R-2555

,MSTNro (j^T
199
t,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
October 7, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
Michele James
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Proposed widening of NC 73/Catawba Avenue, from SR 2145
(Sam Furr Road) to SR 2195 (Torrence Chapel Road),
Mecklenburg County, State Project No. 6.671042,
TIP No. R-2555
On August 28, 1997, a scoping meeting was held for the subject project. The following
individuals attended the meeting:
Eugene Tarascio Geotech
Dan Duffield Hydraulics
V. Marcus Lowery Location & Surveys - Division 10
Keith Johnston Photogrammetry
Richard Davis Planning & Environmental
Teresa Hart Planning & Environmental
Michele James Planning & Environmental
Laura Slusher Planning & Environmental
Ray McIntyre Program Development
David Rhodes Program Development
Don Sellers Right of Way
Kathy Lassiter Roadway Design
Glenda Gibson Roadway Design
Craig Lewis Town of Cornelius
Barry Webb Town of Cornelius
Gary Faulkner Traffic Engineering - Congestion Management
Derrick Lewis Traffic Engineering - Congestion Management
Doumit Ishak Traffic Engineering - Signals & Geometrics
Hemang Surd Traffic Engineering - Signals & Geometrics

2
After a brief overview of the project, the following items were discussed:
Due to rapid growth in the project area, Division 10 and Town of Cornelius officials
would like this project accelerated. It was noted that any revisions to the current project
schedule will be coordinated and approved by the Program and Development Branch.
2. In anticipation of this project, the Town of Cornelius had started acquiring right of way
and moving utilities along the project route. According to Craig Lewis, land had been
reserved/dedicated at a width of 100 feet from Torrence Chapel Road to Jetton Road.
Currently, Catawba Avenue ranges from a 2 lane to 5 lane shoulder section. The
proposed improvement will widen the existing roadway to a 5 lane curb and gutter
section. For the proposed project, town officials recommend a divided median facility.
The town is also recommending bicycle accommodations be included with this project.
4. Subsequent to the scoping meeting, Roadway Design coordinated with Congestion
Management to determine what preliminary designs would be feasible. It was decided
that from SR 2195 (Torrence Chapel Road) to SR 2151 (Jetton Road), a five lane curb
and gutter section and a five lane curb and gutter section with a 20-foot raised median
would be studied. From SR 2151 (Jetton Road) to SR 2145 (Sam Furr Road), both a
five lane shoulder section and a live lane curb and gutter section with a 20-foot raised
median would be considered.
Two new traffic signals will be added along Catawba Avenue; one at Westmoreland
Road and the other at Knox Road, which is being realigned by the Town of Cornelius.
Due to the proximity of the traffic signals between Torrence Chapel Road and Jetton
Road, Signals & Geometries will look at placing these signals on a coordinated system.
6. The request for updated traffic counts has been made and these counts will be made
available as soon as they are received from the Charlotte DOT.
7. The Town of Cornelius has requested additional landscaping be included on this
project. The NCDOT indicated there is a certain percent of money allocated for
landscaping based on the type of facility. It was then noted any additional monies spent
would have to be approved by DOT's Program and Development Branch.
Mr. Lowery of Locations and Surveys performed a field inspection of the utilities and
reported the existence of the following along Catawba Avenue: sanitary sewer, water,
phone, gas and aerial cable. These will need to be relocated before work can begin on
the project.
9. Mr. Duffield of Hydraulics reported no major hydraulic structures existed on the project
route and the existing outfalls would be maintained. Some drainage easements may be
required.
3
10. Debbie Bevin called prior to the scoping meeting and stated there are three properties in
the project area with files, but they are not on the National Register. She also stated the
Archaeology section had no comments.
MJ/plr
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
9AA
and Natural Resources M1 i 0
Division of Water Quality
A 2md
17
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director E
November 21, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, DENR SEPA Coordinator
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ SEPA Coordinator
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping #98-8311; WQS# 11876
Catawba Avenue Widening 3
TIP R-2555; Mecklenburg County
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the environmental document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B . Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ 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. The following wetlands information should be included in the EA, as appropriate:
1. Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands. If no wetlands are found, the EA should still include information
on how this determination was made, including the methods used in
surveying for their presence and the qualifications of the survey staff in
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2. If wetlands are to be impacted by the project, have they been avoided as
much as possible? (Please ensure that sediment and erosion control
measures are not placed in wetlands).
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1 0% post-consumer paper
98-0311 DOT Scoping
November 21, 1997
Page 2
3. Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4. Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
5. Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
6. Quality of wetlands impacted.
7. Total wetland impacts.
8. List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
G . If wetlands are anticipated to be impacted by the project, the following measures
should be taken to reduce the impacts -
1. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including placement of sediment and
erosion control structures / measures outside of wetlands). If this is not
possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen.
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required if impacts are greater
than one acre.
2. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
3. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan, if appropriate, to help
the environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
a. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland
impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible.
b. 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.
C. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation,
enhancement, and lastly preservation-
H . The EA should discuss (in detail) project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road widening construction, such as mass-transit and traffic congestion
management techniques.
I. The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that the EA or EIS
for this project evaluate all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the
environment. It is the relationship between transportation projects and their impacts
to changes in land uses that the environmental document should focus its indirect
impacts section. This section of the document should discuss the known
relationship between new or widened roads, highways and interchanges and
resulting inducements for urban development along the project right-of-way, at
interchanges and along connecting arterials. The EA must further address the long-
term environmental impacts of this road project, including the potential indirect
impacts of the induced urban development on all aspects of the environment.
To address this issue, the EA should answer the following questions -
i) What is the estimated traffic projections for the project corridor, at
interchanges and all connecting arterials (and what current and future land
use figures were used in this estimate)?
98-0311 DOT Scoping
November 21, 1997
Page 3
ii) Will this project provide additional traffic handling capacity and/or improved
traffic safety and control features to connecting roads, such as turn lanes
and traffic signs and signals?
iii) How will traffic patterns and traffic quantities on cross streets (including
planned interchanges) in the project corridor change due to the proposed
project? How will land uses along these secondary roads be influenced by
the access or increased traffic flow provided by this project?
iv) How does this project comply with local governments' land use and
metropolitan transportation plans?
V) Will this project provide new or improved access to vacant or undeveloped
parcels of land in the road right-of-way, at planned interchanges, or along
connecting arterials?
vi) Will these less-developable parcels become more likely to develop into
urban uses with the provision of public road access, adequate road frontage
or traffic safety and control features from the project?
vii) Will this road widening serve as an inducement to additional urban
development in the project right-of-way, given the provision of additional
traffic handling capacities, and the existence (or likelihood of existence in
the future), of other essential public infrastructure improvements (e.g.
sewer, water and electricity) in the area? To what degree will this road
widening encourage further urbanization of this corridor? To what degree
will this bypass affect land uses in the areas to be bypassed?
viii) If inducements for urban development are predicted as a result of the road
improvements, these impacts should be defined in the environmental
document and should be considered indirect impacts of the transportation
project.
ix) What measures have DOT and the local governments in the project area
agreed to in order to restrict development potential along the road right-of-
way, at interchanges and along connecting arterials to reduce the potential
indirect land use changes and environmental impacts?
X) What environmental resources could be affected by the identified urban
development that will be allowed or encouraged by the road improvements?
What degree of impact to these resources will be anticipated? What impacts
may be significant in nature? Specific to the regulatory authority of DWQ,
the EA should discuss the types and severity of point and non-point source
water quality impacts anticipated from both the new road project and this
additional development.
xi) What regulations are currently in place at the local government level that
would address these significant potential indirect environmental impacts?
xii) The environmental document should discuss these environmental impacts
(and others that are applicable to the individual project), and quantify them
when possible. In addition to reporting on the types and significance of each
direct and indirect impact of the project, the document should define how
DOT (with their authorities and resources) and affected local governments
(with land use control in the project area) are planning to avoid, reduce or
mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.
For Environmental Assessments (EA's), the SEPA rules and statutes require that
prior to issuance of a FONSI, any identified significant environmental impacts must
be avoided, minimized or mitigated to a level less than significant, or a FONSI
should not be issued. Therefore, an EA for this project should show how the
indirect effects of the project, including those effects of urban development, are not
98-0311 DOT Scoping
November 21, 1997
Page 4
going to significantly impact the environment, including water quality. If
significant impacts are unresolved, a FONSI cannot be issued and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared.
J. The following discussion is meant to help explain the direct and indirect impacts
issue in terms of water quality. All of these issues, as applicable to the specifics of
the project, should be discussed in a DOT environmental document:
In evaluating the direct water quality effects of a transportation improvement
project, typical concerns involve wetland, aquatic habitat and stream impacts from
construction, the current quality of the waters and ecosystem of the streams and
rivers to be affected by construction activities, the potential effect of spills and run-
off from the road on water quality, how that might effect overall stream health and
the other users of that water, etc.
An indirect impact analysis of a transportation project should evaluate increases in
development in the vicinity of the road project if the project will be providing new
or improved access to future growth areas that are currently undeveloped. Indirect
water quality impacts of induced development might include: increases in ground
and surface water withdrawals to supply water for development; increases in
wastewater collection and treatment capacity, potentially including increases in
surface water discharges; and, increases in amounts of urban stormwater in the
project service area and along connector streets that experience increases in land
development due to the project. Land-disturbing activities associated with road
construction and land development may also result in increased stream
sedimentation and secondary wetland impacts. And over the longer term,
development features such as increased impervious surface areas and stormwater
drainage systems will only exacerbate water quality problems. Predictable impacts
could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in creeks and streams, loss of
aquatic habitat and wetlands and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as
fertilizers, pesticides, sediment and automobile byproducts) to surface waters.
These impacts could be of special concern if the project is proposed in an area with
state and federally endangered species or if the waters are high quality, nutrient
sensitive, or used for public water supply.
K. 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 DWQ from issuing the 401 Certification
until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) (for and EIS) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document It is recommended that if the 401 Certification
application is submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the
401 should not be issued until the applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD
has been signed off 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 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please
be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
98-0311 DOT Scoping
November 21, 1997
Page 5
Please have the applicant give me a call at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if they have any
questions on these comments.
RECEIVED
DEC u 1 1997
mis:\980311 DOT Scoping- widening ACES
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ - Non-Discharge Branch, Wetlands/401 Unit
R a-10 (o /U C ?j

?• I
U C
e
I

1
V ti
o,

R-131
r, ,? V ??

06-T
U

L
a a / 1 ,H
o ?? m. 4 0
COUNTY OF LINCOLN, NORTH CAROLINA
T15) WEST MAIN STREET, 3Rf) FLOOR CITI7ENS (-ENTER, I.INCO[-NTON, NORTH CAROLINA 2£3092
IN PARIMEN] OI- I'U[31 I(- WORKS
[phone]
IAX [phone]
May 22, 1998
John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
NCDENR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
P
*y'?
s
1 am writing in regards to an application for a Department of the Army after-the-fact
permit being requested by Waterside Landing Properties, LLC, Action ID No.
199830440.
Based on the plan included with the Public Notice, the applicant proposes to construct a
stormwater basin with a littoral shelf within a 50-foot buffer along NC 16 and NC 73. As
part of the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners approval of the project, the 50-foot
buffer along NC 73 is to be reserved for future right-of-way dedication. Attached is a
copy of the Commissioners approval. Therefore, such a stormwater basin should not be
allowed in the buffer along NC 73.
If you have any questions, please call me at 704-736-8498.
Sin rely,
Do 41 as Chapman, P E.
County Engineer
cc: Judy Frances, Zoning Administrator
Richard French, County Manager
Vag-
attachments
Motioned by Commissioner Terry Brotherton.
Seconded by Commissioner Larry Craig.
Factual Reasons Cited: The use will not substantially injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property unless the use is a public necessity.
Vote: Unanimous.
4. The location and character of use, if developed according to the plan as
submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to
be located and will be in general conformity with the Land Use Plan for the
area in question. Yes X No _
Motioned by Commissioner James Hallman.
Seconded by Commissioner Beth Saine.
Factual Reason Cited: The location and character of use, if developed
according to the plan, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be
located and will be in general conformity with the Land Use Plan for the
area in question.
Vote: Unanimous.
After having held a public hearing on January 6, 1997 and in light of the finding
of facts listed herein, the following action was taken by the Lincoln County Board
of Commissioners:
Commissioner Larry Craig motioned that the Conditional Use Permit be
approved with the three "fair and reasonable conditions" attached. Seconded by
Commissioner James Hallman.
Vote: Unanimous.
In recommending said conditional use, the following conditions were
recommended by the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners:
Fifty (50) foot landscape buffer along NC Highway 73 be reserved
for future right of way dedication.
2. All final phases of project must be approved by the Board of
Commissioners.
3. Water and Sewer lines to be installed by the developer and once
they are completed be dedicated to the County.
una?rman
Lincoln County Board of Commissioners
January 20, 1997
Clerk to Board of Commissioners January 20, 1997
?8

Cornelius,
From the Realigned Torrenc
to Jetton Road
Mecklenburg
State Project
T.I.P. R
NC 73
e Chapel Road (SR 2195)
(SR 2151)
County
6.671042
-2555
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information Contact:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Phone [phone]
APPROVED:
3
ate
i
L.ri.- ward, N.L., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY ....................................................... i
1. BASIS FOR PROPOSED ACTION ................................ 1
A. Existing Conditions .......................... 1
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity ........................ 1
C. Anticipated Safety Benefits ......................... 1
D. Benefits to State, Region, and Community ............ 2
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION .................................... 2
A. General Description ................................. 2
B. Historical Resume ................................... 2
C. Proposed Improvements for Recommended Alternative ... 2
1. Length of Project ..............................
2. Design Speed ...... ... ........................
3. Cross Section Description ......................
4. Right-of-Way ...................................
5. Access Control .......... . .....
6. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control .....
7. Railroad Work Required .........................
8. Bridge Work Required ...........................
9. Parking ........................................
10. Sidewalks ......................................
11. Bicycles .......................................
12. Staging ... ........ ..............
13. Special Permits Required of the Division of
Highways ..................................
14. Restricted Sight Distance ......................
15. Grades and Curvature ...........................
16. Utilities ......................................
17. Speed Zones ....................................
18. Landscaping .. ................................
19. Project Termini ................................
20. Geodetic Markers ...............................
21 Estimate of Cost ...............................
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .................................. 6
A. Public Transportation ...............................
B. No-Build Alternative ................................
C. Postponement ........................................
IV. LAND USE PLANNING ........................................
6
6
6
6
A. Scope and Status of Planning ........................ 6
B. Existing Land Use ................................... 6
C. Existing Zoning ..... ............................. 7
D. Relation of Project, Plans, and Uses ................ 7
E. Farmland ............................................ 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE IMPACTS OF
THE PROJECT .............................................. 7
A. Neighborhood Characteristics ........................ 7
B. Economic Factors .................................... 8
- C. Social Impacts ...................................... 8
D. Cultural Resources ................................. 9
E. Air Quality Analysis ................................ 9
F. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis.... 12
G. Ecological Analysis ................................. 16
1. Plant Communities .............................. 16
2. Animal Communities ............................. 16
3. Wetlands ....................................... 17
4. Geology and Soils .............................. 17
5. Rare/Endangered Species ........................ 18
6. Mitigation ..................................... 20
H. Construction Impacts .. ............... .......... 20
1. Underground Storage Tanks/Hazardous Materials........ 21
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................ 21
APPENDIX

State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of Trans-
portation, Division of Highways, proposes to widen NC 73 from Jetton
Road (SR 2151) to Torrence Chapel Road (SR 2195) in Cornelius (see
Appendix for Figures 1 and 3). The proposed improvement will also
include the realignment of Torrence Chapel Road (SR 2195) to
intersect NC 73 approximately 270 feet south of the existing
intersection. The total length of the proposed improvements to NC 73
and Torrence Chapel Road is approximately 1.10 miles. The
recommended improvement will widen NC 73 from Jetton Road (SR 2151)
to a 33-foot shoulder section for 0.68 miles, then to a 64-foot, face
to face, curb and gutter section for 0.23 mile. The recommended
improvement for Torrence Chapel Road is a three lane, 37-foot, curb
and gutter cross section which will taper into a 48-foot, face to
face, curb and gutter cross section at the intersection of NC 73 and
SR 2195. The length of this improvement is 0.19 mile. The total cost
of the project is estimated to be $1,600,000.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed action will have a
positive overall impact on the area involved by providing improved
access to the existing and future development along the project
corridor and by reducing congestion and accident potential on NC 73
and Torrence Chapel Road. No residences or businesses will be
relocated due to the proposed improvements. There may be some
erosion and siltation during the construction period, and there will
be some delay and inconvenience to motorist during construction;
however, these effects will be short-term in nature. No significant
effects to animal or plant life are expected and no recreational
facilities or historic sites will be involved. Noise levels could
increase during construction but this will be temporary. The future
noise levels are expected to increase 2 to 4 dBA.
3. Alternatives Considered - Due to the nature of this project, the
widening of an existing roadway and the realignment of an existing
facility, no alternative corridor alignments were considered and no
alternatives to the proposed multi-lane cross sections were
considered. These cross sections were recommended because they
provide adequate capacity to accommodate anticipated future traffic
volumes and provide sufficient width for motorists utilizing this
section of NC 73 and SR 2195. The "do nothing" alternative was
considered, but rejected because of the need to increase the traffic
carrying capacity along this corridor.
4. Coordination - Several Federal, State, and local agencies were
consulted uring the preparation of this environmental assessment/
finding of no significant impact. Comments from the following were
received and considered during the preparation of this document:
N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Auxiliary Services Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Town of Cornelius
5. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact - Based on an analysis of
potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, it has been
determined that no significant adverse effect on the quality of the
human environment will result from the construction of the proposed
project.
BASIS FOR PROPOSED ACTION
A. Existing Conditions
NC 73 is predominantly a two lane roadway between Jetton Road
(SR 2151) and Torrence Chapel Road (SR 2195). This two lane roadway is 24
feet wide with 2 to 6-foot unpaved shoulders except at the intersection
of Jetton Road where an additional lane have been constructed to
accommodate left turns. At the end of the project, east of SR 2195 the
existing roadway is a five lane, shoudler section. The existing
right-of-way width is 60 feet along NC 73. Torrence Chapel Road (SR 2195)
is also a two lane, 24-foot wide roadway, with 2 to 4-foot unpaved
shoulders. The existing right-of-way width along SR 2195 is 60 feet.
B. Traffic Volume and Capacit
Traditionally, NC 73 has been a major traffic artery in Mecklenburg
County. With the recent and continuing residential and extensive
commercial development, NC 73 will continue to be a major traffic artery
for the foreseeable future. The estimated 1992 traffic volumes, along
NC 73, range from a low of 7200 vehicles per day (vpd) to a high of 14,500
vpd. These volumes are expected to increase to 19,000 and 25,000 vpd,
respectively by the year 2012. Traffic volumes on SR 2195 are expected to
increase from 10,800 vpd in 1992 to 19,300 vpd in 2012 (See Figure 5).
At the present time, NC 73 is operating at level of service (LOS) F
during peak periods. Level of service F is characterized as breakdown
flow, stop conditions. Upon completion of the project the level of
service will improve to level of service C or better throughout the
project length. Level of service C describes operation as approaching
capacity and is characterized as stable flow with tolerable delays at
critical sections during peak periods.
However, based on the projected average daily traffic for the year
2012, additional improvements to the proposed three lane section may be
necessary to provide tolerable operating conditions throughout the
planning period.
C. Anticipated Safety Benefits
During the period from January 1, 1987 to April 30, 1990, there were
28 accidents on NC 73 between SR 2195 and SR 2151. There were 2
fatalities and 10 other accidents involving injuries. The estimated
property damage resulting from these accidents was $85,275. These
accidents resulted in an accident rate of 286.0 accidents per 100 million
vehicle miles of travel (ACC/100MVM). This rate is approaching the state-
wide average of 292.1 ACC/100MVM for all North Carolina routes during the
same period. The primary type of accident on this section of NC 73 was
rear-end collisions involving slowing or stopping vehicles at inter-
sections and driveways. These accidents accounted for 35.7 percent of all
accidents. The proposed improvements, with one or two through lanes in
each travel direction and a continuous center left turn lane, will reduce
the potential for this type of accident. The center turn lane will provide
2
motorists with a place to stop and wait for traffic to clear before making
a left turn without having to stop in a travel lane. The additional
through lane will allow drivers to slow down for a right turn into a
driveway without slowing the entire through movement as they do now.
D. Benefits to State, Region, and Community
The proposed widening of NC 73 and the realignment of SR 2195 will
provide relief to traffic congestion along this corridor. It will also
improve access into the commercial developments located along this
project.
The improved access to the area, savings in operating costs, reduced
accident potential, reduced travel times, and the general improvement in
the ease and convenience of travel will benefit the State and Region, as
well as, the local community.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
proposes to widen NC 73 from Jetton Road (SR 2151) to Torrence Chapel Road
(SR 2195) and realign Torrence Chapel Road (SR 2195) to intersect NC 73
approximately 270 feet west of the existing intersection. NC 73 will be
widened to a three lane shoulder section for 0.68 mile then to a five lane
curb and gutter roadway for 0.23 mile. Torrence Chapel Road will
transition from an existing two-lane, 24-foot roadway to a 48-foot, face
to face, curb and gutter cross section at the intersection of NC 73 and
SR 2195. A right-turn lane will be included at this intersection. The
estimated cost of this improvement will be $1,600,000.
B. Historical Resume
In November P989, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
released the "North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program 1990-1996"
(T.I.P.). This program included the widening of NC 73 from south of SR
2144 to SR 2195 (3.7 miles). Right-of-way acquisition and construction
were scheduled for fiscal years 1990 and 1992, respectively. A cost
estimate of $4,725,000 was included for this improvement. However, in 1991
the scope of the project changed. The present proposed project consists of
realigning Torrence Chapel Road (SR 2195) to intersect NC 73 approximately
270 feet west of the existing intersection and widening NC 73 from Jetton
Road (SR 2151) to the realigned SR 2195 (1.10 miles). The new cost
estimate is $1,600,000. The project will be funded with State funds.
C. Proposed Improvements for Recommended Alternative
1. Length of Project
The proposed project is approximately 1.10 miles in length,
including 0.91 miles on NC 73 and 0.19 miles on Torrence Chapel Road.
3
2. Desian Speed
The design speed will be in conformance with the existing
roadway alignment or a minimum of 50 miles per hour.
Design speed is a correlation of the physical features of a
highway which influence vehicle operation and reflects the degree of
safety and mobility desired along a highway. Design speed is not to
be interpreted as a recommended posted speed limit.
3. Cross Section Description
Two multi-lane cross sections are proposed for the widening of
NC 73. Commencing at Jetton Road, a three lane, 33-foot, shoulder
section is recommended for a distance of 0.68 mile. This cross
section will provide a continuous center left turn lane and a through
lane in each direction. The recommended pavement marking is for
three 11-foot lanes in this cross section. NC 73 then transitions to
a five lane, 64-foot, face-to-face of curbs, curb and gutter cross
section for a distance of 0.23 mile. This cross section will provide
a continuous center left turn lane and two through travel lanes in
each direction. The recommended pavement marking is for five 12-foot
lanes. The realigned 0.19 mile section of Torrence Chapel Road
(SR 2195) will be a three lane, 37-foot, curb and gutter cross
section which tapers to a 48-foot, face to face, curb and gutter
cross section, at the intersection of NC 73.
4. Right-of-way
A 100-foot right-of-way width is proposed for the five lane
section along NC 73. A 60-foot right-of-way width is recommended for
the three lane section along NC 73 and for the realignment of
SR 2195. Temporary easements may be required to contain construction
at various locations along the project.
5. Access Control
No control of access is recommended for the proposed project.
6. Intersection Treatment and Tvve of Control
All intersections on the proposed project are at grade.
Currently, a traffic signal is located at the intersection of
Torrence Chapel Road (SR 2195) and NC 73. This signal will be removed
and another signal will be placed at the new intersection of Torrence
Chapel Road (SR 2195) and NC 73. The existing Torrence Chapel Road
will become a driveway entrance for businesses adjacent to the
existing facility. It is also recommended that at the intersection
of existing Torrence Chapel Road and the realignment of Torrence
Chapel Road pavement on the existing facility be removed. The
existing Torrence Chapel Road will then be realigned to form a "T"
intersection with the proposed facility. This improvement is
desirable from a traffic operational standpoint. The removal of this
4
pavement will provide for continuous movement on the proposed
Torrence Chapel Road while traffic continues to have access to
businesses fronting the existing facility. The cost of these
improvements are included in the construction cost.
7. Railroad Work Required
No railroad work will be required on the proposed project.
• 8. Bridge Work Required
No bridge work will be required on the proposed project. It is
anticipated that any drainage structures will be retained and
extended.
9. Parking
Parking is not presently permitted and will not be provided for
or allowed along the project.
10. Sidewalks
Presently, no sidewalks exist along the project and none are
proposed.
11. Bicycles
No special accommodations for bicycles are recommended for the
proposed project.
12. Staging
No staging of construction is recommended.
13. Special Permits Required of the Division of Highways
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers was contacted concerning the
proposed project. As a result of this coordination and a field
review by an NCDOT biologist, North Carolina Department of
Transportation is cognizant that this improvement will not involve
any wetlands or surface waters. No special permits from the U. S.
Army Corps of'Engineers under Section 404 will be required.
14. Restricted Siaht Distance
There is no restriction of sight distances on the proposed
project.
15. Grades and Curvature
There are no existing or proposed grades greater than 2 percent.
The maximum horizontal curve on the existing alignments is 4 degrees.
The maximum proposed horizontal curvature is 4 degrees.
5

16. Utilities
Existing utilities within the corridor of the proposed project
include: water and sewer (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department),
electricity (Duke Power), natural gas (Transco Pipeline), telephone
(Southern Bell), and cable television (Vision Cable).
17. Speed Zones
The existing speed limit along NC 73 and SR 2195 is 45 mph. The
speed limit is expected to remain the same after completion of the
project.
18. Landscaping
No landscaping is recommended beyond seeding and mulching of
disturbed areas.
19. Project Termini
The proposed widening of NC 73 will commence at the intersection
of Jetton Road (SR 2151) and terminate just east of the existing
Torrence Chapel Road.
The western terminal of the proposed project is at the
intersection of Jetton Road and NC 73. At this location NC 73 is a
three lane shoulder section.
The eastern terminal is just east of the existing Torrence
Chapel Road. At this location, NC 73 is a five lane shoulder
section; therefore only minor lane adjustments will be required.
20. Geodetic Markers
One vertical geodetic survey marker may be impacted due to the
proposed improvements along NC 73. However, NCDOT is aware that the
N. C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction.
21. Estimate of Cost
Construction
Right-of-Way
Total Cost
$ 1,000,000
600,000 **
$ 1,600,000
* Includes engineering and contingencies.
** Includes acquisition and utility costs.
6
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The following alternatives were considered in addition to the
recommended action.
A. Public Transportation
The Town of Cornelius does not have a public transportation system at
the present time. The privately owned automobile is the major form of
transportation for the residents. The development of a public
transportation system is not considered to be a economical alternative to
the widening of a 0.91 mile portion of NC 73 and realigning a 0.19 mile
portion of Torrence Chapel Road (SR 2195).
B. No-Build Alternative
Since this section of NC 73 has already exceeded its practical
capacity during peak periods of the day, the "No-Build Alternative" is not
considered to be feasible. As traffic demand increases, service will
continue to deteriorate and the increased congestion would be accompanied
by increased travel times and higher operating costs.
Without the proposed improvements, motorists along NC 73 would not
enjoy the safety benefits that are expected to accompany the improvements.
As congestion continues to increase on the unimproved highway, the
accident potential of the highway would worsen. The "No-Build
Alternative" was therefore rejected.
C. Postponement
Postponement of the proposed improvements is not considered to be a
feasible alternative. Congestion along NC 73 and Torrence Chapel Road
will continue to mount, and traffic operation will continue to
deteriorate.
IV. LAND USE PLANNING
A. Scope and Status of Plannin
The proposed project lies in the planning and zoning jurisdiction of
the Town of Cornelius.
The Town of Cornelius has a land use plan, but due to recent growth
at an unanticipated rate, the plan is effectively out of date. The Town
updated its zoning ordinance to better accommodate that growth in 1988.
B. Existing Land?Use
The proposed improvements lie in an area currently undergoing rapid
changes in land use, from a rural character to more suburban and
resort-type uses. Lake Norman, located near the proposed improvements is
an important factor in the development of the area.
7
Land use includes a mix of uses, but can be characterized as strip
commercial development. Much of the commercial development in the area is
geared toward people using Lake Norman, and provide recreational equipment
and services. Development along NC 73 is not as intensive as is found in
other areas, but driveways onto the roadway are frequent and development
is expected to continue. Some subdivisions are also accessed from NC 73.
Mecklenburg County is planning a 100-150 acre park accessed from
Turner Road, off NC 73. The park will be located along the Lake, and will
not front on NC 73. It is likely that the park will be completed within
the next three years.
C. Existing Zoning
The Town of Cornelius zoning ordinance is the best indication of
anticipated land use changes in the area. Most of the land adjacent to
NC 73 and the I-77 service is zoned either B-2, General Business District,
or B-3, Highway Business District. Both districts permit high volume
commercial enterprises and services. Some multi-family zoning districts
are also located along the roadway. Land beyond the roadway is generally
zoned for residential development.
D. Relation of Project, Plans, and Uses
Within its jurisdiction, the Town of Cornelius desires commercial
development along NC 73. Therefore, the proposed road improvements will
be helpful in accommodating these anticipated land use changes.
House Bill 156, The Water Supply Watershed Protection Act, authorized
the Department of the Environment, Health, and Natural Resources to
develop regulations to control development that may indirectly affect
drinking water quality. Two zones were established around water supply
sources, the half-mile critical area and the five-mile protected area.
Very restrictive regulations have been adopted to control development type
and density within that critical area. The proposed improvements are
located within the critical area of the Lake Norman water supply
reservoir. In support of the Act, and accompanying regulations, NCDOT has
recently completed a set of Best Management Practices for the Protection
of Surface Waters.
E. Farmland
The land to be impacted by the proposed project is already committed
by the local planning authorities to non-agricultural uses. Therefore,
further consideration of potential farmland impacts is not required.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE
IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
A. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in Mecklenburg County. Mecklenburg
County was formed in 1762 from Anson County. It is located in the south
central section of the state and is bounded by the state of South Carolina
8
and Gaston, Lincoln, Iredell, Cabbarrus, and Union Counties. Mecklenburg
County has a current population of 511,433 (taken from 1990 census
report).
The target community of the proposed project is the town of
Cornelius. Cornelius is a small town 26 miles north of the city of
Charlotte and 8 miles south of the town of Mooresville. Based on the 1990
census report, Cornelius has a total population of 2,581.
The proposed improvement is within an area of primarily commercial
development consisting of banks, shopping areas, and fast food
restaurants. On the north side of the existing facility, west of Bethel
Church Road (SR 2189), is the Lake Norman Medical Park.
Cornelius gets its water supply from Lake Norman. It receives a
maximum daily capacity of 148,000 gallons with a peak load of 200,000
gallons. Cornelius has the capability to store up to 275,000 gallons.
The town of Cornelius has a wastewater treatment plant described as
the advanced secondary type. It has the capacity of 3 million GPD, with
the available surplus of 2.49 million GPD.
B. Economic Factors
Employment statistical information gathered by the North Carolina
Employment Commission indicated that for the month of April 1991,
Mecklenburg County had a labor force of 281,610. Out of this total,
270,070 persons were gainfully employed. This left an unemployment total
of 11,540 or 4.1 percent. The town of Cornelius is represented in these
employment statistics.
Cornelius has an economic development program. It consists of a
local development corporation and a Chamber of Commerce. In addition,
there are 37 industrial parks available in the general area. The list of
these parks are available upon special requests.
There is a variety of commercial establishments along the proposed
project site. Each one of these commercial entities has an impact on the
economy in the area. Therefore, it appears that by improving NC 73 as
proposed will enhance and insure continued economic growth for the county
and the town of Cornelius.
Based on this study, it appears that the commercial establishments
along the proposed project will not be adversely impacted.
C. Social Impacts
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion and no
families or businesses will be relocated by the project. The proposed
project will have a positive impact on businesses along NC 73 and SR 2195.
The proposed improvements will provide for improved access and visibility
to the businesses in the area.
9
D. Cultural Resources
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
modern development in the project area. Therefore, it is recommended that
no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with
this project. This project is subject to compliance with North Carolina
General Statute 121-12.
The area of potential effect on historic architectural properties for
this project was delineated, and the area was reviewed by DOT staff. The
North Carolina State Preservation Office was consulted. These efforts
revealed no properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places
located within the area of potential effect. (See correspondence in
Appendix).
Since there are no National Register listed properties within the
area of potential effect, this completes compliance with GS 121-12(a).
E. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution is produced many different ways. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
Other sources of common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal,
forest fires and burning in general. The impact resulting from the
construction of a new highway or the improvement of an existing highway
can range from aggravating existing air pollution problems to improving
the ambient air conditions. Motor vehicles are known to emit carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate).
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide.
Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For these reasons, most of the analysis presented are concerned
with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the
project.
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 component is due to CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100
meters) of the receptor location. The background component is due to CO
emissions from cars operating on streets further from the receptor
location.
In this study, the local component was determined using line source
computer modeling and the background component was determined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR). These two concentration components were determined separately,
then added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for
comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
10
Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone
and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and
maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars, and thus help lower
ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels.
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 generally 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 cars 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 emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead which is added 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
leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974
was 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to
0.01 grams per gallon.
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 makes 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 at
the nearest sensitive receptors to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and "worst case"
11
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission
factors were calculated for the design year 2012 and for ten years prior
(2002) using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILE4 mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
The intersection of NC 73 and the realigned SR 2195 was used to
analyze the air quality for this project. The "worst case" air quality
receptors were determined to be Receptor #1 (R-23), located in the
Northwest quadrant and receptor #3 (R-26), located in the Northeast
quadrant. Also, receptor R- 24 (Southwest quadrant) was analyzed for
"worst case" air quality conditions. The "build" one hour CO concen-
trations for years,2002 and 2012 for these receptors are as follows:
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
" Build" "No Build"
Receptor 2002 2012 2002 2012
R-23 3.7 3.5 2.3 2.3
R-24 3.3 3.2 2.3 2.3
R-26 3.6 3.5 2.3 2.3
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period =
9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of
the "worst case" 1- hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be
concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See
Tables Al, A2, A3 and A4 for input data.
The project is located within the Metropolitan-Charlotte Interstate
Air Quality Control Region. This project is in an air quality
nonattainment area which has transportation control measures in the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) which was approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on March 19, 1981. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has determined that both the Transportation Plan and
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) conform to the SIP. The FHWA has
determined that this project is included in the TIP for the
Charlotte-Metropolitan planning area. Therefore, pursuant to Title 23,
code of Federal Regulations (CRF), Part 770, this project conforms to the
SIP.
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
12
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that
burning will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures will,be taken in allaying the dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of
motorists or area residents.
F. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
project on noise levels in the immediate project area (Figure N1). This
investigation includes an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses
and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area.
It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the
ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected
resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined
from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination
and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
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 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 weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency range to
which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels
measured using A-weighting are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this
report, references will be made to dBA, which means an A-weighted decibel
level. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in
Table N1.
Review of Table N1 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, 2) the relationship between the background
noise and the intruding noise, and 3) the type of activity occurring where
the noise is heard.
13
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises which
intrude into their lives. Particularly if noises occur at predicted
intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to regulate many of
these types of noises including airplane noises, factory noise, railroad
noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise,
methods of analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few
years.
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be used in
the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23
CFR, Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various
land uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level,
is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period
has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the
fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a
steady noise level with the same energy content.
An ambient noise measurement was taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing noise level. 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
field data was also used to establish ambient noise levels for residences,
businesses, and other noise sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the
project.
A noise measurement was taken 450 feet south west of SR 2189 (Lake
Norman Plaza). Existing roadway and traffic conditions along NC 73 were
incorporated in the most current traffic noise prediction model to compute
the existing Leq noise level. For validity purposes, this computed value
was compared with the 66.3 dBA noise level which was measured 50 feet from
the center line of the near lane. The computed existing Leq noise level
was within 2 dBA of the measured noise level. Hence, the traffic noise
prediction model is a reliable tool in computing noise levels.
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated procedure.
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars driving at different speeds
through a continually changing highway configuration and surrounding
terrain. Obviously, to assess the problem certain assumptions and
simplifications must be made.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number
and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.),
receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
14
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The proposed roadway
improvement will consist of widening NC 73 from the realigned SR 2195 to
SR 2151 to a 64 foot, face to face, curb and gutter section for 0.23 miles
then to a 33 foot shoulder section for 0.68 miles. The proposed project
was modeled assuming no special noise abatement measures would be
incorporated. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers which
could be modeled were included. The roadway sections and proposed
intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis
represents "worst-case" topographic 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
proposed posted speed limits. Thus, during all other time periods, the
noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour in the design year
2012, would be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA
noise abatement criteria and those land uses predicted to experience a
substantial noise increase. The basic approach was to select receptor
locations such as 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 feet from the
center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway).
The location of these receptors were determined by the change in projected
traffic volumes 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.
The total number of impacted receptors, whether by approaching or
exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) or by a substantial
increase in exterior noise levels are given in Table N3. The business
identified in the table is predicted to approach or exceed the FHWA NAC.
Other information included in Table N3 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 in local jurisdiction and to prevent further
development of incompatible activities and land uses.
The traffic noise impacts in terms of increased exterior noise levels
are predicted to range from +2 to +4 dBA, these are indicated in Table N4.
Increases in exterior noise levels of this magnitude are common on
widening projects since the majority of these areas already have highway
traffic noise in their acoustic environment. When real life noises are
heard, level changes of 2 to 3 dBA are barely perceptible. A 5 dBA change
is more readily noticeable, and a 10 dBA change is judged by most people
as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either (a) approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC),
with approach meaning within 1 dBA, or (b) substantially exceed existing
15
noise levels, as defined in the lower portion of Table N2. Noise
abatement measures must be considered when either of the two preceding
conditions exist. ,
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 earthen berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain no control of access, meaning most
commercial establishments and residences will have direct driveway
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
of substantial height and length as to shield the receptor from
significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise
reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.)
due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to
provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be eight
times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a
receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would normally require a barrier
400 feet long. An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area)
would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND
ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1,
USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
Based on past project experience, these factors effectively negate
the effectiveness of any physical abatement measures and none are
recommended for this project.
The traffic noise impact for the "Do Nothing", or "No Build",
alternative was also considered. No receptors will be impacted whether by
approaching or exceeding FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). Likewise,
no receptors will be impacted by substantial increases in exterior noise
levels, since these increases ranged from 2 to 4 dBA. As previously
stated, this small increase would be a barely perceptible change to
individuals living and working in the area.
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 passersby 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. Overall, construction noise impacts are
expected to be minimal, since the construction noise is relatively short
in duration and is generally restricted to daytime hours. Furthermore,
the transmission loss characteristics of surrounding manmade structures
and natural features are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects
of intrusive construction noise.
16
The projected increase in noise levels and associated noise impacts
for a proposed widening project of this nature are expected. Based on
these preliminary studies, no traffic noise abatement is reasonable or
feasible along this project, due to the uncontrolled access feature of the
facility and the isolated condition of the impacted receptor, and none is
proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements, and unless a major project change develops, no additional
reports are required for this project.
G. Ecological Analysis
1. Plant Communities
A roadside plant community exists along both sides of NC 73.
The roadside community is frequently maintained by mowing activities.
The ROADSIDE PLANT COMMUNITY is dominated by tall fescue (Festuca
sp.) and is maintained on a regular basis. Other species found along
the project alignment include common dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale), onion (Allium sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.) and bitter
cress (Cardamine sp.). Anticipated impacts to the plant communities
include the destruction of the existing roadside community and the
creation of a new roadside community.
2. Animal Communities
Amphibians common in the vicinity of the project include
American toad (Bufo americanus) and Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei).
Reptiles likely to occur in the area include eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus),
ground skunk (Scincella lateralis), rat snake (Elaphe obsoeta), and
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix).
Birds common in the vicinity of the project include red-tailed
hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos),
European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Northern Mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), white-
throated sparrow (Zonotrichis albicollis), american robin (Turdus
migratorius) and eastern bluebird (- Si- ' sialis).
Mammals such as Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray
fox (Urocyon cinerioar enteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern
cottontail (S vila us floridanus) and white-footed mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus) are likely to be common inhabitants of the area.
Table 1. Animals Visually Observed in the Study Area
COMMON NAME N NAME
red-tailed hawk American crow
European starling Virginia opossum
Carolina wren * eastern cottontail
American robin
northern mockingbird
* note: spoor evidence only.
17
The subject project will affect terrestrial wildlife by
destroying habitats for both borrowing animals and those animals
which may forage along roadsides.
3. Wetlands
There are no wetlands or surface waters located in the subject
project study area. No "Waters of the United States" impacts that
fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers, will occur
from proposed construction. "Waters of the United States" include
both wetlands and deep water habitats.
4. Geology and Soils
Land use within this portion of the Peidmont physiographic
province consists of a mixture of recreational and commercial
activities. On a regional scale, the topography is characterized by
gently rolling interstream areas with slopes of 8 to 10 percent and
elevations ranging from 780 to 824 feet above median sea level.
Although the region is primarily uplands, a narrow floodplain area is
located near McDowells Creek with elevations ranging from 730 to 750
feet above median sea level. Surface waters within the region are
drained to the southwest by tributaries of the Catawba River.
According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina (1985), the
principal geologic unit underlying the study area consists of Late
Proterozoic to Middle Paleozic quartz diorite of the Charlotte
Metavolcanic Belt. Based on a visual inspection of soils throughout
the study area, it is anticipated that the soil profile will consist
primarily of residual sandy clay loam (A-4, A-6) underlain by a
clayey to clayey loam subsoil (A-7).
A listing of hydric soils in North Carolina does not show any
hydric soil series for Mecklenburg County. While this information
suggests that hydric soils are probably not present in the project
area, it is not to be conclusive evidence. By inference, the same
statement may be made about the existence (or nonexistence) of
wetlands in the project area.
Although no mineral deposits of economic importance are known
within the study area, one gravel quarry was noted near the
intersection of NC 73 and SR 2159. However, based on the scope of the
proposed improvement, this site is not expected to be effected by the
project.
Adequate sources of borrow materials are anticipated throughout
most of the uplands areas. Roadway construction is expected to
primarily involve some shallow cuts and fills with appropriate
drainage improvements.
Soils within the study area are expected to present a slight to
moderate erosion hazard. Appropriate erosion control measures should
be utilized to avoid the potential siltation of adjacent surface
waters.
18
5. Rare/Endangered Species
Federal law states that any action, which has the potential to
result in a negative impact to federally- protected plants or
animals, is subject to review by the USFWS (and/or the National
Marine Fisheries Service), under one or more provisions of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. The USFWS and
other wildlife resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction over
protected species in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act of 1979. Plants and animals, which have a protected
status of Special Concern (SC), Threatened (T) or Endangered (E) are
protected by North Carolina law.
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 July 23, 1992, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists
two federally protected species for Mecklenburg County; Carolina
heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) and Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii).
The Proposed Endangered (PE) Carolina heelsplitter was know
historically from several locations within the Catawba River the Pee
Dee River systems. Presently this mussel is known only from two
populations in North Carolina. These populations are located in
Waxhaw Creek and Goose Creek in Union County. The shell of the
Carolina heelsplitter is ovate, trapezoidal, unsculptured and
greenish, yellowish or brownish in color with greenish or blackish
rays. The nacre is 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. The shell
averages 78 mm in length, 43 mm in height and 27 mm in width. The
thin lateral teeth may or may not be well developed. 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.
No habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter exists in the subject
project area. Construction of this project will not impact Lasmigona
decorata.
The federally Endangered (E) Schweinitz sunflower, a rhizomatous
perennial herb, grows 1 to 2 meters tall from a cluster of
carrot-like tuberous roots. The stems are usually solitary,
branching only at or above mid-stem, with the branches held in
candelabrumstyle arches. The narrowly lanceolate opposite leaves are
scabrous above, resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath and
entire (or occasionally with a few small teeth). The leaves are
19
approximately 18 cm long and 2.5 cm wide. Yellow flowers
approximately 5.5 cm in diameter can be witnessed from September to
October. Stems are often deep red in color and the fruit of this
species is a smooth, dark gray-brown achene about 5 mm long. This
plant is endemic to the piedmont of the Carolinas occurring in
clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays,
clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams that often have a high gravel content
and are moderately podzolized. Potential habitat for this species
exists in the study area. Verification of the presence of this
species is possible only between September and October when flowering
takes place. However, a field visit was conducted on July 27, 1992.
Plant-by-plant searches were performed in less well maintained areas
and fencerows to determine if any sunflower species were present. No
sunflower species were located in the subject project area, thus, it
can be concluded that the project, as currently designed, will not
impact Helianthus schweinitzii, therefore no further surveys are
required.
Candidate species are species which are not legally protected
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.
Federal Candidate Species Listed for
Mecklenburg County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
Aster georgianus Georgia aster C2 Yes
Lotus helleri * Heller's trefoil C2 Yes
Nestronia umbellula nestronia C2 NO
indicates no specimen from Mecklenburg county in at
least 20 years.
"C2" are candidate species presently under review for federal
listing for which information indicates that listing as
Endangered or Threatened is possibly appropriate, but for which
adequate data on biological vulnerability and threat(s) are not
currently known or on file to support propose rules.
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted protection by the
State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the N.C. Department of
Agriculture.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 73
FROM THE REALIGNED
TORRENCE CHAPEL ROAD (SR 2195)
TO JETTON ROAD (SR 2151)
CORNELIUS, MECKLENBURG COUNTY
R-2555
FIG. 1
2272
2189
.;p-
21
11
1 2334
2327 ?
c
2326
2193
2307
rrir:. 21a: 2195
23
F•
F
•::: .• ........ ..... ..
E:
is
C!?
1
P
21

2159

r.:
b''

13 2697
. Cptp 'l
TIC wbp
w
P
7
2197 ."A
F'4 S
A
ve.
a
c
c
2745 ?
•16
Z
A
v?
n
'o
'o
I

73 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 73
FROM THE REALIGNED
TORRENCE CHAPEL ROAD (SR 2195)
TO JETTON ROAD (SR 2151)
CORNELIUS, MECKLENBURG COUNTY
R-2555
0 mile 1 /4 FIG. 2
', yr.;
N
?nA
t-?

i
O
z
M M
N*
Ul-
l
u, z
Ul m
w
0
a
z
0
m
C
mm
a
t
¦
c
N
A
Ut
N
A
A
N
N
ru
N
N
A
N
.A
V
N
x7
r
n
I
N
:U
A
A
N
:U
ry
A
N
N
:O
A
cn
N
N
CD
T?
i
T rn
/V
/N
''VwwI
VI
2
n
(Z
rn
-L
co
N
v
mn
m

N
_N
A
V
A
OD
N
x
N
C
m
00

2
O
C
z
MM
16 *
Ul Z
Ul
m
m
0
z
0
m
m
Ul
0
N
1
N
v
n
3
N
N7
µ
A
A
N
A
U1
N
A
N
N
fU
CD
N
A
r
A
J
N
A
fA
N
N
x,
A

2
Z
m
/wwMwyy ?
2
°a
m
On
L/
C
T
m
v
O
,V
a
v
m
a
mn
MT1
i /
N
;u
A
U,
N
;yj
A
N
N
xl
WN
N
W
N
X)
N
A
J
N
A
CD
N
NXj
µ
cn
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
7

140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft 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 40 mph 50 ft, away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD
B 10

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 5 feet 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 B. R. Harford
Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
S 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CRF) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-weighted Sound Level - decibels (M)
A
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: = Carolina pgpartment gi I=p4Itat19 Bl Abatement Guidel19e5.
TABLE N3
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 73, from south of SR 2151 to the realigned SR 2195, Cornelius,
Mecklenburg County, State Project 1 6.71042, TIP I R-2555
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels' Distances: Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
Description 50, 100, 200, 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
SR 2151 to SR 2189 68 64 59 <25' 76, 0 0 0 0 0
SR 2189 to SR 2159 69 65 59 <25' 80' 0 0 0 0 0
SR 2159 to 1300' east of SR 2159 68 64 59 <251 75, 0 0 0 0 0
1300' east of SR 2159 to SR 2195 69 65 59 <25' 93' 0 0 1 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 1 0 0
1501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
272 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N4
i-
Section
SR 2151 to SR 2189
SR 2189 to SR 2159
SR 2159 to 1300' E of SR 2159
1300' E of SR 2159 to SR 2195
TOTAL
EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 73, from south of SR 2151 to the realigned SR 2195, Cornelius,
Mecklenburg County, State Project 1 6.71042, TIP # R-2555
Substantial
Receptor Exterior Noise Level Increases Noise Level
<=0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23.24 >= 25 Increase'
0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 9 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
&M - 'As Defined in Table N2 by 10 1Zg R Abatement Guidelines.
23
a 21
s
719!
tit JJ 23 t?
•2
7776
772 ^\
V

3 7
7190

E:;:;:;?::::;:z:.?''' Kira:: ?fg••,r•::::>
32

73
iii •i'eiiii? :iii::::::
?? Fj:;::'t' E'
:

BEGIN PROJECT

21151

iii::... <"?•?
r:ti::? iii;:;; iFii:?:::ii:ii; • .:?? 2717.

0
73
•Or j:•. 1?:`0

21

77 2 12
t•.•.
1v
77
T
L
I*
FIGURE N1 - PROJECT LOCATION
NC 73, from south of SR 2151 to the realigned
SR 2195, Cornelius, Mecklenburg County,
State Project # 6.71042, TIP # R-2555
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2555 / NC 73 RUN: NC 73 (2002 NO BUILD)
DATE: 05/20/1992 TIME: 07:26:45.06
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS : .0 CM/S VD : .0 CM/S ZO : 10. CN
U : 1.0 M/S CLAS : 5 (E) ATIM : 60. MINUTES MI%H : 400. M AMB : 1.9 PPM
LINE VARIABLES
--------------
LINE DESCRIPTION + LINE COORDINATES (M) + LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
+ %1 Y1 %2 Y2 + (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
------------------------+......------------------------------.... ----------------------------------------------------------
1. NC 73 EB APPR + 12.2 396.2 1213 213.4 + 213. 149. AG 940. 9.3 .0 93
2. NC 73 EB DIP + 121.9 213.4 222.5 24.4 + 214. 152. AG 940. 9.3 .0 9.8
3. NC 73 WB APPR + 234.7 30.5 128.0 216.4 + 214. 330. AG 940. 9.3 .0 9.8
4. NC 73 WB DEP + 128.0 216.4 16.8 397.8 + 213. 328. AG 940. 9.3 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
+ COORDINATES (M) +
RECEPTOR + g Y Z +
------------------------- +-------------------------------------+
1. REC 23 (NW CORNER) + 143.3 265.2 1.8 +
2. REC 24 (SW CORNER) + 53.3 266.7 1.8 +
3. REC 26 (NE CORNER) + 170.7 199.6 118 +
r-
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2555 / NC 73 RUN: HC 73 (2012 NO BUILD)
DATE: 05/20/1992 TIME: 07:31:25.84
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 10. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS : 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MI%H = 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
LINE VARIABLES
--------------
LINE DESCRIPTION * LINE COORDINATES (M) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* %1 Y1 Y2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
........................ *---------------------------------------- *----------------------------------------------------------
1. HC 73 EB APPR * 12.2 396.2 121.9 213.4 * 213. 149. AG 940. 9.0 .0 9.8
2. NC 73 EB DIP * 121.9 213.4 222.5 24.4 * 214. 152. AG 940. 9.0 .0 9.8
3. NC 73 WB APPR * 234.7 30.5 128.0 216.4 * 214. 330. AG 940. 9.0 .0 9.6
4. NC 73 WB DIP * 128.0 216.4 16.8 397.8 * 213. 328. AG 940. 9.0 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * % Y Z
......................... *----------------------------------...e
1. REC 23 (NW CORNER) * 143.3 265.2 1.8
2. REC 24 (SW CORNER) * 53.3 266.7 1.8
3. REC 26 (NE CORNER) * 170.7 199.6 1.8
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION KODIL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2555 / NC 73 AND SR 2195 RUN: NC 73 AND SR 2195 (2002 BUILD)
DATE: 05/19/1992 TIKI: 12:42:59.08
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD : .0 CK/S ZO : 10. CK
U = 1.0 K/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIK : 60. MINUTES KI%H : 400. K AKB = 1.9 PPM
LINE VARIABLES
LINE DESCRIPTION t LINE COORDINATES (K) t LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH IF H W V/C QUEUE
t %1 Y1 12 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (H) (M) (VEH)
--- --------------------- ............. ........ .......... ......... :.. ................... ............... .... ..... ..... ........
1. L. POOL NB APPR ' 3.7 67.5 105.2 10016 t 102. 83. AG 540. 9.3 .0 9.8
2. L. POOL NB QUEUE t 89.6 98.8 -416.7 32.3 ' 511. 263. AG 187. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.47 85.1
3. L. POOL NBLT QUEUE t 8910 102.1 78.8 100.7 ' 10. 262. AG 158. 100.0 .0 3.0 .18 1.7
4. L. POOL NB DIP "A" t 105.2 100.6 179.5 110.3 t 75. 83. AG 200. 9.3 .0 9.8
5. L. POOL NB DIP "B" t 179.5 110.3 214.9 108.8 t 35. 92. AG 200. 9.3 .0 9.8
6. L. POOL NB DEP "C" t 214.9 108.8 248.4 101.8 34. 102. AG 200. 9.3 .0 9.8
7. SR 2195 SB APPR "A" t 232.6 112.8 194.5 118.3 t 38. 278. AG 965. 9.3 .0 9.8
8. SR 2195 SB APPR "B" t 194.5 118.3 103.0 108.8 t 92. 264. AG 965. 9.3 .0 9.8
9. SR 2195 SB QUEUE to"t 121.9 110.9 1493 113.8 t 28. B4. AG 187. 100.0 .0 3.7 .67 4.7
10. SR 2195 SB QUEUE "B"t 194.5 118.3 122.3 114.2 t 28. 98. AG 187. 100.0 .0 3.7 .67 4.7
11. SR 2195 SBLT QUE.'A"t 122.5 107.3 823.8 166.5 t 706. 84. AG 158. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.37 117.6
12. SR 2195 SBLT QUB."Bit 179.2 113.7 884.5 88.9 t 706. 92. AG 158. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.37 117.6
13. SR 2195 SBRT QUEUE t 120.7 114.6 126.4 115.2 t 6. 84. AG 187. 100.0 .0 3.7 .14 1.0
14. SR 2195 SB DEP t 103.0 108.8 2.1 100.6 t 101. 265. AG 200. 9.3 .0 12.8
15. NC 73 IB APPR t 73.2 196.0 97.8 106.1 t 93. 165. AG 1085. 9.3 .0 13.7
16. NC 73 EB QUEUE t 92.7 124.7 73.3 195.6 t 74. 345. AG 308. 100.0 .0 7.6 .94 12.3
17. NC 73 EBLT QUEUE t 98.1 126.5 94.3 141.0 t 15. 345. AG 233. 100.0 .0 4.3 tiff 2.5
18. NC 73 EB DIP t 97.8 106.1 123.4 2.4 t 107. 166. AG 940. 9.3 .0 13.4
19. NC 73 WB APPR t 133.8 4.3 108.2 107.3 t 106. 346. AG 1900. 9.3 .0 9.8
20. NC 73 WB QUEUE t 111.9 93.6 301.0 -676.3 t 793. 166. AG 132. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.31 132.1
21. NC 73 WBLT QUEUE t 107.9 92.4 211.2 -317.8 t 423. 166. AG 211. 100.0 .0 4.3 2.00 70.5
22. NC 73 WBRT QUEUE t 115.2 94.5 139.7 -4.2 t 102. 166. AG 132. 100.0 .0 3.0 1.00 16.9
23. NC 73 WB DEP t 108.2 107.3 84.4 199.3 t 95. 346. AG 940. 9.3 .0 11.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
t COORDINATES (K) :
RECEPTOR t % Y Z t
............ .... ......... t ........----------------------------.t
1. REC 23 (NW CORNER) t 134.7 146.9 118 t
2. REC 24 (SW CORNER) t 48.8 175.3 1.8
3. RIC 26 (NE CORNER) t 141.4 80.8 1.8 t
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2555 / HC 73 AND SR 2195
DATE: 05/19/1992 TIME: 13:00:19.36
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS : .0 CM/S VD : .0 CM/S
U : 1.0 M/S CLAS : 5 (E)
LINE VARIABLES
RUN: NC 73 AND SR 2195 (2012 BUILD)
ZO : 10. CM
ATIM : 60. MINUTES MI%H : 400. M AMB : 1.9 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINE COORDINATES (M)
* S1 Yi K2 Y2
........................ *........................................ 1. L. POOL NB APPR * 3.7 87.5 105.2 10016
2. L. POOL NB QUEUE * 89.6 98.8 -416.7 32.3
3. L. POOL NBLT QUEUE * 89.0 102.1 78.8 100.7
4. L. POOL NB DEP "A" * 105.2 100.6 179.5 110.3
5. L. POOL NB DEP "B" * 179.5 110.3 214.9 108.8
6. L. POOL NB DEP "C" * 214.9 108.8 248.4 101.8
7. SR 1195 SB APPR "A" * 232.6 112.8 194.5 118.3
8. SR 2195 SB APPR "B" * 194.5 118.3 103.0 108.8
9. SR 2195 SB QUEUE "A"* 121.9 110.9 149.9 113.8
10. SR 2195 SB QUEUE "B"* 194.5 118.3 222.3 114.2
11. SR 2195 SILT QUE.*A"* 122.5 107.3 823.8 186.5
12. SR 2195 SBLT QUI."B"* 179.2 113.7 884.5 88.9
13. SR 2195 SBRT QUEUE * 120.7 114.6 126.4 115.2
14. SR 2195 SB DIP * 103.0 10818 2.1 100.6 *
15. NC 73 EB APPR * 73.2 19610 97.8 106.1 *
16. NC 73 EB QUEUE * 92.7 124.7 73.3 19516
17. NC 73 EBLT QUEUE * 98.1 126.5 94.3 141.0
18. NC 73 EB DIP * 97.8 106.1 123.4 2.4
19. NC 73 WB APPR * 133.8 4.3 108.2 107.3
20. NC 73 WB QUEUE * 111.9 93.6 301.0 -676.3
21. HC 73 WBLT QUEUE * 107.9 92.4 211.2 -317.8
22. NC 73 WBRT QUEUE * 115.2 94.5 139.7 -4.2
23. NC 73 WB DEP * 108.2 107.3 8414 199.3 *
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (N)
RECEPTOR * % Y Z *
......................... *..................................... *
1. REC 23 (NW CORNER) * 134.7 146.9 1.8 *
2. REC 24 (SW CORNER) * 48.8 175.3 1.8 *
3. REC 26 (HE CORNER) * 141.4 8018 1.8 1
LENGTH BRG TYPE
(M) (DEG)
----------------
102. 83. AG
511. 263. AG
10. 262. AG
75. 83. AG
35. 92. AG
34. 102. AG
38. 278. AG
92. 264. AG
28. 84. AG
28. 98. AG
706. 84. AG
706. 92. AG
6. 84. AG
101. 265. AG
93. 165. AG
14. 345. AG
15. 345. AG
107. 166. AG
106. 346. AG
793. 166. AG
423. 166. AG
102. 166. AG
95. 346. AG
VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(G/MI) (M) (N) (VEH)
----------------------------------
540. 9.0 .0 9.8
176. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.47 85.1
148. 100.0 .0 3.0 .18 1.7
200. 9.0 .0 9.8
200. 9.0 .0 9.8
200. 9.0 .0 9.8
965. 9.0 .0 9.8
965. 9.0 .0 9.8
176. 100.0 .0 3.7 .67 4.7
176. 100.0 .0 3.7 .67 4.7
148. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.37 117.6
148. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.37 117.6
176. 100.0 .0 3.7 .14 13
200. 9.0 .0 12.8
1085. 9.0 .0 13.7
289. 100.0 .0 7.6 .94 12.3
218. 100.0 .0 4.3 **** 2.5
940. 9.0 .0 13.4
1900. 9.0 .0 9.8
124. 100.0 .0 3.7 1.31 132.1
198. 100.0 .0 4.3 2.00 70.5
124. 100.0 .0 3.0 1.00 16.9
940. 9.0 .0 11.6
North Carolina
James G. Martin, Governor
• Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 10, 1991
MEMORANDUM

O n• SfA7F o

ultural Resources
J
CMU
r
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E.,-1MMTnger
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation --
/ 1 C ?
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 73 in Cornelius from south
of SR 2144 to SR 2195, Mecklenburg County,
State Project 6.671042, TIP R-2555,
CH 91-E-4220-0884
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the
following structures of historical or architectural importance within
the general area of the project:
J. Washam House. South side of NC 73, 0.25 mile east of interchange
with US 21.
William A. Brown House. North side of SR 2151, 0.13 mile west of
junction with NC 73.
House. West side of NC 73, 0.13 mile north of junction with SR
2148.
Alexander House. North side of SR 2147 at junction with NC 73.
House. Southeast side of NC 73, 0.06 mile south of junction with
SR 2145.
None of the above properties have been evaluated for National Register
eligibility. A map is enclosed which shows the approximate locations of
these historic structures.
109 EastJones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L. J. Ward
July 10, 1991, Page Two
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project
area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that
any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for
federal permits may require further consultation and compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
DB:slw
Enclosure
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church

SIATf RECOV ED
AUG 1 1 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
-1,
S1'AhlOf NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAWS B. HUN] JR. DIVISION OF HIGI IWAYS GARLAND Q. GARRETT JR.
G(WFMO?R 11.0. R)X ), Z'ML RALLIGI I, N.C. 2761152,01 S1 (AU 1ARY
July 28, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Section
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager /Vi 36 --V, eI
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for NC 73 from SR 2145 (Sam Furr
Road) to SR 2195 (Torrence Chapel Road); Mecklenburg County,
State Project No. 6.671042, TIP No. R-2555
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 August 28, 1997 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning and Environmental
Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting
or mail them to uS prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the Scoping sheets, please call Michele James, Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 213. .) 2 " .
??11 L'
Z- x
p
Attachment
2 r-,
C ?
N
Date
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning
Design
TIP #R 2555
Project # 6.671042
F.A. Project # N/A
Division 10
County Mecklenburg
Route NC 73
Functional Classification Minor Arterial
Length 5.27 km (3.27 miles)
Purpose of Project:
To widen the existing NC 73 to a five lane curb and gutter roadway in order to
provide the needed traffic carrying capacity and to increase the safety of the roadway.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements of work:
The project consist of widening NC 73 to a 5-lane, 19.2 meter or 20.4 meter
(64-foot or 68-foot), curb and gutter facility from SR 2145 (Sam Furr Road) to SR 2195
(Torrence Chapel Road). Sidewalks are also being considered for this project.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: SEA/FONSI
Environmental study schedule: SEA/FONSI BEGIN JULY 1997
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?
Type of Facility: Minor Arterial
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway: The existing facility consists of two, three, and four lane shoulder
sections throughout the project length. The existing pavement width varies from 12.2-
meters (24-feet) to 14.4-meters (48-feet). The lengths for the two-lane, three-lane and
four lane sections are 2.73 km (1.69 miles), 2.38 km (1.48 miles) and .16 km (0.10
miles), respectively.
Interchanges Grade Separations Stream Crossings
Typical Section of Roadway: The proposed cross section is a five-lane, 19.2 meter or
20.4 meter (64-foot or 68-foot), curb and gutter facility. Sidewalks are also being
considered for this project.
Traffic: Current Design Year
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO _ X 311
Design Speed: 50 mph
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate: 64' F-F
% Trucks
Construction Cost (including engineering and contingencies)... $ 7.039,
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util., and acquisition)....... $
Force Account Items ................................... $
Preliminary Engineering ..................... . ......... $
Total Cost ................................................. $_7,039.000
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction ..........................................$ 4,600,000
Right of Way ......................................... $ 7,300,000
Preliminary Engineering (including prior years costs)......... $ 1.146, 000
Total Cost ........................................... $ 13,046,000
2
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS 64' F-F COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
_ X Pavement
_Surface ...................................... $ 1,463,850
Resurfacing ................................... $
Milling & Recycling (Removal) .................... $
Turnouts .................................... $
Shoulders: Paved ............................ $

Earth ............................. _
$
X Earthwork.... ***''**********'''****''***'****''** J 649.100
Subsurface Items: ..... *'**''***'**'***** ... ****''*' $
X Subgrade and Stabilization ........................... $ 308;,700
_X Drainage (List any special items) ....................... $ 703,900
Sub-Drainage ...................................... $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x ......... $
New Bridge x ......... $
Widen Bridge x ......... $
Remove Bridge x ......... $
New Culverts:
Size Length Fill Ht. ..... $
Culvert Extension .............................. $
Retaining Walls:
Type Avg. Ht. Skew ..... $
Noise Walls .................................. $
Any Other Misc. Structures ...................... $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter ............................. $ 312,835
X Concrete Sidewalk .................................. $211,200
Guardrail ......................................... $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. ............ $
_X Erosion Control .................................... $ 62,700
Landscape ........................................ $
Lighting .......................................... $
_ X Traffic Control ..................................... $ 130.800
Signing: New ................................ $
Upgrading ........................... $
_X Traffic Signals I New ........................... $ 40,000
_ 2 Revised ........................ $ 40,000
RR Signals: New .............................. $
Revised ........................... $
With or Without Arms ............... $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement .............. $
Roadside Safety Enhancement ............. $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade............ $
X Pavement Markings:
Paint Thermo _ x Markers _ x ......... $ 81,750
Delineators ........................................ $
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Other (Mob.andMisc.) ..................................... $ 1,413,550
X(Clearing & Grubbing) ............................... $ 42,000 .
XAUtility construction- water) ........................... $ 604,310
X _kLeft turn lane -SR 2147) .............................$ 59,305
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 6,113,000
Contingencies & Engineering .............................. $ 926,000
PE Costs .............................................. $
Force Account .......................................... $
Subtotal: $ 7,039,000
X_Right of Way:
Will Contain within Existing Right of Way: Yes No X-
Existing Right of Way Width: 60-100 Feet
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost: (Includes R/W) $
Cost Estimates Prepared By: Doug Lane Date: 7/24/97
Scoping Sheets Prepared By: ,. 9 Date: 'l a5 7
The above scoping has been revie ed and approved* by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper.
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scope Sheets for local officials will be sent to the Division Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
4

PROJECT_SCOPING SHEET
*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.
?mun? •Dendsd?
ornelius
o.d Dam
3
3 aI
J i
' ®
'
untersvlll
?
\ . ?Nnuniorn I
?
s-- ount Holly 2? ?J
I Newell
NORTH CAROLINA I -??
MECKLENBURG COU Dm Chactotte' x
51: Alle,
n . ?
Mint Ilil 1
I a
ECKLEN
r 511 i°m., x I I \
4'c 'k
i 9 51
in ille 2 - 3,Jnd
- ' END PROJECT
- , BEGIN PROJECT ' 7
P
its ?^ ?' ? •
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
' TRANSPORTATION
' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
i PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 73, SR 2145 (SAM FURR ROAD)
TO SR 2195 (TORRENCE CHAPEL ROAD),
NEAR THE CITY OF CORNELIUS,
MECKLENBURG COUNTY,
T.I.P. NO. R-2555
nr_I loc ,
j
Current Cost Estimate: 68' F-F
Construction Cost (including engineering and contingencies)... $ 7,400,000
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util., and acquisition)...... $
Force Account Items ................................. $
Preliminary Engineering ..............................
Total Cost ........................................
TIP Cost Estimate:

$ 7„400,000
Construction ....................................... $ 4,600,000
Right of Way ...................................... $ 7,300,000
Preliminary Engineering ..(including prior year costs) ........ $ 1, 146, 000
Total Cost ........................................ $ 13,046,000

List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or
schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED (X) COMMENTS 68' F-F COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement
X Surface ...................................... $ 1.611,310
Resurfacing ................................... $
Milling & Recycling (Removal) .................... $
Turnouts .................................... $
Shoulders: Paved ............................ $
Earth ............................. $
_Earthwork ........................................ $ 697,050
Subsurface Items: ...... ............................ $
X Subgrade and Stabilization ........................... $ 343,125
X Drainage (List any special items) ....................... $ 720,250
Sub-Drainage ...................................... $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x ......... $
New Bridge x ......... $
Widen Bridge x ......... $
Remove Bridge x ......... $
New Culverts:
Size Length Fill Ht. ..... $
Culvert Extension .............................. $
Retaining Walls:
Type Avg. Ht. Skew ..... $
Noise Walls .................................. $
Any Other Misc. Structures ...................... $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter ............................. $ 312,835
_ X Concrete Sidewalk .................................. $ 211,200
Guardrail ......................................... $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. ............. $
X Erosion Control .................................... $62,700
Landscape ........................................ $
Lighting .......................................... $
X Traffic Control ..................................... $ 130,800
Signing: New ................................ $
Upgrading ........................... $
X Traffic Signals I_New ........................... $ 40,000
_2 Revised ........................ $ 40.000
RR Signals: New .............................. $
Revised ........................... $
With or Without Arms ............... $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement .............. $
Roadside Safety Enhancement ............. $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade............ $
X Pavement Markings:
Paint Thermo x Markers x ......... $ 81,750
Delineators ........................................ $
4
Other (Mob.andMisc.) .....................................$ 1,489,365
_X (Clearing & Grubbing) ............................... $ 50,000
X (Utility construction- water) ............................$ 604,310
X (Left turn lane -SR 2147 ..............................$ 59,305
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 6,454,000
Contingencies & Engineering .............................. $ 946.000
PE Costs .............................................. $
Force Account .......................................... $
Subtotal: $ 7,400,000
_ X Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No } _
Existing Right of Way Width: 60-100 Feet
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost
Utilities:

Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost: (Includes R/W) $
Cost Estimates Prepared By: Doug Lane Date: 7/24/97
Scoping Sheets Prepared By: Date: 7025 7
The above scoping has been reviewed an approved* by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper.
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
S
1j
U

i??,

21 c
C lU
N \
V
? o

CY

v
v

e
o O
.Y 0

a
0
o
O'N
d
t a
g(?
I r
c

0