is located approximately one-quarter mile east of the southern terminus of the
project corridor. A significant amount of truck traffic is generated by the land uses
in the project area.
3. Existing Land Use
Ancor?irngto hP Nlatth- *1A TTe,- plan the Y na?fi'eS along east
l IV V1 MJll LV LV lY 4LiV V! V TM V VV 1 1Ml illy 1 V Vl WV 1 4
side of the project corridor to the NC 51 Bypass are zoned I-1, Industrial except for
one B-1, Business lot. Non-industrial land uses are allowed in the I-1 district.
The west side of the project corridor is zoned R-15W and R-20 (multi-
family), B-1 (neighborhood business) commercial, I-1 Industrial, and 0-"Office.
This mix of land uses can be confusing and is the result of lot by lot development
over time.
11
4. Future Land Use
The project is located in an area of high growth and heavy traffic volumes.
The Town has anticipated this growth and addressed it in the land use plan. The
future land uses in the project area are expected to continue to develop as
commercial and industrial businesses. The area south of NC 51 is expected to
continue to transform from residential to office and institutional as many of the
existing homes are converted to small business offices. The Town land use plan
describes the area south of the project corridor as "exhibiting a quaint, residential
aura". There are no local plans for widening this segment of the road.
5. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or -
their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. These soils are designated by the
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, based on crop yield, moisture content, and various
other factors. Soils which have been developed or committed to urban use by the
local planning authority are exempt from consideration under the act. As
previously discussed, the project site and its vicinity are zoned for industrial and
commercial land uses and significant development has occurred in its -vicinity.
Therefore, further consideration of potential impacts to prime farmland is not
required.
b. Project Compatibility with Local Plans
The proposed improvement is specifically identified as a transportation need
in both the Generalized Land Plan and the Matthews Land [.Jse Plan. The
widening will improve traffic flow and more easily accommodate truck traffic in the
industrialized area.
D. Natural Emironment
Ecological Resources
Field surveys were conducted by NCDOT staff biologists on May 9, 1995.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded.
Wildlife identification involved using a variety of observation techniques: active
searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars), identifying characteristic
signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetlanZ
determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environment Laboratory,
1987).
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section
describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as, the
12
relationships between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses in the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur,
in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature is found in the Natural Resources Technical Report
on file in the Planning and Environmental Branch. Only common names are
provided for each animal and plant species described in this document.
a. Plant Communities
Four distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project
study area: Maintained, Mixed Pine/Hardwood, and Early Successional
Field, Scrub/Shrub. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may
populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
Maintained Community
The maintained community exists along the highway right of way
and in residential and business areas throughout the project. The flora of
this community consists mainly of trees, shrubs and grasses planted as
ornamentals. Grasses and forbs maintained in a low growing state through
frequent moving are located along the highway right of way.
The canopy of the maintained community is composed of an
assortment of oaks and hickory trees. Willow oak, white oak, pecan, and
mockernut hickory are prevalent. The sub-canopy consists of red maple,
silver maple, Bradford pear, bullbay, and red cedar. The dominant shrubs
in the maintained community are crepe myrtle and red tip. The common
grasses and forbs in this community include fescue, white clover, and
en&h plaintain.
hexed PineOmdwood
The mixed pine/hardwood community is found in the proposed
project area. The canopy of this community is composed of shortleaf pine,
virginia pine, willow oak, southern red oak, post oak, sweetgum, and
blackgum. The sub-canopy consists of red maple, redbud, red mi'1i berry,
and black cherry. Shrubs and vines which are frequently encountered in
this community include winged siur-nac, grape, trumpet creeper, poison ivy,
and wisteria.
13
Early Successional Field
The early successional field community consists predominately of
fescue grass mixed with an assortment of forbs and saplings. English
plantain, white clover, red clover, lyre leaved sage, oxeye daisy, queen
ann's lace, daisy fleabane, wild chervil, and saplings of trees previously
listed under the mixed pine/hardwood community
Scrub/Shrub
Scrub/shrub communities exist on some of the vacant lots located
within the project area. These communities are composed of saplings
and/or shrubs of flowering dogwood, black cherry, American elm,
honeysuckle, multiforal rose, and blackberry. Forbs dominating the
community include goldenrod, Carolina geranium, and daisy fleabane.
Summary
Construction of the project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these
resources have the potential to adversely impact biological functions. This
section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of
area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts
are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. The following table summarizes potential quantitative loses to
these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way width of 30 m
(100 feet). Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of
way, therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY EM PACTS
Maintained 0.34 (0.84)
Pine/Hardwood 0.06 (0.15)'
Scrub/Shrub 0.19 (0.47)
Early Successional Field 0.33 (0.81)
TOTAL EUPACTS 0.92 (2.27)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres)
14
b. Wildlife Communities
Birds observed in the maintained community during the sitc visit
include northern cardinal, European starling, northern mockingbird,
common grackle, and house sparrow. Mammals frequently encountered in
this community include the eastern cottontail rabbit and woodchuck.
Predators like the red-tailed hawk and red fox may also forage in the
maintained community.
Wildlife associated with the mixed pine zardwood community
includes the eastern box turtle, five-lined skink, and the American toad.
The black racer and the gray fox are predators of small rodents, reptiles and
-amphibians inhabiting the mixed pine/hardwood community. Birds
commonly associated with the mixed pine/hardwood community include the
following: Carolina chickadee and tufted titmouse.
Common animals found in the early successional field confnunity
include cottontail rabbits, white-footed mouse, and eastern mole. Chipping
sparrow, field sparrow and bobwhite are birds that are frequently
encountered in overgrown fields. The redtailed hawk often forages for
small mammals in this community.
Birds observed in the scrublshrub community include northern
cardinal, European starling, common grackle, northern mockingbird, house
sparrow and rufus-sided towhee. Mammals commonly observed are
eastern cottontail rabbit and white-footed mouse.
2. Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with man. It is
important to determine why these declines take place so that man may better
understand how to coexist with natural systems. Federal law (under the provisions
of uhe Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to
review by the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive-additional
protection under separate state laws.
a. Federaft Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 30, 1994, the
FWS lists the following federalh protected species for Mecklenburg
15
County. A brief description of each species characteristics and habitat
follows.
Federally-Protected Species for Mecklenburg County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E*
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweintz's sunflower E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
no specimen from Mecklenburg County found in the past twenty
years (1973-1993)
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon
and protected species revealed no recorded occurrence of federally-
protected species in or near the project study area.
-Lasmigona decorata (Carolina heelsplitter) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: July 30, 1993
Distribution in N. C.: Cabarrus, Mecklenburg, Union
The Carolina heelsplitter has an ovate, trapezoidal, unsculptured
shell which is greenish, yellowish, or brownish in color with greenish or
blackish rays. The nacre is usually pearly-white to bluish-white graying to
orange near the umbo and in older specimens the entire nacre may be,
mottled orange. The umbo is flattened and the beaks are depressed and
project a little above the hinge line.
Habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter has been found in creeks,
streams, and rivers. Individuals are most often found in shaded areas, either
in a ponded portion of a small stream, or in runs along steep banks with a
moderate current. Water less than three feet deep and substrates that are
composed of soft mud, sand, muddy-sand, and sandy gravel are preferred.
Presently, only three known populations are found in the North Carolina
streams of Waxhaw Creek, Catawba River system, Union County and
Goose Creek, Pee Dee River System, Union County.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
The proposed project does not cross any creeks, streams, or rivers
associated with the caroling heelsplitter. Therefore, suitable habitat does not
exist for the carolina heelsplitter.
16
-Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: June 6, 1991
Flowers Present: mid September-early October
Distribution in N. C.: Cabarrus, Davidson, Mecklenburg,
Montgomery, Randolph, Rowan, Stanly, Stokes, and Union
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows
1-2 meters tall from a cluster of carrot-like tubrous roots. The stems are
deep red, solitary and only branch above mid-stem. The leaves are rough
feeling above and resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath. Leaves
of the sunflower are opposite on the lower part of the stem and usually
become alternate on the upper stem. The broad flowers are borne from
September until frost. These flowers are yellow in color and arranged in an
open system of upwardly arching heads. The fruit is a smooth, gray-black
achene.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to North and South Carolina.
These sunflowers grow best in full sunlight or light shade in clearings and
along the edges of open stands of oak-pine-hickory upland woods.
Common soils that this species is found in are moist to dry clays, clay-
loams, or sandy clay-loams, often with a high gravel content and always
moderately podzolized. Natural fires and large herbivores are considered to
be historically important in maintaining open habitat for these sunflowers.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based on extensive field reconnaissance the Schweinitz's sunflower
is not found within the immediate project area. Therefore, no impacts to
this species will occur as a result of project construction.
b. State Protected Species
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 4 federal candidate (C2) species listed for Mecklenburg County.
Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered
Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until
they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Candidate 2
(C2) species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although
no sufficient data currently exist to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
17
The following table lists federal candidate species, the species state status (if
afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in
the study area, This species list is provided for information purposes as the status
of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species
for Mecklenburg County
SCIENTIFIC NC
NAME COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
Aster georgianus Georgia Aster C yes
Lotus purshianus var.
_ helleri Heller's trefoil C yes
1ph' w..?+.+ ;., tall luL R OSIC .1 1-1
e l3Lliurn 4A tai u tau nSyi3i i:v? y°S
Isoetes virginica Virginia quillwort C no
NOTE: '`Cspecies are not afforded state protection at this time
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Special Concern (SC) species
are afforded state protection.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit,
nor were any of these species observed. A review of the data base of the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare species and unique habitats revealed no
records of North Carolina rare and /or protected species in or near the
project study area.
3. Physical Resources
a. Geology and Topography
Mecklenburg County lies entirely in the southern piedmont
physiographic region. The topography of this county is characterized by
uruad, gulf y ruitiitg iitieiaucatTt area; Vitt siceper siBpcss along drautway-s.
The proposed project is located at approximately 222 meters (730 feet)
above mean sea level
b. Soils
One specific soil type (Cecil) occurs in the project area. Cecil soils
are characterized as gently sloping to strongly sloping, well drained soils
with a predominately clay subsoil. Cecil soils formed in residuum from acid
igneous and metamorphic rock. They have a sandy clay loam texture with a
2-8 percent slope.
18
C. Contaminated Properties
A field reconnaissance was conducted along SR 1009 to identify
potential environmental hazards such as. underground storage tanks
(UST's), hazardous waste sites, dumps, or similar sites that could cause
delays in construction schedules or result in environmental liabilities. A
records search of all appropriate environmental agencies was also conducted
in order to identify any additional problem sites.
One (1) site was identified with the potential for UST's. This site,
'McAteer's TvL:rketplace, is currentty a nonoperational facility and is locat ed
on the east side of Monroe Road, just north of NC 51 and approxiLtely
4.1 mile south of the existing five-lane section. Five vent pipes and fill caps
were observed at the site which indicate the existence of five UST's. The
closest fill cap to the centerline of Monroe Road is 14.6 meters (48 feet). A
pump island with three dispensers is located approximately 14.3 meters (47
feet) from the centerline of Monroe Road. also, a monitoring well was
observed bets Teen the pump island and canopy indicat -ig the presence of
possible groundwater contamination.
The tanks are thought to have been removed from the site since the
initial survey, however, the soil may still be contaminated. Since the
project will encroach on this property, the NCDOT Geotechnical Unit will
conduct a preliminary site assessment prior to right of way acquisition to
determine if hazardous material is present and the level of any
contamination.
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the
project corridor in Mecklenburg County and revealed that there were no
regulated or unregulated landfills or dump sites within the project limits.
Based on the field reconnaissance and the records search, there are no
further potential environmental problem sites known that should affect this
project other than those mentioned in the preceding text.
d. Water Resources
There are no major streams or water resources located within the
immediate project area. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WS-I or WSH) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORIV) occur
within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project study area.
The project lies entirely in a uezeloped urbanized region. There are
no impacts to water resources anticipated as a result of project construction.
19
e. FloodpWn involvement
Mecklenburg County is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program; however, this project will not involve any
designated flood hazard areas. Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled
through the appropriate specification, installation, and maintenance of
standard erosion and sedimentation control measures. The project will not
affect wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas; therefore, an
individual environmental permit will not be required. Existing drainage
patterns will be maintained, and no significant excavation will be needed, so
groundwater resources vv ILI not be affected.
f. Wetlands
Based upon methodology outlined in the Corps of Engineers \
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Dept: 'of Army, 1987), no jurisdictional
wetlands are found within the project limits.
4. Air Quaft and Traffic Noise
a. Air uali
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industry and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
The impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying
existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. The
traffic is the center of concern when determining the impact of a new
highway facility or the improvement of an existing 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 at a receptor
near a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from
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 as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of
emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind
edge of the local sources."
20
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the
NCDOT Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer
modeling and the background component was 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 area 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 l; om cars are carried
into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and
nitrogen dioxide. It is the ozone and nitrogen dioxide that are of concern
and not the precursor hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide. - Area-wide
automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future
because of 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 to automobile emissions.
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 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 seven percent of particulate matter emissions and less than two 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.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline.
The burning of regular gasoline emits lead (tetraethyl lead is added to
regular gasoline by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel).
Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead
emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of gasolines. The
21
overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was approximately 0.53
gram per liter. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.003 gram
per liter. In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars
use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the sale, supply, or transport
of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995.
Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed
project will cause the NAAQS for lead 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 near sensitive receptors.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst case
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors
were calculated for the completion year (2000), five years after completion
(2005), and the design year of 2020 using the EPA publication "Mobile
Source Emission Factors", the MOBILE5A mobile source emissions
computer model for idle emissions and for free flow conditions.
The background CO concentrations for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air
Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM), North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most
suburban and rural areas.
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be located at
the intersection of SR 1009 and NC 51 Bypass. The predicted 1-hour
average CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2000, 2005,
and 2020 for the worst-case air quality scenario are as follows:
I-Hour CO Build
Concentration (ppm) I-Hour CO No Budd
Concentration (ppm)
Receptor 2000 2005 2024 2000 2005 2020
REC 29 (SE CORNER) 7.0 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.8 9.8
REC 28 (NE CORNER) 8.2 7.6 8.5 7.7 7.3 10.7
REC 27 (NW CORNER) 5.6 5.4 5.6 6.0 5.9 7.4
REC 31 (SW CORNER) 5.6 5.4 5.8 5.9 5.9 8.4
22
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 for the build scenario is
less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not
exceed the standard. The input data is located in the Air Quality Anal
report on file in the Planning and Environmental Branch.
The project is located in Mecklenburg County, which is within the
Charlotte-Gastonia nonattainment area for ozone (03) and the Charlotte
nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA..
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as
"moderate" nonattainment areas for 03 and CO. Section 176(c) of the
CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform
to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). All
appropriate transportation control measures included in the SIP for
Mecklenburg County have been completed. The Mecklenburg-Union
N,IPO 1995 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) has been
determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The MPO approval date
for the TIP is November 16, 1994 (FY 1995). The USDOT approval date
of the TIP is April 4, 1995. The current conformity determination is
consistent with the final conformity rule found in 49 CFR Part 51. There
has been no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as
used in the conformity analyses.
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 done 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 burning
will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when
atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during
coMet^achon, tii .naure.Ci ::nll be t%1;? 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.
b. Traffic Noise
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, is usually a
23
composite of noises from engine exhaust, 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 cxrei&hted- 4 decibel s ale Ze used a1- 1 exclusivV' r in vehicle
The •• L t ? 1VVt V V 1N) 11LL 11V i AV in YV 11Vt
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 Figure 6A.
Review of Figure iA indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go
about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of
unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
L) The relationship between the background noise and
the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is
heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note
that individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some
more than others and some individuals become upset if an unwanted noise
persists. The time patterns of noise also enter into an individual's judgment
of whether or not a noise is offensiee. For example, noises occurring
dining sleeping hours are usually considered to be more offensive than the
same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from
other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at night when
background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would generally be
more objectionable than blowing of a car horn in the afternoon when
background noises might be 55 dBA.
24
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities
of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal conversation would be
possible while sleep might be difficult. Work activities requiring high levels
of concentration may be interrupted by laud noises while activities requiring
manual effort may not be interrupted to the same degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and
are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their
lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of noises
including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic
noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of an 4,,sis and control
have developed rapidly over the past few years.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether` highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
k-FITvv A) has dcveiorp2d noise abatement ciiteiia (NvAC) and procedures to
be used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria
and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title
23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various
land uses is presented in Figure 6B. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is
the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has
the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating
sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level
with the same energy content.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of
this noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic
environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level
increases. The existing Leq noise level along SR 1009 as measured at 15
meters from the roadway ranged from 64.4 dB A to 69.6 dBA. The
ambient measurement sites and measured exterior Leq noise levels are
presented in Figure 6C.
Highway Traffic The existing roadway and traffic conditions were
used with the most current traffic noise prediction model in order to
calculate existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually
measured. The calculated existing noise levels were within the range of 0.0
dBA to 2.1 d.BA 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.
25
Procedure For Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars driving at 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, STAR I 4 2.0 and OPTL".rIA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA 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.
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 lanes of SR 1009 to a five-lane section from the city limits of
Matthews to NC 51 Bypass and a four-lane section from NC 51 Bypass to
John Street. 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.
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted
during the peak hour of the design year 2020. 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
7.5, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, and 480 meters from the center of the near
traffic lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The location 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
procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using this grid,
noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
26
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Figure 6D. Information included in theses tables consist of listings
of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted
noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are
predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in the top
half of Figure 6E. These are noted in terms of those receptors expected to
experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA
NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23
CFR Part 772, there are 15 residential receptors and 22 commercial
receptors that are impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project area.
Other information included in Figure 6E 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.
The lower portion of Figure 6E indicates the exterior traffic noise
level increases for the identified receptors in each roadway section.
Predicted noise level increases for this project range from +5 to +10 dBA.
When real=life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect noise level
changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10
dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the
loudness of the sound.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
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 Figure 6B value), or [b]
substantially exceed the existing noise le-,rels. The ?ZTCDOT definition of
substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Figure 6B.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fait in either category. There are 37 impacted receptors in the project
area.
Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or
vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as
to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative
alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance
27
between noise impacts and other engineering and environmental
parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is
primarily a matter of locating the roadway at a sufficient distance
from noise :scnAsitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a
viable alternative for noise abatement.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project, traffic management measures
are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their
effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can
often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively diffract,
absorb and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass,
attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement
walls.
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. Safeh at access openings (dri-ve gays,
crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a
concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to
the receptor. For example, a receptor located 15 meters from the
barrier would normally require a barrier 120 meters long. -An access
opening of 12 meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise
reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND
ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No.
FHWA-EM BEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2,
page 5-27).
28
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.
"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,
seven residential receptors would experience traffic noise impact by
approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors could
anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range of +0
to +4 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level
changes of 2-3 dBA. A 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 equipment during
grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature
of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours,
these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss
characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-rnade structures are
believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abat n ent 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 are required for this project.
E. Construction Impacts
There are some environmental impacts normally associated with the construction of
highways. These are generally of short term duration and measures will be taken to
minimize these impacts.
29
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition, and other operations will be removed from the project, burned,
or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning done will be in accordance with
the applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air Quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. 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 made under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction when the control
of dust is recessar,; for protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered in Article
-107-3 of the Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, which is entitled "Control
of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution". The N. C. Division of Highways has also developed
an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program which has been approved by the N. C.
Sedimentation Control Commission. This program consists of the rigorous requirements to
minimize erosion and sedu7entation contained in the Standard Speciuficnttions together with
the policies of the Division of Highways regarding the control of accelerated erosion on
work performed by State Forces.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of way and
provided by the contractor, 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.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding areas for
mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious disruptions in
service to any of the utilities serving the area. 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 will be made
at that time. Lr ai! cases, the contractor is required to notify the owner of the utilm ir
advance as to when this work will occur.- In addition, the contractor is responsible for any
damages to water lines incurred during the construction process. This procedure will
insure that water limes, as well as other utilities, are relocated with a minimum of disruption
of service to the community.
Traffic service in the immediate area may be subjected to brief disruption during
construction of the project. Every effort vV& be made to insure the transportation needs of
the public are met both during and after construction.
General construction noise impacts such as temporary speech interference for
passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project can be expected,
30
particularly from paving operations and from earth moving equipment during grading
operations. However, considering the relatively short term nature of construction noise,
these impacts are not expected to be significant. The transmission loss characteristics of
ncarby structures will moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
F. Permits
No permits will be required for the construction of this project.
V. CaN*AE :TTS AND COORDMUTIO T
A. Goverment Response
During the planning study, local, state, and federal agencies were contacted.
Requests for environmental input were sent to the following agencies and replies were
received from those marked with an asterisk (*):
*State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Mecklenburg County Schools
*N. C. Department of Environmental, Health, and Natural Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Centralina Council of Governments
Mecklenburg County Commissioners
Town of Matthews
Mayor of Matthews
B. Public Response
In addition to the written requests for input from appropriate agencies and
governmental bodies, a citizens informational workshop was held on February 15, 1995 at
the Matthews Community Center to discuss the subject road improvement. The meeting
hain_Er IZPl?i. A Yprnvir??tP]?i 7?1 p?irsQ'?s
was dc?Prtie ii j the r'??a jort l 1VocV media al ? L?r to its WVVlt t V ti tVtLl t 1V t
•VlitV 1V 1 11 1 1V
_ attended the informal gathering including representatives of the NCDOT and local
municipalities. The residents/business owners were mainly interested in the construction
schedule and how the proposed project would affect their individual properties. All
comments received thus far in the planning process have acknowledged the need-for a
wider roadway to improve safety and accommodate current and projected traffic volumes.
N 1. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT D PACT (F4ILTST)
Based upon the assessment of environmental impacts included in this document; it
has been determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the
31
environment. This FONSI completes the environmental review. An Environmental
Impact Statement will not be prepared for this project.
AHS/

-1
- __ ...HZn ,?y`?R. 2t ?^t `R 61a"H 3.f`-d?.•'i.. ala. ,.':.r1?.? / %\ i .
q~ G a 'A4 v "IIPIN.IN
* O,an YECKLENBUR6 A A ?6 . P r r aa• - '
4 ti WGN $CNOOL aq •1'• I 9 NC b D I ?kl.. PEA > ` •
b +?f ii p £ o + 3 a c'1 RNEr y 4'
GROVE
Q •'5 Ipp ;? S+ I a ELE 1. ,7 lk y?•f"?: ....y. _ ?, 1
dPAY ROAD 4 { i &PNC a $CIIOOL mat $J ? rY ?%• S Lp
•? 'R^y 0 .(•y r YISON ?":i. 1 y r?L.' y /I `? \ ._ := Q ya+d
?, °4 ? AO ' •,.? 9 ? ? AYAILACE NpPQ` k ? ? V` v" . 4 'K C
° Tq,mtr+.n+l lAjEt. `yt• .t - •? C ,I? DLO` ``'? `n
4' 74 W1
O, a L.. ` b` -'f - 4F t? ?, wtRFOnD
P p• A 9 Beu ?. ` 6 a `_ K"°A ;g 4 w ''F'.?'+
F
?y r a ?/ 43% r
U6mES? dmaafKlNE 4
'i?\eP'OVM
OUT 94
r.: g G PA{iK 7 1 GT t Ulm.
• 8v
Z •? ?6 v fi t o a? I •`A„„ aNlrP p C3 SCHOOL
AIR
00
vN.. •RY'"• a t x G 9 s '?e_3, ? ,a,, ?y, v ? a ?p -
u ?1
41ti 5 i ? 9 fJf?' p • lfeALPINE/
7- C l cA cA CREEK /
ttt ?yCn.id °A 4 ?'? 'yp GREEaWAY-?: 4 .\ •t?? ,A .? AX
00
28227
n P n# r!? '^?? I a ?"" 1 \ r ? I `\? I '?sl *`oif•.
`nk'S-,. tit ', Y....a " y S c a+ •X^ ?• p s ..
aiiva4
,? `Ala s `\ •'p QD
Sj ROYCE + •MWr` - GA \ *? M', °k._ 4 \` -_
f tA7Et yr _ s??', e s C 4 CROWNPOINT\?fyo ur` 8 ` J ?r 9
PL"A
CNARLOTTE` A'VGU . 1' la ,Z o •1,\' 3 g
i CNNI3TIAN MCALPINIE
Is +" I GRO35111G '? !d a` \E .cAwti ,.C nr QA ?y?
N DCNaOL CREEK ?1 t' ?. L'w ¢I SNOPPINI
Y6 y P £/ a ihy ?a ?rti•tENCEt1 c `- '.°.? 4y,^ ..•.j ' W¢"i Cl a s'4 /`/yam
.'. SGREENWA k\"
"'4?f,! ?/ paw Ai? C,e. ;?' ePPO%5? ;-. •lz \ I \ d G o'v SA
Ii t-
--_?'-?_ 1 ._ '"?' e •? ?d O `P ? ? ?Cb i?-?? -_-.-_a'?J _f Calec9r 4 . ? a C5
P
.a ; ? ny ;4 9wya? , 9,,. ? '_?}??? ?'? 1 I'-• \ ? ?'e' a .v. fortsl Y,ax as 1
(? > /,,i ? ?A• ; ?a. a S L y '°+.c c ? I /,(?° \? a• k ?. 6 ' S k'aar :'°% r"4!.
OUARE D A9 •; Ii
?-? ' % +. ?t Fy = ` • T °' 3 e A? f " °qswwr . I
CENTER
LnaC.ro G y T q,, ! :?.. AI ? CF? G? "2`. ' Cf 1> by
114
•1..a f:w?.,l.aj .P $ .. •': .z. ?, `" a \ 28105 a/, 3' sa
y, U ?S
o :: 1 r? P. •Y 1?3+ `J •? I YATTNEW37ONNp? tlP fE3TNAl
fy AS .D3 a ( ' r Q. ?55? \f+FING CENT\ ER PROJEGT "a t0P1 SIR .11fl ^__ _ A Q•1• I \
3 I ?'? A St \ ?I "\
P LIMITS Qm?
G 51
.t 3"'vwAL,9 {.\ ??a'? 4 ci I c ? Y" `; ? L? ? \ faA•uK+f
j I i .'. a y^ ? o> <y" ,>f d?
MATTHEWS
[?` F'. Y a •??` _'/..fk"f -a:, ??. _? o ??_ ? +iS, ?~? `3'?*+.a? MATiNEW4.411NT Mlt I \?y0?, C?•
51 ? ? ?`?.?m`" 'Sr'`?? •? '?YOwN ? \?'yo ? ?S
.Ll^J.._ L• • _ .? N RA @ ALL + RY t?,y 4
•H ?_s){?y V, c ?* "r 3 s s 5 A?y4s1 ??ya dY,e1YN.s c? 1`
Q 70 y9`" a ( ?\
-Z?? 4 282/ ?/ .w _a` Rar Ar I- _ -ElEY:9GEal-13 a P
'f?"• PROVIDENCE A+ ? _-`? ? \ ? ., ( ?4 ? o+ g\ t -? H' ? ?.
PI WON SCHOM \ • - + e ,,,?. v ? •
~?': ? ??` . a as -- ? AMI, d? to _ a ? a 4?y?, • ?\}• ??<
a ? - // g? e?, ? a G +VIyeNQ a ys? >• F9`
.-?1 I S 1
..:`,'^ G %" .:.t ?,.ma . [a n oa u? G .S ,V 1a - s .. tY• i r
s ?'?? 1 c, ° t i^• ?QT oRUL t w 1. /
PARK I \:
C`=K„w , ? Afar ; 1 ?'+ ? 1 C?y,.,;,N GIY1 G , M? •
Fff.`». ?„"%/' oI wa.>?n a s41 u^+` q k \ '.! -a?
•l a a sT. tr ?',? S Y Yde (:
-\/
?` ! 3 faq*nw l1 a ? ,f$? r n t'1'f?giiD• •/d e' aln fn Oc 1? 4 '$ ` 0.04 A_ A° .\.
±rAtry aM.R a \ °.y \ `!".YA_•. r$1 - 6 _ 10
V
/TM's "Q r ?
Matthews, SR 1009 (Monroe Road)
D
From John Street
1 Q ?? A 'n,`?° ?•f? o°? A?o„o To Charlotte City Limits
Mecklenburg Count
y
! l "?i '"•a w R _f ?o f o 0-2910
ell-
FIGURE 1
pf { i a`
. ?_ c = .t ._ -? I ..?c"' a.?`e`d _ .?F. 1" , y J. - " •\??T _ `9i^. ? - ?I? ?a„ _ _ 4
44
(4'?r [, }
` i
WI=A
y ..
C
37
m
to
^ k C.
r r. ? rivCs ? "?

'*v4
R
'Y -
Ire
r
e
Y ??n
e
K+a
y
t? r
flow
wr
N-I
elk%
rill
831N30 'lslo HVTIOa A"IIWV3
N 4
ct)
6-m C-
cp c Q 7 a O ?. x `' f1. 5
0(a 0
°c E-m aye; 's;, S'?a
4 LNDO "1SICi AVd N Did

C ? t
t?
• ', fr •_` f l ? r ?S-'s?..-'? ? ,Z ?'Y ; ` ?:, r,-i i ;8.
' ,{' -•„R . T.•^-' ' .\ tJ ,? ? _.+? _ e •-y: 1, ? ? ?
:?. :' '..,,? 7 ? fit. ]?,_;,??i??,.:,•.,_, ~`•? :?? ??.',/'?..? ,,??.`?,. 1
??'• '4D '' •'; `Vi'e l-?? s ?. •?,. ,1 , i ^?/? `,
/yam. '? ..:.?';/, `?. J s ' .
?r,"?-. r ' /' ,ti's ,ti,% r=':., ?':., .rT ? ? $ ? : ,: ..? •?.,
1 _ ?•` Vii: ; •?.: j `r :,_r ; ?:'. ,?, Y-A;? ,.,
.t t-Y. •'1`'' '- ''?'? ??%^' ''pip j ("-• " % • i ? ? :`
J,N
.ate;^',?`, ?•` - ??' - ;`' ' ? '=•' - ?,`,?- •.,
t7o
i ' ,,?VjV t • y-
Air,

Yr,

• N
II F.
a
00,
` i ? ei',{ `?? ? t` ?` ?%i+' ''-?• . '? ? ? ?OQ ? 1 tir ' ti `. 4 ? '/'-•' , `t' ,rr
1XI
IN I
y +, : ; `? _ ?}?- ''• `• . ? Section of
1994 Mecklenburg Union Count
Thoroughfare Plan
Oe,
TT f'' T TI? r 'T
vit
•:. '.=-1, ;'_ .-'_'^• _ yam.. ? (' Xy, :? ??•?.. :-+. r~ `?
i
e _.k

V t
-! , :. .'

..,•-,v. ?;.`" ?..? .--"`. 7 r -^: ?} ^' i'•,:. :,?` 1. `•"? --'
U-2910
?Y

t 1?
. N
l
I.

Section of
1994 Mecklenburg - Union County
Thoroughfare Plan
T TD V 'I

--q
0
C-
PM
55
0 0 :m (2,1)9
A ID
a--- C Z

(D In o
.? (D r
`L o
0 o
v Z M (n 0 (n _i
a c m o
z o c ? m ?
_
m
< y
n
0
2 m
..j O m
C')
? O ? a
O
?
v to .
+ p CD N c
m m a 7yc w o
v
n m m o

m
T
C) 0 m
C
m M

0 X

o Z rft
O ?,

Zl 56 °? (D
`
va O.
o o v
ro
°

o c p -a r i

0 to
0

? O
- O ?

J ?eb n
N
-`
v

A 9? (D
4 p
0 A
0
0 O

0 M PM N
_ 55 s- 8 m
(4+3) °
°

Z 7cf)
7
0 o
° .
PAN

60 0
°
M o
- °
p p o o _ p

Of
O
tp
y a V N
°o ?? m °
Q cn o
O N

CL c
n W

m N
p
CL m
W
a
0 -C
n
m .?
C- cn

O
gS PM
0 = (2~ 9
?-- W Z -' u...._

v'

o
cn r

0
N
O
D t
C
(A N
vT
= O
'C
<
t 9O d
t
3

N P n n n n x
G
c F3 MID
n
r-n0Q
?-lZIZ
N Q
$?
nZZO
Z
o O r='-
-n .n
0
o
M

N z m
O
L r
.
(SD 'S
96 °A 0 --i
m
o? ??a o CD
-- D
a O N
0 CD
"
O i
p O ,J
O
0
b
l = y O n v
3 O ° (D
m --
m

° N ?
--
?p
° N
m
o o
?co A PM A
N 55 f-- 8 o
° (4+3) °
O
Z

N V o
O m

O ....

o P ?
GO `a, f
0 m °o
tD
° 0 == i 0 -4
t
°f
0 3

t
T V w
N V
a- cn
7 z.. y .?
m O
co n W
= VI c
? (n
-J
r- N

?? FIGURE 4
PROPOSED INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS
NC 51 BYPASS/SR 1009

I I
I I I I I
I i l i I
I I I? I I
? i l l I
I I I

I ? I I
I I I 1 I
1 I I I ?
I I I I I
I I I i I
_ I I I _ I I
I 1 i I
NC 51
Bypass

O
0 f
N O
O
y_ T
C
Ocn
?r
QN
FIGURE 5
NOISE PRESSURE LEVELS
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD

B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE

10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
FIGURE 6X
NOISE-ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50- > 10. _
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
FIGURE 66
1
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Le4)
SR 1009'
From Matthews' City Limits to John Street
Mecklenburg County
TIP # U-2910 State Project # 8.2673101
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1. SR 1009, 580 meters-No rth of NC 51 Paved 69.6
2. SR 1009, 260 Meters South of NC 51 Grassy 64.4
Note:
The ambient noise level sites were measured at 15 meters from the
center of the nearest lane of traffic.
FIGURE 6C
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1009 (Monroe Rd.), From Matthews' City Limits to John Street
Meckenlenburg County
TIP # U-2910 STATE PROTECT # 8.2673101
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY
AMBIENT NEAREST
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m)
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
1/2
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
SR 1009, From Matthews' City Limits to NC 51
1 Business C SR 1009 110.0 L 53 SR 1009 -110.0 L - - 58 + 5
2 Business C " 25.0 L 66 " 25.0 L - - * 73 + 7
3 Business C " 25.0 L 66 " 25.0 L - - * 73 + 7
4 Business C " 16.0 R 69 " 16.0 R - - * 76 + 7
5 Business C " 32.0 R 65 " 32.0 R - - * 71 + 6
6 Residence B " 60.0 R 59 " 60.0 R - - 65 + 6
7 Business C " 37.0 R 63 " 37.0 R - - 69 + 6
8 Business C " 32.0 R 65 " 32.0 R - - * 71 + 6
9 Business C " 57.0 R 60 " 57.0 R - - 65 + 5
10 Business C " 55.0 L 60 " 55.0 L - - 66 + 6
11 Business C " 27'.0 R 66 " 27.0 R - - * 72 + 6
12 Business C " 23.0 R 67 " 23.0 R - - * 73 + 6
13 Residence B " -32.0 R 65 " 32.0 R - - * 71 + 6
14 Residence B " 30.0 R 65 " .' 30.0 R - - * 71 + 6
15 Residence B " 28.0 R 66 " 28.0 R - - * 72 + 6
16 Business C " 26.0 R 66 " 26.0 R - - * 72 + 6
17 Business C " 25.0 R 66 " 25.0 R - - * 73 + 7
18 Residence B " 20.0 R 68 " 20.0 R - - * 74 + 6
19 Business C " 35.0 L 64 " 35.0 L - - 70 + 6
20 Business C " 23.0 R 67 " 23.0 R - - * 73 + 6
21 Business C " 20.0 L 68 " 20.0 L - - * 74 + 6
22 Business C " 25.0 R 66 " 25.0 R - - * 73 + 7
23 Business C " 25.0 R 66 " 25.0 R - - * 73 + 7
24 Business C " 25.0 R 66 " 25.0 R - - * 73 + 7
25 Business C " 23.0 L 67 " 23.0 L - - * 73 + 6
26 Business. C " 35.0 R 64 " 35.0 R - - 70 + 6
27 Business C " 30.0 R 65 " 30.0 R - - - * 71 + 6
28 Business C " 22.0 L 67 " 22.0 L - - * 74 + 7
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
FIGURE 6D
2/2:
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1009(Monroe Rd.),From Matthews' City Limits to NC 51
Meckenlenburg County
TIP # U-2910 STATE PROJ.# 8.2673101
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR' INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
SR 1009, From NC 51 to John Street
29 Business C SR 1009 17.0 L 64 SR 1009 17.0 L - - * 73 + 9
30 Business C ". 55.0 L 55 " 55.0 L - - 64 + 9
31 Business C " 24.0 R 61 " 24.0 R - - * 71 * + 10
32 Residence B " 29.0 L 60 " 29.0 L - - * 70 * + 10
33 Residence B " 18.0 L 63 " 18.0 L - - * 73 * + 10
34 Residence B " 78.0 L 51 " 78.0 L - - 61 * + 10
35 Residence B " 20.0 L 63 " 20.0 L - - * 73 * + 10
36 Residence B " 27.0 R 61 " 27.0 R - - * 70 + 9
37 Residence B " 21.0 L 62 " 21.0 L - - * 72 * + 10
38 Business C " 25.0 L 61 " 25.0 L - - * 71 * + 10
39 Residence B " 32.0 R 60 " 32.0 R - - It 69 + 9
40 Business C It 20.0 L 63 ": 20.0 L - - * 73 * + 10
41 Business C •' 15.0 L 64 '. 15.0 L - - * 74 * + 10
42 Residence B " 30.0 R 60 If 30.0 R - - * 69 + 9
43 Residence B " 25.0 R 61 " 25.0 R - - * 71 * + 10
44 Residence B " 18.0 L 63 " 18.0 L - - It 73 * + 10
45 Residence B " 25.0 L 61 " 25.0 L - - * 71 * + 10
46 Residence B " 25.0 R 61 It 25.0 R - - * 71 * + 10
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). ! => Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
FIGURE 6D
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUM MAW
SR 1009 (Monroe Rd.), From Matthews' City Limits to John Street
Meckenlenburg County
TIP # U-2910 STATE PROJECT # 8.2673101
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
Description 15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
1. SR 1009, From Matthew City Limits to 74 69 64 36m 58m 0 4 17 0 0
NC 51.
_ 2. SR 1009, From NC 51 to John Street 73 69 63 27m 47m 0 11 5 0 0
Total 0 15 22 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY--
SR 1009 (Monroe Rd.), From Matthews' City Limits to John Street
Meckenlenburg County
TIP # U-2910 STATE PROJECT # 8.2673101
Section
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
<=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
1. SR 1009',From Matthew City 0 0 ---- 28 - 0 0 0 0 0 0
Limit to NC 51.
2. SR 1009,From NC 51 to John 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 13 13
Street.
TOTALS 0 0 28 18 0 0 0 13 13
(1) As defined by only a substantial Increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
FIGURE 6E
APPENDIX
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
- 116..WEST JONES STREET C E / !j
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 8003
02-21-95 -in - k _ -?
'DEB 2 3 1995
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
?G DIVISION OF
!AILED TO FROM .* HIGHWAYS
N-C- DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION MRS- CHRYS BAGGEOt\i
FRANK VICK DIRECTOR
PLANN- E ENV* BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSPORTATION BLDG/INTER-OFFI
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING - PROPOSED WIDENING OF SR 1009 (MONROE RD-) FROM SR 1010
(JOHN STREET) TO EXISTING MULTI-LANES IN MATTHEWSt NC
TIP #U-2910_
SAI NO 95E42200430 PROGRAM TITLE - SLOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS- AS A RESULT OF THE. REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED t ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS9 PLEASE.CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]-
C-C- REGION F
State of North Carolina _ -
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGeeNl
Project Review Coordinator,
RE: 95-0430 Scoping - Proposed Improvements to SR 1009,
Mecklenburg County
DATE: February 7, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health, and
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The
list and describe information that is necessary
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
More specific comments will be provided during
review.
Natural Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
- attachments L5
FEB 7 I
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 500% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 2, 1995
MEMORANDIIM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
J
FROM: Monica Swiharty, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0430; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to SR 1009, Mecklenburg County,
TIP #U-2910
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
- Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
February 2, 1995
Page 2
_ H. Will borrow locations --be_.in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas _ __-
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
.following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10818.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

NCWRC,HCP,FRLLS LRKE TEL:[phone] Feb 02'95 15:34 No.003 P.07
i
Nordi Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ?
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co nat r
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February' 2, 1995 ttt???
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for the widening of SR 1009 (Monroe Road),
from SR 1010 (John Street) to the existing multi-lanes
in Matthews, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, TIP
No. U-2910, SCH Project No. 95-0430.
This memorandum responds to .a requestfrom 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 improvements, and
our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National, Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
At this time the NCWRC has no specific recommendations or
concerns regarding the subject project. However, to help
facilitate document preparation and the review process, our
general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within
the project area, including a listing of federally or
state designated threatened, endangered, or special
concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for
project construction should be included in the
inventories. A listing of designated plant species can
be developed through consultation with:
NCWKC. HCF. F HLLS LHKt I LL J 1'J ?D 66 y h e n UL " J?D 1 J5 NO. UUJ F. U8
Memo Page 2 February 2, 1995
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27667
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
(919) 733--3610
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the
project. The need for channelizing or relocating
portions of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. Wetland
identification may be accomplished through coordination
with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the
COE is not consulted, the person.delineating wetlands
should be identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be-included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat
(wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural,
resources which will result from secondary development
facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated
with other state, municipal, or private development
projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project
sponsors should be identified.
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Feb 02'95 15:35 No.003 P.09
Memo
Page 3
February 2, 1995
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. If we can further assist your
of f ice,--please contact David -Cox,- Highway _Proj ect --Coordinator, - at - - ---- - -
[phone].
cc: Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
January 3, 1995
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: Improvements to SR 1009, Matthews
REFERENCE: 95-0430
The Natural Heritage Program database does not contain records
-- for rare-species or significant-natural areas from the immediate
vicinity of the proposed road widening. However, several species
of rare plants are known to occur in the general area, including
the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), federally
and state listed as Endangered, and the Carolina birdfoot-trefoil
(Lotus helleri), a candidate for both federal and state listing.
Due to the potential for these species to occur along roadside
rights-of-way, we recommend that a biological survey be conducted
along the project corridor during the appropriate seasons of the
year.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Govemor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS
Witham W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
cProject Number: / s 053 6
19ECEW?oj??
DEHNR.
?r?
ral Re ours •;
LAND QUAI
ire
County: ,-l ?Z e
Project Name: y
Geodetic Surve
cam/ This project will impact LL geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be'contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box'27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer A? Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
r'
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-: disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
t?. The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
49? 113196
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Atfirmatfve Action Employer
?- State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office: k U
Project Number. Due Date:

After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
aLiestinns renardinn these hermits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and.guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process'
- -Regional Office: Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOLUREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
?
facilities, sewer system extensions, b sewer
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days

? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (N/A)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
? Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(N/A)
7 days
? Weil Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
? Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.

? Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement
5A NCAC 2111
06
NIA 60 days
s)
(90 da
.
facilities andlor Emission Sources as per 1 y
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
? NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820. (90 days)
? Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.08001.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion 3 sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan 30 da s
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
? Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropnate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
? counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are Involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned."
90.120 days
? Oil Refining Facilities
NIA
(NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
? Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv.
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
v„w Continued on reverse
Norma; Procoss
Time
C
C
C
C
L
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL?APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall,,upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions 6 drawings of structure d proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
1 CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
1 CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
01 Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.

J Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days

I (NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary. being certain to cite comment authority):
C_- 'IYGYty?C?R?`??Cih ?o(??n ?? is5Ja5 S?oo`c? bt GcC.552?

1.?4 - PJQ ?ffJt?SGeC c'xi' ?ac.c tr ' ?cJ. Cam- ?J?. ??
Y/ 0
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
ional Office -
? Asheville Re ? Fayetteville Regional Office
g
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
(704) 2516208 [phone]
ff ? Raleigh Regional Office "
ice
Mooresville Regional O
P.O. Box 950
919 North Main Street 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
,
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
® Washington Regional Office ® Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone]
® Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
I v 1. 1.11
baser-A-eney i?ro'cca Review 1"CsPotisc

:`C?ililCv
?. Nall? :._ - ' - --- 1 ypC Ol P ro)CCl' S2 ?D/C?
?hp?D1 Pinay?
?- l The applicant should be. advised lilac ;Mans and specifications nor ail w'.k*Cer- sysce.
?-= iinprovenleticS must be approved by the Division or E!:??ironmeacaI Heal Ell orior mche•a-wa:
of a contract or the lnkiaclon of conscruccioli (as required by 15A NCAC ISC .0300 er. se
For informacion, coiuacc the Public Wace- Supply Se_tion, [phone].
?-? This project will be. classified as a nor.-ci Municy out is water supply -arid !1111st comply wi
?- -? scale and federal drinking -,racer monitoring requ!reme-Es. For!11ore inforrr_acioll the appli.ca.
should -contact the Pudic Warer SuppI __ccion, (91) 733-2121
.
If t--? .If this project is constricted as proposed, we trill recommend closure of feec•of adjace
t sisters to the hanesc of shellfish. For informacion zaardin- che.shellfis sanitation prog
!n, the applicant should contact the Shellfish S nitac:Dn Branch ac [phone]•
r---; The spoil-disposal area( s) prouosed for iilis Qrojecc: ma-.• produce a n10SGU-co bre-eding-proble:
For lnforrllacion concerning a_pproprlace !nosqulco •_oncrol measures, the applicant •,shou
contact the Public Healch Pest Maragemeac. Section c [phone].
t-- The applicant: should be advised that prior to pile removal or •Cer!jo1_t1o 1 of eilapidat
--? structures, an extensive rodet,c cdl:crci rograrn :na. be r1 Ce -r -J
ss?_; :._? ?j?er to plevent'
i1111draClOn Of cl-c rodents Cc adiacen_ The :lfori 7cion. concerning rodto.u.com:r
T M1
%Oncact L'l-ie •iOCal hea1!C i i?Cpal?iir,enC CC i;e Pu`;1t1c r_Zalti? Pest Mallagen_:en_.JeCtlOrl?.aC t9.
733-6407.
--? Tl e applicant* should be advised. co- c-ncacc- •che Iocal health department regarding ch
t 1 se^ s can k 1 !: 1l me i J + -
.
reGUlrem..nts fOr t Ci 1K nS__l_' .:. -(-as l FCi1.l:Cep cinder _-1ti>, lct`.?°i` L 3-IL-.11100 et. Se!
(For information c^_ncer!?m- vt-nr,r•.Ctank, nd ocb.pr n^-slf? waste Glsoosal me'tliods, covlc-;tct
V i
n-.fir! ?•?/??r`. .Y`n. Stc n 1c ("911)) 73-1-2895.
'
t--? The applicant shot.tld br_ n,dvlsr.;i t::? :::t 1 art the local.;?e:lcll cle partlne:vj regarding the szllit
_ faeilitics rcqutived Pr)r !s I:rol<:i:t^-- it existing w:1'I:t ililt_; ?lr!i: i):_ :r,i??i:1Cr'•t: i.ltlr!tlt7 t
Lh,.-. CU1.111a':iC (:iiill, '?ia:1S kor dic was. -t• t
t•C_locI[Iorl MUSE be S11b11w:U-:I CO dl-' ;IOiI 0l' i-I1''tl'?)Illlle.^.t?l {-;e:1?r11 1??tlliIC: teI' Sit t:
JCCtl011, 171.111 1:C'\'IC':V Ji111:C :1, L j,)V M"II'? :i S) l' 1 i!- al 1. C 1 7 l?
1. ' l' ?'i
?j 73.x-._

?i` ?5 S . off: • / •
S, coon/Brrlnch. ?, - Dace
.oo. STNE v 4,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
- Betty Ray McCain,- Secretary - William S. Price, Jr., Director -
January 31, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Ti=ansportation
FROM: David Brook G (/
Deputy State LI is Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widening of SR 1009 from NC 51 Bypass near
Matthews to multilane section near Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, U-2910, STP-1009(1),
8.2673101, 95-E-4220-0430
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
Mary Beth Gatza conducted a survey of historic architectural resources in
Mecklenburg County in the mid-1 980s. We have conducted a search of our maps
and files and have located the following structure of historical or architectural .
importance within the general area of the project:
Hudson Silk Hosiery Mill, 4701 Monroe Road, Charlotte. This property was
included on the. state study list on January 11, 1990.
We recommend that an architectural historian with the North Carolina Department
of Transportation survey the project's area of potential effect and report the
findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
H. F. Vick -
January 31, 1995, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
_ NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT, P&E
MEMORANDUM
TO: FROM: Tom Padgett, Archaeologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Archaeological Input Request, Project
DATE : 9
The checked items below concern the status of your project
input request:
-This project is currently scheduled for completion to
meet your requested due date. If any complications
arise the project archaeologist will contact you.
Due to current workload, it is unlikely that this
project will be completed by your requested due date-.
Please reevaluate your timetable or have the Branch
Manager or Assistant Manager assign a priority to this
project.
We are holding your project request until we receive
SHPO scoping comments. Please forward when available.
The following information was not included in your
project input request. Please provide:
Project work order number.
Project location map.
Project scoping comments from SHPO.
Cross-section, length, width of right of way.
Topographic mapping.
?j?This project has been cleared by the SHPO for Section
106 compliance. If you need a copy of the compliance
documentation, please see me.
TIP # LI- E9 ! o Federal Aid #
M?E?.I?urzG-
County
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
.?y- toon (MvNaoF_ P_Ppm) mom eyteTtlJ(r muL.ft-LA4zr, (Ar MATrNENS T-Wn1 Lmir,.) T'o
JaHN SMEE't• (-,ourN of Oe, c;t OYFASS
On MAq 11, representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) - Nor FFPeeALLy FW4P .D
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review,session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
fL_
,N
G/it lets'
FHwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Ike esentative, HPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
RELOCATION. REPORT J2
M E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR F_? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2673101 couNTY Mecklenbur Section 1&2
I.D. NO.: U-2910 F.A. PROJECT STP-1009(1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening of SR 1009 (Monroe Road) from existing multilanes at Charlotte City
limits to John Street (Sout h of NC 51 Bypass)

.: .........................
";
..... ..
..
........... •.;...:.::.:.:.:.:......:..:...:.:.:.:..
EST .,4TEJ ;AIS. A.E . ,.> ..... .....
.......... ...... ..

.
.

.:.. ......... ...:.:....::.::..::
' IN OMi~;
.... ...... ............................ .` ::.. ... ?L ........ ,..,. ,........................... .
....
Type of
I
I
Disnlacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 Ai:. E ©g: pwEilT;nvG : `> .: >' >T3SS ? I:Ii`t G AvAz?t Ai1if i; .:: :
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M SO-150 0-20M so-ISO

..... .. ......

. ANSw ........

Ex: LFES.

TI©xs : ..

20 a0hI

Ise-zso

204oaz

150 -250
Yes No Explain all "YES"' answers. 40-70M 250-400 -40-70M 254-400
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-i00M 400-600 70-100M 400-600
2. Will schools or churches be affect by loo UP 600 UP 100 UP 600 UP
displacement? TOTAL
3. Well business services still be available after REMARKS Re$ and li` reritler
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of NO DISPLACEMENT
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disable elderly, eta
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
31135'
APR 2 "
11. Is public housing available? .
1
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within N.G, CAP?. 0 s'•`
.......
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?
Z-8777
Relocation Ao-ent Date Approved b Die
Fmm 15.4 Revised 5190 Original & 1 COPY. ptdtC ilCtVLatltJU t.+VUL
-V
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
IZ - 13-94
TO:
?? ,A REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
?D -
FROM. REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
?'vI 1-4 F
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
vtf.co

i 19ga
lEC 2
SG1?????
'
SA
IftONM?4.
?V
F
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 13'95 10:44 No.003 P.02
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Conunzssion U _
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919433-3391
Chides R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project in r -
Habitat Conservation Program ,;c
DATE: December 12,1995
SUBJLCT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for SR
1009. improvements, from John Street to the Charlotte City Limits in
Matthews, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. TIP No. U-2910, SCH
Project Nm 96-4354.
Staff biologists of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCVMC) have
reviewed the subject EA/FONSI and are familiar with habitat values in the project area.
The purpose of this review was to assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 ct seq., as amended; t NCAC 25).
the proposed project involves widening a 0.9 mile segment of existing SR 1009
(Monroe Road) from John Street to the Charlotte City Limits. The roadway will be
widened from a two-lane shoulder section to a four-lane curb and gutter section. No
impact-, to waters or wetlands are anticipated.
We feel that the EA/FONSI adequately describes potential impacts to the wildlife
and fisheries resources in the project area. Since the area is heavily developed and no
waters or wetlands are crossed by the proposed project, impacts to wildlife and fisheries
resources will be minimal.
At this time we concur with the F,AIFONSI for this project. However, NCDOT
Best Management Practices should be enforced to protect off -site resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA/FONSI. If we can be of
any further assistance please call me at [phone].
4Ty ??a
N p ?II?
a?o".nm' a
pun+?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 14, 1994
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Widening of SR 1009 (Monroe Road), from SR 1010 (John
Street) to existing multi-lanes, Matthews, Mecklenburg
County, Federal-Aid Project STP-1009(1), State Project
No. 8.2673101, TIP Project U-2910
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to SR 1009 (Monroe Road). The
project is included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1997 and
construction in fiscal year 1998.
The proposed project is located south of Charlotte in Matthews on
SR 1009 (Monroe Road). It is proposed to widen the existing 2-lane section
of SR 1009 to a 4-lane curb and gutter section from SR 1010 to the NC 51
Bypass, and to a 5-lane curb and gutter section from the Bypass to existing
multi-lanes. The proposed section will extend the existing 5-lane section to
the recently constructed NC 51 Bypass.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency
respond by February 21, 1995 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Angela
H. Smith, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment
M
,,.STnTE o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 14, 1994
Dear :
R. SAMUEL HUNT III I.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Widening of SR 1009 (Monroe Road), from SR 1010 (John Street) to
existing multi-lanes, Matthews, Mecklenburg County, Federal-Aid
Project STP-1009(1), State Project No. 8.2673101, TIP Project
U-2910
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to SR 1009 (Monroe Road). The
project is included in the 1995-2001 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1997 and
construction in fiscal year 1998.
The proposed project is located south of Charlotte in Matthews on
SR 1009 (Monroe Road). It is proposed to widen the existing 2-lane section
of SR 1009 to a 4-lane curb and gutter section from SR 1010 to the NC 51
Bypass, and to a 5-lane curb and gutter section from the Bypass to existing
multi-lanes. The proposed section will extend the existing 5-lane section to
the recently constructed NC 51 Bypass.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency
respond by February 21, 1995 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Angela
H. Smith, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
HFV/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
R 4
February 2, 1995
F B ccp
a,? T9? s
PFs
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0430; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to SR 1009, Mecklenburg County,
TIP #U-2910
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.
Melba McGee
February 2, 1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10818.mem
cc:alanb

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP.ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DMSION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT Ill
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 5. 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Linwood Stone. Unit Head
Project Planning
Logan Williams. Environmental Biologist
FROM:
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for
proposed widening of SR 1009 (Monroe Rd.).
from existing multi-lanes (at Matthew's town
limits) to John St..(south of N.C. 51
Bypass) Mecklenburg County. TIP No. U-2910
State Project No.8.2673101: Federal Aid No.
STP-1009(1)
ATTENTION: Angela Smith. Project :Manager
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the
project area, and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally-protected
species is also provided. Please contact me if you have any
questions, or need this report copied onto disc format.
c: V. Charles Bruton.
M. Randall Turner.
File: U-2910
Ph.D.
Environmental Supervisor

Proposed widening of SIB 1009 (`Monroe Rd.) from
multi-lanes tat Matthew's town limits) to John's Street.
Matthews. North Carolina.
I
TIP No. U-2910
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1009(1)
State Project No. 3.267/3101
Natural Resources Technical Report
L'-?910
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
Logan Williams. Environmental Biologist
June 5. 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...........................I
1.^ Purpose... ..................................I
1.3 Methodology ....................................1
1.4 Investigator Cedentials .......................2
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................2
2.1 Soils ..........................................2
2.2 Water Resources ...... ............
2.2.1 Stream Characteristics ................2
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification .............3
2.2.3 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources..3
3.0 Biotic Resources .....................................
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................4
3.1.1 Maintained Community ...................4
3.1.2 Mixed Pine\Hardwood ....................4
3.1.3 Early Successional Field ...............4
3.1.4 Scrub\Shrub .............................
3.2 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Resources ........... 6
4.0 Jurisdictional Issues ...............................6
4.1 Waters of the United States ...................6
4.1.1 Permits .................................6
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ....................6
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .............6
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed
Species ................................S
5.0 References .........................................10

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of a Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed project. The project lies
in the town of Matthews. Mecklenburg Counts (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the widening of SR 1009
(Monroe Rd.). from existing multi-lanes (at Matthews town
limits) to John Street (south of NC 51 bypass). The project
length is 1.5 km (0.9 mi). The existing right-of-way (ROW)
is 18.0 m (60.0 ft). The proposed ROW is 30.0 m (100.0 ft).
The posted speed in the project area is currently 60.0 km\h
(35.0 mph). A speed limit of 80.0 km\h (.45.0 mph) is
proposed. The existing road has 2-lanes. 6.6 m (22 ft) wide.
The project calls for the construction of a 5-lane 19.5 curb
and gutter from the town limits to INC 51 bypass and a 4-lane.
12 m curb and gutter from NC 51 Bypass to John-Street.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory.
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences
of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change.
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle maps (Matthews). National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
Maps. and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps of
Mecklenburg County. Water resource information was obtained
from publications of the Department of Environment. Health
and Natural Resources (DEHNR. 1993) and from the NC Center
for Geographic Information and Analysis publication of the
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Mecklenburg County.
information concerninLy the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was gathered from the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 'List of protected and
candidate species and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologist Logan Williams and Chris Vurra:
It
qI
14
AMES
ZY"..Et _
? PARK
T
?yCR £ t rw •e,iai?ec?u -- - aT
^ .. PROJECT
LIMITS
sa+' •• ,eltem
?x••Ir-oo : SENNIR TON ? .?
? o s
Oxfcrd Hunt
FROV10mr 11 ??`J IOM „AMU ..
SRXLSCtt. - ?Irs
51 .?
L•L?.sa`
,? ? flEYeT'?y rr '?u YLlf ?
o\ 'goads
\ = PL
_ _ i NC 1
'.
t, all
29
"'( \
74
hr
' tte?
52(
I A11•n
u ?. M' r Nill t,
5 ECK
szt P1q""' If 1
?9
I ?
ay
aw III/
RA{, »x`
` ?ltilanbbft? a zubur ``??"?
PAiorn ig Star `' 4
.` Ac 's FMB ?' ?`
c
PQ?\S` 2 • 'ot?? ^4 ; . •, 90 4 ea ? H
` C?-p0. RIC U o ax d 1??+
jz 00
,mes
. A s .`1 Ski i
P F'
>r ? i? , 7.Ywi? P F a4 M0 r
2, T TIVAI 7 + Ot J? v
!SC. ?_! 1 *fi •?M T S TVIP. P£NT,
%
View Acres
MAMEWS FU
A
,t
? d
s,. Countrv :: taa
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
SR 1009 .(Monroe Road)
FROM MULTI-LANE SECTION
TO JOHN STREET
MATTHEWS, MECKLENBURG COUNTY
U-2910
e.ts o o.s to is : ?ry
A"MOXMATE SCALE OF RILOMEURS FIG. 1
2
on 9 May 1995. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife
identification involved using a variety of observation
techniques: active searching and capture. visual observations
(binoculars). identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland
determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria
prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual" (Environment Laboratory. 1957).
1.4 Investigator Credentials
Logan Williams, Environmental Biologist
Education: BA, AA, MS Degrees
Experience: 14 rears as Biologist\Life Scientist
Expertise: Insect Taxonomy, Invertebrates, Field Botany.
Natural History
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area.
are discussed below. Soils and availability of water
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Mecklenburg County lies entirely in the southern
piedmont physiographic region. The topography of this County
is characterized by broad, gently rolling interstream areas
with steeper slopes along drainways. The proposed project is
located at approximately 222.0 m (730.0 ft) above mean sea
level.
2.1 Soils
one specific soil type (Cecil)
area. Cecil soils are characterized
strongly sloping. well drained soils
clayey subsoil. Cecil soils formed
igneous and metamorphic rock. They
texture with a 2-8 percent slope
2.2 Water Resources
occurs in the project
as gently sloping to
with a predominately
in residuum from acid
have a sandy clay loam
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water
resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource. its relationship to major water systems. Best Usage
Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable
imoacts to these water bodies are also discussed. as are
means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Stream Characteristics
There are no streams or water resources ocated within

the immediate project area.
?.?.? Best Usase Classification
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW). Water Supplies (WS-I
or R'S-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1 mile) of project study area.
2.2.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The project lies entirely in a developed urbanized
region. There are no impacts to water resources anticipated
as a result of project construction.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and
past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed. or likely to occur, in each community are described
and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Four distinct terrestrial communities were identified in
the project study area: Maintained, ;Mixed Pine\Hardwood.
Early Successional Field, Scrub\Shrub. :Many faunal species
are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of
terrestrial communities discussed.
3.1.1 Maintained Community
The maintained community exists along the highway ROW.
residential and business areas throughout the project. The
flora of this community consists mainly of trees, shrubs and
grasses planted as ornamentals. Grasses and fortis maintained
in a low- growing state through frequent mowing are located
along the highway ROW.
The canopy of the maintained community is composed of an
assortment of oaks and hickories. Willow oak.
(Quercus Phellos), white oai: (O.alba), pecan (Carya
illinoensis) and mock-efnut hickory' (C. tomicntosa) are
4
prevalent. The sub-canopy consists of red maple (ACer
rubrum), silver maple (A. saccharinum). Bradford pear (Parus
cailervana var. bradfordi). bullbay (Magnolia srandiflora)
and red cedar (Juniperus virziniana). The dominant shrubs in
the maintained community are crepe myrtle (Lagerstromia
indica), and red tip (Photinia serrulata). The common
grasses and fortis in this community include fescue (Festuca
sp.), white clover (.Trifolium repens) and english plantain
(PlantaQo lanceolata).
Birds observed in the maintained community during the
site visit include northern cardinal (Cardinal-is cardinalis),
European starling (Sternus vulgaris). northern mockingbird
(Mimus polvalottos), common grackle (Quiscalus guiscuia) and
house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Mammals frequently
encountered in this community include the eastern cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilaaus floridanus) and woodchuck (Marmota monax).
Predators like the red-tailed hawk (Buteo Jamaicensis) and
red fox (Valupes vulpes) may also forage in the maintained
community.
3.1.2 Mixed Pine\Hardwood
The mixed pine\hardwood community is found in the
proposed project area. The canopy of this community is
composed of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), Virginia pine
(Pinus virginiana), willow oak. southern red oak (Ouercus
falcata), post oak (Q. stellata), sweetgum (Liauidambar
stGraciflua) and blackgum (Nvssa sylvatica). The sub-canopy
consists of red maple, redbud (Cercis canadensis). red
mulberry (Morus rubra) and black cherry (Prunus serotina).
Shrubs and vines which are frequently encountered in this
community include winged sumac (Rhus copallina), grape
(Vitis rotunifolia), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans)
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and wisteria (Wisteria
sp.).
Wildlife associated with this community includes the
eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), and american toad (Bufo americanus).
The black racer (Colubar constrictor) and gray fox (lirocyon
cinereoarrenteus) are predators of small rodents. reptiles
and amphibians inhabiting the mixed pine\hardwood community.
Birds commonly associated with the mixed pine hardwood
community include the following: Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis) and tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor).
3.1.3 Earl-%. Successional Field
The early successional field community consist
predominately of fescue grass mixed with an assortment of
fortis and saplings. English plantain. white clover. red
clover (Trifolium pratense). 13-re leaved sage
(Salvia lvrata). oxeye dais-,- (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum).
queen ann.'s lace (Daucus carota). daisy fleabane (Erigeron
annuus) wild chervil (ChaerophNllum tainturieri) and saplings
of trees previously listed under the mi.?-ed pine\hardwood
community.
Common animals found in this community include
cottontail rabbits. white-footed mouse (Peromvscus leuconus)
and eastern mole (Scalopus aauaticus). Chipping sparrow
(Spizella passerina). field sparrow (S. pusilia) and bobwhite
(Colinus virginianus) are birds that are frequently
encountered in overgrown fields. The redtailed hawk, often
forages for small mammals in this community.
3.1.4 Scrub\Scrub
Scrub\shrub communities exist on some of the vacant lots
located within the project area. These communities are
composed of saplings and\or shrubs of flowering dogwood
(Cornus florida). black cherry, american elm (Ulmus
americana), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), multifloral rose
(Rosa multiflora). blackberry (Rubes argutus). Forbs
dominating the community include goldenrod (Solidago
altissima). Carolina geranium (Geranium carolina) and daisy
fleabane.
Birds observed in this community include northern
cardinal. European starling, common grackle, northern
mockingbird, house sparrow and rufus-sided towhee. Mammals
commonly observed in the scrub\shrub are eastern cottontail
rabbit and white-footed mouse.
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction
related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 1
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way
width of 30.0 m (100.0 ft). Usually, project construction
does not require the entire right of way: therefore. actual
impacts may be considerably less.
6
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Maintained 0.34 (O.S4)
Pine\Hardwood 0.06 (0.15)
Scrub\Shrub 0.19 (0.47)
Early Successional Field 0.33 (0.81)
TOTAL IMPACTS 0.92 (2.27)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
This project is expected to have an overall positive
impact. Widening of a roadway in this urbanized area will
ease traffic congestion in the area. Much of this project is
located in industrial, business and residential areas.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions. inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and
protected species. and Waters of the United States.
4.1 Waters of the United States
No waters of the US will be impacted by the proposed
project.
4.1.1 Permits
No permits will be required for the construction of this
project.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are
in. the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. It is important to
determine why these declines take place so that man may
better understand how to coexist with natural systems.
Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973. as amended) requires that any action, likely to
adversely a species classified as federally-protected. be
subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other
species may receive additional protection under separate
state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E). Threatened (T). Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section ? and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973. as amended. As of March 30. 1994. the FWS lists the
following federally-protected species for ',;ecklenbur_ Count'
(Table 2). A brief description of each species
characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species
for Mecklenburg County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Lasmizona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E*
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
No specimen from Mecklenburg County found in the past
twenty rears (1913-1993).
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of
uncommon and protected species revealed no recorded
occurrence of federally-protected species in or near the
project study area.
Lasmi-ona decorata (Carolina heelsplitter) E
Animal Family; Un?onidae
Date Listed: July 30,1993
Distribution in N.C.: Cabarrus, Mecklenburg, Union.
The Carolina heelsplitter has an ovate, trapezoidal,
unsculptured shell which is greenish, yellowish, or brownish
in color with greenish or blackish rays. The nacre is
usually pearly-white to bluish-white graying to orange near
the umbo and in older specimens the entire nacre may be
mottled orange. The umbo is flattened and the beaks are
depressed and project a little above the hinge line.
Habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter has been found in
creeks, streams, and rivers. Individuals are most often
found in shaded areas, either in a ponded portion of a small
stream. or in runs along steep banks with a moderate current.
Water less than three feet deep and substrates that are
composed of soft mud, sand. muddy-sand, and sandy gravel are
preferred. Presently, only three known populations of this
mussel species exists; two of these populations are found in
the North Carolina streams of Waxhaw Creek, Catawba River
System. Union County and Goose Creek. Pee Dee River System,
Union County.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
The proposed project does not cross any creeks. streams
S
or rivers. Therefore. suitable habitat does not exist for
the Carolina heelsplitter.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: June 6. 1991
Flowers Present: mid September-early October
Distribution in N.C.: Cabarrus. Davidson. Mecklenburg.
Montgomery, Randolph. Rowan. Stanly. Stokes,
Union.
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb
that grows 1-2 m tall from a cluster of carrot-like tubrous
roots. The stems are deep red. solitary and only branch
above mid-stem. The leaves are rough feeling above and
resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath. Leaves of
the sunflower are opposite on the lower part of the stem and
usually become alternate on the upper stem. The broad
flowers are borne from September until frost. These flowers
are yellow in color and arranged in an open system of
upwardly arching heads. The fruit is a smooth, gray-black
achene.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to North and South
Carolina. These sunflowers grow best in full sunlight or
light shade in clearings and along the edges of open stands
of oak-pine-hickory upland woods. Common soils that this
species is found in are moist to dryish clays, clay-loams, or
sandy clay-loams, often with a high gravel content and always
moderately podzolized. Natural fires and large herbivores
are considered to be historically important in maintaining
open habitat for these sunflowers.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Based on extensive field reconnaissance the Schweinitz's
sunflower is not found within the immediate project area.
Therefore. not impacts to this species will occur as a result
of project construction.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 4 federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Mecklenburg County. Federal Candidate species are not
afforded federal protection, under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions. including
Section until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Candidate 2 (C-') species are
defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction
although no sufficient data currently exist to warrant a
listing of Endangered, Threatened. Proposed Endangered or
Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E). Threatened (T). or Special Concern (SC) by

9
the North Carolina Heritage Program list of Pare Plant and
Animal species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 19-9.
Table 3 lists federal candidate species. the species
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 3. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species
for Mecklenburg County
SCIENTIFIC NC
NAME COMMON NAME, STATUS HABITAT
Aster georg ianus Georgia Aster C yes
Lotus purshianus var.
helleri Heller's trefoil C yes.
Delphinium eaaltatum tall larkspur E-SC yes
Isoetes virginica Virginia quillwort C no
NOTE: "C" species are not afforded state protection at this
time.
Endangered (E), Threatened (T) and Special Concern
(SC) species are afforded state protection.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review
of the data base of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.
10
..0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North '
American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence. Kansas. Allen
Press. Inc.
Cowardin. L.M.. V. Carter. F.C. Goulet. and E.T. LaRoe.
191/9. Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwate.r
Habitats of the United States.. U.S. Government
Printing Office. Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1957. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report 1-S7-1.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1953. A
Distributional Survev of North Carolina Mammals.
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural-History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1950. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick. E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. WRC.. Raleigh.
NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. 1993.
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Mecklenburg
County.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 198S. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Data Base and Long Tern Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards for North Carolina River Basins." Raleigh.
Department of Environment. Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
i.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina'.s
Endangered. Threatened and Candidate Plant Species:".

li
Raleigh. North Carolina Department Of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F.. J.F. Parnell and F.P. Teulin_°-s. 19S0. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Radford. A.E.. H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 196S. Manual of.
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale. M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
The Natural Communities of Forth Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Division of Parks and Recreation. NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil.Conservation Service.
1988. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County. North
Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Geological Survey. 19S7. Matthews Quadrangle.
Weakley. A.S. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D.. J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 19S5. Mammals
of the Carolinas. Virsinia and Maryland. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
lk

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1RANsPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
November 4, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Angela H. Smith
Planning and Environmental Branch
RECEIVO
NOV 14 1994
ENViRoly MEJIITAL sCIENCM
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Scoping meeting for U-2910, SR 1009 (Monroe Road) in
Matthews from multi-lanes to John Street (south of NC 51
Bypass), Mecklenburg County, State Project No. 8.2673101,
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-1009(1)
The following were in attendance at the October 6, 1994 scoping meeting:
John Goins
Eileen Fuchs
Richard Davis
Jack Matthews
Danny Rogers
Linwood Stone
Don Hurlbut
Betty C. Yancey
John Wadsworth
Debbie Norris
John Taylor
Jerry Snead
Angela Smith
Town of Matthews
Geotechnical Unit
Planning and Environmental
Photogrammetry
Program Development
Planning and Environmental
Roadway Design
Right of Way
FHWA
Traffic Forecast
Location and Surveys
Hydraulics
Planning and Environmental
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) description of the subject
project limits is SR 1009, from the existing multi-lanes (at the Matthew's
town limits) to south of NC 51 Bypass. A letter dated February 11, 1993 from
the State Highway Administrator, Larry Goode, stated that the project would
extend past the NC 51 Bypass to John Street, so the new southern limit has
been revised to extend to John Street. New traffic counts have been requested
for the segment from NC 51 Bypass to John Street.
The section of SR 1009 from the multi-lane section to NC 51 will be
widened to a 5-lane, 19.5 m (64-foot), curb and gutter facility and the
section from NC 51 to John Street will be widened to a 4-lane, 12 m
(40-foot), curb and gutter section.
r
` November 4, 1994
: Page 2
The revised length of the project is 1.5 kilometers (0.9 mile).
The existing right of way is approximately 18 m (60 feet). Thirty
meters (100 feet) of right of way will be required to contain construction.
The 1994 average daily traffic is 22,200 vehicles per day (vpd), and
2020 volumes are projected to be 40,000 vpd.
Signals are currently located at the NC 51 Bypass and at John Street.
Traffic Engineering will need to review the intersections south of NC 51
Bypass (SR 1009/ NC 51 Bypass, SR 1009/ John Street, and NC 51 Bypass/ old
NC 51) to determine the appropriate traffic operations and signals.
The design speed is 80 kilometers/hour (45 mph) and the posted speed
limit is 60 km/h (35 mph). The posted speed limit is anticipated to be
raised to 80 km/h (45 mph) following completion of the project.
The revised construction cost estimate is $1.2 million. The TIP shows a
construction cost of $ 1 million and a right of way cost of 1.8 million.
Right of way is scheduled for fiscal year (FY) 1997, and construction in
FY 1998.
No historic sites have been identified from the multi-lane section to
the NC 51 Bypass. However, the new area between the Bypass and John Street
has not been surveyed and appears to have structures that may be historically
significant.
The Division 10 office requested that the project limits be extended as
described in the first paragraph. They also recommend a double left turn at
NC 51 Bypass. A capacity analysis will be performed on all intersections to
determine the lane configuration required.
The Environmental Sensitivity Base map shows that we are not in a
Critical Watershed Area.
Utility conflicts are expected to be extremely high throughout the
project length. Utilities identified by Location and Surveys are aerial:
power, telephone, and cable, and underground: telephone, water, gas, and
sanitary sewer.
Several sites are identified as having the possibility for UST's along
the project: the Handy Pantry located on the north-west corner of NC 51
Bypass and SR 1009, and McAteer's Marketplace located near the northern
terminus on the east side of SR 1009. McAteer's appears to be contaminated
and should be avoided.
The subject section of SR 1009 is not a designated bicycle route and it
does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request, therefore, no bicycle
accommodations are required.
A public informational workshop is anticipated to be held around the
first of the year.
November 4, 1994
Page 3
The town of Matthews expressed interest in constructing sidewalks along
both sides of SR 1009 from the town limits to NC 51, and on the east side of
SR 1009 between NC 51 Bypass and Christ Covenant Church (located just north
of John Street). According to the newly adopted NCDOT pedestrian policy,
Matthews will pay for 30% of sidewalk construction and NCDOT will pay 70%.
The participation scale is based on population and as of March 1994, Matthews
had a population of 15,729. The preliminary construction estimate for the
specified sidewalks (1.3 km, approximately 3505 sm) is $ 101,645. The town
of Matthews would be responsible for approximately $ 30,494.
The Environmental Assessment is anticipated being completed by October
1995 to be followed by a FONSI by June 1996. Roadway Design will furnish a
preliminary design and construction cost estimate by January 1, 1995.
AHS/plr
t? . 1 O Davids?n /
J
„? .. orneliusE
d aldwell
II 3 3 16 1
© unter`vllle.
ounrain? t
?? I land
AW \.,
Rsie° N
6 12 , 21 PP ka
unt Holly z"
? Z E t,
N t fwell?.
hr
5;1 tte+
I Auer ;.
14 e t
EC Min Nill 8
s K
?. r. 521 Polk •e !1
O 1 !9 I-77 M•monal -
17•" taEi
? ,Lnerille.. ' ?" '
Indian /
'- 5 6 Tra;t
Uijul
° LAKE R : s,?tNOa NCE ,??E ?J /E ,E
n 7
+?.. G" N .} 4 EPE °aQr _ Z I sic ST Cl °? ??p OPCMIR yq ?VD
c7 EOw ,,,,,g i "' ° de
i•? Rx - 4'+r+o c•lo .:_
o ?T E - [vdr- r o `;,?, `y -pE70N t?.' g 'Creek ? ? ?IOOEN XI CS
AL AN GE f?°4 a rq .C`I t :.D / 0lr SP W? •;? S . _
c ur Oy •O daOQ ,\J E .G?\` '1(E N'N• -t KALE g T WAI7ER .
arshb ?-s q0 N;Pp?. Cyq -` '3
'+` F cALn = M o e a"ubur ?a`E °cF
?T s?3i PYU o . 500 PARK \ca MornNig Star -''/qY 0• .5 9f4• o`.? fv
REENWAY E°°
. I
IMES scy,.E' $ 000 O? ? ?'? ? NAP V O G?
'a PARK 7 `,. fqK. a $MO,EE \ OE 9 P O-L`l1{( H
>? c 0.o P? UsF? ??S ?PP+ .¢a' hf Q O F &?
OCR t,Y ggtf -
* ?„ 'Sr y •S?wc, o IN °*E e I A
v fyf?> Slp.F \M. `'v : r ], - C pP ° s?,
pIC !l JI
.AaLDSTE ? ," p' Ot ? Mu f OII CT l "-? 4? ? :Y , 1? 0 Sx OC °P qq
TEAM 5 ' • C.tr q0 ?.. ? •ad'E . ° ° f I ???•' _ 1'Y \ S.? \: i ao'? A
'
0-1
00 IEE RF 00 Som tii RD _ t ?GC i f oP T 4PA ?W C
? ? w Pe . • ° '?? i*cs x ? 0. iFPNE 9 _ ff ? : ? CG ?°f •t?: W 000
??++ c SARDIS C705 0 P„ ?<
c • ° SA
4H RO + zEFel :!
d f ? ?'Bq OMS a MY. .?ERaE Y PIOGE 90° CAFE ? - _ ?\\ Q?• / I ?ryP /N, i0 t w000
I _.•-v F - OtpQ(c s •syF' - ?, IEPP
st (
• _-?' A F ?`.' >. c- a ^:eS WINCC .?4P oP` ay o,'c c
15; .44 N s ? ?- 9? $ $ S? Iso ^ EE. EOP S' ; po. .I t ?E O O? C o
... s ° ,euV• /,p .$ `y ?. a ¢`' a tf' ? y = s3S'{ooA
+ ?`' a °py?9? 3° `a ? °9 ±??- i 54 ? ` • ; °E f `? !9?, 1 ?' ?lr tTiIWiJ ycF A,
[G ¢ No, . -_6 :?jE2?Mj•F ' ~0a. eaoo ° o`o°` aro ? -Q„+? .2E _ rz I; Z• F7WFS1iCP ?E tlY/ 0
.?lDY1 0.L\MO P°i qF $C?? RwLY 711 L ar
•ii ^l[• u ! wY. }?( i J a , w? J ,, _?- > v9
iYl 0 OP {? d°? 3' Pi ar-l w°
,M F 5k
tt7 ?, o4AFE °: ''9.?,..tte, a$ t? :i.s: E ? ??. ? •% ? ? `' o2v{p/e//?/i
?? s ? q o? n. '? ? , o .. 9` .n°E x < •. T E 5 iWP.' PIFWY, ?qq
PROJECT ><s- a_,A 9y yN `
s _ v
LIMITS 524
as f cv'r° ? 3uoo' 90 a ? " 5~ v`OJ
:,e{lem 22?- •
s ' Y o ?o TOWN MATTHE
EQ,= KENNIXGTON
ox 4A t e ? FU i000P
F,? CT Y,FNNpA 9?o 5? a'f oT
p lub Viesv Acres!c?,.,
°q} S.s? 9 a Ha PtOi fo' E s' 'P4 t IFS+``? c ?E .o MATT NEWS PLA2?S. ??...
Oxfcrd Hunt e y f ?, Pia % p fcf TA 9.FK` e3 sr/QES
PROVIDENCEA '?WSE tP OR IYq` 'Pdp 'z? o ( sr' ?°
:- rdis /y So thmini$ts€ Is ts1EEW ,o. tth r
?y SR.HI.SCH. ux t I w c MAti 1
E.lo IY ^£ ent ori\ MOAY.PrtlRi r =,AOds°?P? tEM.scN.,°GGE o Ea'P Park
2il 51 ?° s Ly _ 8twlocA `lO? TANK
w -
-. < ?+ Eatf°a t p GEYOx s i
wwmso L yp«o.`g AflTNUA G00?.t1 0
wroi `w * ? ? EMORI?Y?
d
---
Re:e(dy IN 4E( ? CT .' 1 ?! a[r _
a? 7;DOds NORTH CARO'??TADEPARTMENT OF
a E? S = PL ?l ?11C0? P? r• Y `? E : 1. ?mT TRANSPORTATION
SENOa DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
a'" \ 1 F` ,P4 °S. s yF4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
I _ 9 f-
l \ c C IA 1 s'7 ao a BRANCH
.3d SR 1009 (Monroe Road)
N \ < . Counlty E?= FROM MULTI-LANE SECTION
TO JOHN STREET
MATTHEWS, MECKLENBURG COUNTY
U-2910
- 0.25 o 0.5 1.0 1.5 z
APPROXIMATE SCALE OF KILOMETERS FIG, i

Lrydla SfNpo
N m,?
??0urn ?s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovERNoR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 19, 1994
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Brancv_ ? - -
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for U-2910; SR 1009 (Monroe
Road), from the NC 51 Bypass to multi-lane section,
Mecklenburg County, Federal-Aid Project No.
STP-1009(1), State Project No. 8.2673101
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for October 6, 1994 at 2:00 P. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part
If there are any questions about the meeting or
call Angela Smith, Project Planning Engineer, at
AS/plr
Attachment
of our planning process.
the scoping sheets, please
733-7842.
N
it N.
r r% WO F_ %. I JLVr IIN11 JPyC I
Date 9-8-94
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning
Design
TIP # U-2910
Project # 8.2673101
F.A. Project # STP ,1009(1 )
Division 10
County Mecklenburg
Route SP 1009 Functional Classification urban minor, arterial
Length 1.126 kilometer, (0.70 mile)
Purpose of .Project: widen roadway to increase capacity and
improve safety
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work:
Widen existing 2-lane section to a 5-lane curb and gutter,
section. Project limits extend from the existing multi-lanes
(at city limit) to NC 51 Bypass (see attached figures).
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No _x
If yes, by whom and amount: {} , or {?}
How and when will this be paid?
Page- 1

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility: urban
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None x
Type of Roadway: major, thoroughfare
Interchanges Grade Separations Stream Crossings
Typical Section of Roadway: 18-meter, 5-1ane curb & gutter,
Traffic: Current 22,200 vpd^ Design Year 40,000 vpd
% Trucks 7
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO ,,_.x 3R
Design Speed: _70 KPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . . .
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,.
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . .
Total Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$ 1,000,000

$ 1,000,000
$ 1,800,000
$ 2,800,000
Page 2
t .
} PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED { } COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
_x_ Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 205,920_
Base. , . . . . . , . > , , , , , , , . $
-...x_ Milling & Recycling (resurfycitig) , , , $ 27,456_
Turnouts. , , . . , . . , , , . . $
Shoulders: Paved. , . . . .•, . . > . . $
Earth. . > . . . , . . $
_._x- Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 82,400_
Subsurface Items: . , . , , , . , > . . , . $
._x- Subgrade and Stabilization. , , . . , , . , $ 88,088
,,..x_ Drainage (List any special items) > , . . . $ ._ ._130,000_
Sub-Drainage, . > > . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation X $
New Bridges x > $
Widen Bridge, REHAB & x $
Remove Bridge X $
New Culverts; Size Length. , $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . > . . , , $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
Noise Walls , > , > , > > $
Any Other Misc> Structures. . . , . . , . $
_x Concrete Curb & Gutter. . > > , , > > > > > $ 61,776_
Concrete Sidewalk > . . > > . > , , , . , , $
Guardrail . . . . . . . > , . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. $
.,_x_ Erosion Control , . . . . , . > . > > $ 9,000
Landscape , , . > . , , , . . . , > , , . . $
Lighting, . > > , > $
:<_ Traffic Control > > , > > 1 3 , 000_
Signing: New. > , . . . > , > . . . . $
Upgrading. . , , . , . , . . , $
.,_,x_ Traffic Signals: _.x_ New . . , > . , . . . $ 25,000
Revised . . . . . . . $
RR Signals; New . . , , , . . . . . , . $
Revised , , > > > $
With or Without Arms, $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. , $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade > $
Rx_ Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo -x-___ $ 11,700_
Markers x
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
4 .
Delineators . . . . $
_..,,x_ Other (clearing & grubbing, mi sc & mob). . $ _222, 660_
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $ _123,000_
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subtotal: $ 1,000,000
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No
Existing Right of Way Width:
,,...x_ New Right of Way Needed: Width 30 m Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost ; $
{Includes R/W}
Prepared By: Angela H. Smith- Date: 9-8--94
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Research
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Manager, Program and
Policy Branch
Asst. Highway Admin.
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Landscape
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Chief Engineer
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
Page 4
.. T
t
N
?` Gi tr ? _ rr r
iy? ti ? ` Z ? (NEpT
cst rw* ? ? z
au£S SC'Yr.,E
PARK
.Aftom
e°p , or,
TOMS
((( N?lCO ? Z...U4HOONNFNU •.__

i -
r y
t"
Ja ? ? .
r
`
oo
? Go
"PRO JECT
O
LIMITS
g
O
H
N
e
IE
N
bT
Ix
x
K
?
"
o° oK
9 oHCSt
1?'
c( e?a?P

Oxford Hunt
e . 1P
PROYIDE?:CE 1lA
U1'.9 ??`'
SR.HI.SCH. Nr fl IIre T

.. 2 lP?a`r r1
51
SO
ReYNdy rr ,AfP a41? I a
c? ?{Dods
pNICO P

? ? „5EN

am; I O Davlds&n

- J
Gad,-,«n- Ornellus
-
•d -•' 4 aldwell?
If 3 3 16
® untersvllle.
ou
4
' nrain
.? land 1 .._?? .,
r
\
uniwnir..
R?yp h /.
6 12` 3 21 Pork
unt Holly 2
eA11? ?r

fw
el1
1
74 2..
7 521 l ]tr 1 Allen
6 .s ECK...
521
km, it
P
•
'• 49 i.77 MMroriai
tam-
tnev_ille _ Indian
5 6 Trail

.. ^RIHD .. NCE ???t o 2

°s
S C li E- 't/r .
° 'tl M W.
7 ?c
„ Y(ON `?°
. S 10 ? opcxAa de w
cx reeks:.
°P lP.
4,E - ` g
'OOEN NIPlS
4
- / .4 KE N!N 9 ?? KaIE 8 . wAr rEN
Marshb
!eI fl2o a r?rF, auou
orn?o9 Star - °F+, ?,AI s' ? , `y
t
%
r 1` %`
0 qty P? 'P ` ? _ 0 o po .
28-
cod-?PQ??S? Z • tV(?EN? .? ' f . 'a?` 9p oa Po?CgK H
A4 OZ SRO k ?? °9 C.

•
` AIC
'SAROIS C705$, G `? j?0 ? ( e`O
sic
`
% 2O. / I <
St -'
WWINOQI
.es c
F

1
I `
i(YS?
S P
g t?T C` -
>y TIYAL
. 0
Wo ?a i
FO,r A
?
_ .G! 1 a MITTT E S TWP. PIFWI

v \ i I r
TOWN MATTHE ":- $'
'
-f A If
000
sub Vi
`
A
s
.v
e
cre
i a y`
9
y fa ptGra MATTHEWS RAPb S. Q.
I ? 4
.
VP1
4 ? TA
(?F?'`
?
yam` ?
"HOC $
Ft` ,S \?e?S
e
'$0 thrnNllSteP/
/y
- N
tth
!
Qn
!ant 'on?µ OdS r° MAt i
of4.Pfi ?o?' ELEM. SCH.
NMnM?
?wdn
° _

oP 1
Park - ?
° •'°'' . rAry
a
In
f4o11 ?
`
'4
?f 3 tp .r RTNUR G00F;61 -
MEM0fl1 e
P K
ry, •Of ursrP..a[r •v
g^ $f! \ ?\t?fft "'? ° = ° NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
- a
' BRANCH
a
3` C
s .
u
t ??
SR 1009 (MONROE ROAD).
e
o
n
'y E50xCi FROM MULTI-LANE SECTION
TO NC 51 BYPASS
MATTHEWS, MECKLENBURG COUNTY
U-2910 -
0.25 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2
°
APPPOAIMATE SCALE OF KILOMETERS FIG.